Proposition 54K2868

Projet de loi relatif à l'amélioration de la sécurité routière.

General information ¶

Submitted by

MR Swedish coalition

Submission date

Dec. 22, 2017

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

criminal law highway code road safety road traffic

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP ∉ Open Vld N-VA MR PVDA | PTB PP VB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

Feb. 8, 2018 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

Mr Veli Yüksel, rapporteur, refers to the written report.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, the present bill and the related proposals are essentially aimed at reducing the number of flight crimes on our roads. There is ⁇ a lot of work to be done today.

If I only look at the newspapers of the last month, between 6 January 2018 and 7 February 2018, I already encounter a whole series of flight crimes, namely a fifth. The flight crime continues to get a lot of attention in the headlines. It confronts people with many victims in traffic. The series we have seen appear in the newspapers over the past few weeks is unfortunately far from exceptional. In recent years, there were about twelve injuries every day in which the perpetrator struck on the flight. Almost every month there are two deaths in an accident involving flight crime. If we count the accidents with pure light damage, then we are even talking about more than two hundred perpetrators, who choose the haze path daily. These are hallucinating figures, to which we need to pay sufficient attention.

These are often problem drivers, drivers who had been drunk or under the influence of drugs, who were driving without a driving license or during a driving ban. These are the problem managers who are taken into consideration through the present draft law. They are those hard-learned drivers who repeatedly appear before the police judges, without changing anything in his or her behavior.

Often it is about drivers who know well what they are doing. In order to avoid punishment, they already register their vehicle on behalf of their wife, their grandmother, and in some cases even on behalf of children and minors. In this way, they hope to avoid punishment. If they are still caught, they try to extend proceedings before the courts until the crime is outdated.

Today it is not obvious for police judges to capture those drivers. They continue to appear indifferently before the courts concerned, forcing the legislature to take certain initiatives, such as those present today.

Improving punishment is an important goal. Increasing the penalties in certain extreme cases is ⁇ also appropriate. Hard-learned drivers should be treated stricter. The correct attitude in traffic begins with the traffic class at school. She continues in driving training. Sensitization is also important: a small punishment for minor offenses, a large punishment for larger offenses.

But if all of that does not prove to have any effect, it may be time to impose courses or even prison sentences on certain drivers. The maximum imprisonment penalties will be increased thanks to the proposed draft and the maximum penalty for hard-learning drivers will be doubled. This will allow police judges to act harder and hopefully this message will also effectively penetrate.

For offenders who deliberately want to avoid punishment by driving around in a car that is not on their name, the registration mark liability is introduced through the bill. In addition to legal persons, natural persons will now also be required to disclose the driver of their vehicle with which the crime was committed. This is a very important element against impunity.

Experts agree that a flight crime often occurs following other traffic crimes. I have already mentioned some of them: uninsured driving, driving without a driving license, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs. If we want to tackle flight crime efficiently, we must strictly address those underlying guidelines to prevent the perpetrators from choosing the haze path. Driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, often both, should be better addressed. For this purpose, measures concerning the alcohol lock are also included in the draft. That gives me pleasure. I remember it well: when I first introduced the alcohol lock in 2005 as a possible tool in road safety, I was almost laughed away. Today, it has proven to be a useful tool across Europe that can contribute to increasing road safety. I am pleased that the ministers include this in the bill today.

Also a driving ban due to physical and mental inadequacy, think of alcohol and drug addicts, can be pronounced in various ways. Alcohol recidivists thus risk a mandatory driving ban or an alcohol lock.

Another element is that drivers who repeatedly impose a driving ban on their wheel will now also be able to get a prison sentence. I think this is a very important signal.

Unfortunately, we are regularly faced with news reports about dramatic accidents caused by drivers who have been caught many times driving without a valid driving license. At some point it must stop and there is no other choice but to fix the person in question, so that he ⁇ can no longer enter the traffic. A prison sentence will now be within the capabilities of the police judge.

Also drivers who repeatedly drive around without insurance will be treated stricter after the approval of this design. From now on, they will also be covered by the recidivism regime. A driver who commits two serious offences within three years will then be automatically banned from driving for at least three months and must reapply the driving exam, including medical and psychological tests. In addition, it will also be possible to impose a course as a penalty for these hard-learned drivers.

Furthermore, I think the limitation period is another important element. The goal must of course be that penalties follow shortly after the violations to have sufficient effect on those drivers, but worse than a late punishment is no punishment. Unfortunately, we still regularly see that these drivers continue to extend procedures unnecessarily to make the limitation period expire. This will no longer be possible and must end this impunity. After all, it cannot be the intention that such a driver can drive back on our roads without being punished. The trick to extend time by making a judgment pronounced in another language is another element addressed by this bill.

These are all good elements that give police judges more tools in their hands to be able to deal efficiently with the hard-learned drivers they regularly see appearing before them.

We are therefore pleased that the various ministers who have jointly submitted the bill – the ministers of Mobility, Justice and Home Affairs – are working on an appropriate punishment of these drivers who pose a great risk in our traffic.

We believe these adjustments are necessary to bring about a safer traffic, not to harass drivers, but to better address the severity of accidents that unfortunately have a serious impact on road safety. If we can avoid accidents underlying reckless behavior, many people, families and group of friends can be saved from much misery.

During the committee meetings these proposals were broadly carried out, across party boundaries. In the Infrastructure Committee this bill was unanimously approved and we hope that this will be the case here soon.

In this way, we show that together, cross-party, we can work towards a safer traffic and that is a very important signal.

Of course, for this we rely on the further implementation and application of the design, punishment is one thing but we must also continue to commit to adequate enforcement and controls. We also count on the Minister of Internal Affairs.

We hope that this will be another step forward towards safer traffic.

Mr. Speaker, dear colleagues, we must work on this issue because people are not naturally civic, unfortunately. The pedestrian angel has too much tendency to turn into a selfish devil at the wheel. The House of Representatives is therefore preparing to vote on a text on this subject, which holds us ⁇ at heart.

Belgium set itself numerical targets to reduce the number of deaths on its roads for the first time in the early 2000s. Between 2001 and 2005, Belgium was among the top 3 European countries with the most reduced number of deaths, behind France and Luxembourg. Since 2001, we have regularly held the General States of Road Safety, which bring together representatives of public authorities, the private sector, road users in order to review the actions, enterprises and more to take to progress. In 2004, we created a road safety barometer to refine our data and obtain more accurate figures, by type of road user, based on the age or region of the victims. In 2010, a clear goal was set: to reduce the number of deaths on our roads by 50% by 2020.

At the General Statements of Road Safety 2015, to which our Minister is very attached, rightly, the goal of halving the number of deaths on the roads from 2010, to bring them back to 420 – 420 too obviously – by 2020 has been confirmed. In this regard, fifteen measures were proposed.

To ⁇ this, the first lever of action is to fight influenced driving. The latter has evolved strongly: before it was the alcohol, now the drug. Over the course of three years, the number of people driving under cocaine has increased by 62%, which is enormous. Unfortunately, these numbers have only increased since then.

The second lever is aimed at combating excess speed. Despite repeated road safety campaigns that still have their effects even if they remain insufficient, there is still a lot to be done.

The third lever is to combat distraction. This can come from various elements: the use of GSM; inattention; fatigue while driving.

With the fourth, it is about fighting the non-wear of the seat belt. In general, today, everyone conceives that wearing the belt is important or even essential. Nevertheless, there are still a number of people who do not wear it and, in particular, for so-called "short" trips.

I am therefore pleased that the Committee on Infrastructure, Communications and Public Enterprises recently adopted this bill which brings significant changes to the road legislation. This bill put forward by Minister François Bellot allows to be more severe with regard to the high alcoholemia rate and recurrence. While driving without a driver’s license (increasingly common) and the crime of escape after an accident with injured or dead will finally be punished harder. In addition, this bill will allow measures to be taken to strengthen penalties for drivers who do not comply with the road code.

Finally, this bill struggles more clearly against the phenomenon of recurrence. In addition, the penalty may be doubled for the perpetrators of serious and repeated offences such as drunk driving and the one with deprivation of the right to drive.

As you know, the press regularly reports cases of escape crimes after a fatal accident, which is deeply shocking to me. The crime of escape after an accident is often a problem specific to the uncorrected driver. That is why the maximum penalties for now will be doubled.

Alcohol driving has been one of the leading causes of death on our roads for too many years.

I congratulate the Minister for having as a goal that these new sanctions cause a real awareness among drivers. Like Minister François Bellot, the MR group welcomes this bill that, beyond the security issue, also affects our entire society and the conception we have of this society.

Mr. Minister, I have been a member of the Infrastructure Committee for a while now and, unfortunately, we must conclude that the insecurity in traffic is still too great. We are still far from the targeted maximum of 420 deaths by 2020.

However, in recent years we have systematically tightened the penalties for drivers with alcohol in the blood, for young drivers and recidivists. On 31 January 2014, the Wathelet draft on strengthening road safety was discussed in the plenary session. What I said four years ago is still actual today: for my group, all links in road safety policy are important.

What do I mean by this? You do not have all the links in your hands, Mr. Minister. When it comes to road safety, it is primarily about detecting offenders. That detection must be carried out through targeted controls, with a greater probability, but that falls within the competence of Minister Jambon. If infringements are found, prosecution must also be instituted by the parquet. This must be done in the short term. It is important that someone who makes a mistake in traffic is held accountable in the short term.

Since the present draft extends the limitation period, this could in principle mean that the prosecutors would wait longer to bring offenders before the court. I would like to bring this to your attention, because I think it is not intended that offenders will be held accountable much later. I agree with what Mr Van den Bergh said, namely that the extension of the limitation period is primarily intended to counter impunity and to make the offender in any case accountable before the court. I therefore call on the prosecutors not to abuse the extension and not to assume that they have more time to bring offenders before the police court. We think it is very important to play short on the ball.

A third link is the punishment. If an offender is caught, prosecuted and brought to justice, it is important that efficient, tailor-made penalties can be given. Mr. Minister, you will have read the criticism of the judges. They complain that the draft includes a number of obligations. For example, the court is obliged to impose an alcohol lock in certain cases. Magistrates prefer not to see themselves losing some of their freedom of judgment by obliging them to take certain measures. We have supported you in the committee and we will continue to support you. I will go deeper into the alcohol lock later.

The last link does not fall within your competence, namely the execution of the penalties. What use does it have if all the previous steps have been taken, so that at the end of the ride it must be determined that the penalty has been imposed by the judge, but that it does not matter whether the offender is subject to the penalty or pays the penalty. This causes some frustration in the field. Our judges today have little sight of whether someone with a criminal record and a number of traffic fines paid their fines. A number of magistrates and prosecutors will first check whether the offender has been previously convicted and whether the fine has been paid, before judging whether an alternative punishment or a conditional punishment will be imposed. The execution of the penalties, the last link in the chain, falls under the responsibility of Minister Geens. For us, this is very important, because if the penalties are not successfully executed, it will abolish any policy.

It is your merit, Mr. Minister, that you with the present draft move a speed up in order to increase road safety by engaging in the struggle against driving under influence and the struggle against road pirates, which colleague Van den Bergh also talked about.

I would like to highlight one measure, namely the alcohol lock.

The fact that the alcohol lock must be mandatory in a number of cases is the most obvious measure. If one speaks in our country about an alcohol lock, then one often hears the criticism that such a lock is easy to bypass and that it is much too expensive. Although an alcohol lock can theoretically be imposed since 2010, it is only limited: in the last seven years only 67 alcohol locks have been installed.

Furthermore, it is striking that such a judgment is also strongly territorially bound: it is constantly the same police judges who impose alcohol locks. On the other hand, the alcohol lock is never imposed in some areas. Therefore, a mentality change is needed. I encourage you to launch an infocampagne on this subject. Your services will need to explain that the alcohol lock can work and that the technology is on track.

It is not just about the alcohol lock itself, but also about the framing program. I believe very strongly in that. One does not simply place a device in the vehicle, there is also constant control and the person concerned must have conversations with a psychologist for a period of time. So one can intervene if something is not going well and the offender goes wrong a few times.

Many judges say they are cool lovers of the alcohol lock. The figures from the last seven years prove this. This will have to change from July 1.

Alcohol is a costly punishment. After all, there will soon be more than 4 000 euros for the alcohol lock itself and the framework program. For a person with a limited income, this is very expensive or inexpensive. Therefore, some drivers who get an alcohol lock imposed, do not install the alcohol lock, do not enter the program and no longer drive the car. They put the judgment by themselves.

It is important – this can also be discussed in the infocampagne – that the cost of the alcohol lock can be deducted from the fine. A alcohol lock can, in my opinion, only be combined with a limited degradation, because it must all still be feasible and affordable.

I agree that road safety needs to be increased, but it must also be feasible for those involved.

The problem today is that one can only follow a framework program in a dozen branches in our country and that one can only go to four centers for the installation. Anyone who has been placed on an alcohol lock must arrive on the spot. The offender must be able to follow the framework program at a shorter distance from the place of residence than it is now and have the alcohol lock installed.

I conclude with a call, Mr. Minister. We often make adjustments to our traffic laws. Today it is an important adjustment. The government agreement states that we must simplify our traffic legislation. After the adjustment of the legislative texts and the proper tightening of some measures, that can be a next priority for you. The rules should also be readable. I think that the simplification of, among other things, the Road Code, a commitment to the government agreement, should be another priority, so that the traffic rules are understandable not only for magistrates but for everyone.

Open Vld will unanimously approve the bill, as we have done in the committee.

Unfortunately, Belgium is one of the worst students in the class when it comes to road safety. In 2016, Belgium had approximately 58 road deaths per million inhabitants. In the Netherlands, there were 33.

The United Kingdom and Germany also scored better with 28 and 39 deaths per million inhabitants, respectively. The European average was 50 road deaths per million inhabitants.

Since the turn of the century, there has been a steady decline in the number of road deaths in our country. However, there is still a very long way to go, because every road death is of course one too many. In 2001 there were 1,486 road deaths to regret. In 2013, that figure decreased. In 2016, this declined further to 637.

Our country endorsed the targets imposed by the General States of Traffic Safety, which aims to reduce the number of road deaths to 420 by 2020. Why should we not be more ambitious, Mr. Minister?

Studies from the Vias Institute show that the vast majority of accidents are due to the driving behavior of the drivers. Infrastructure deficiencies would only play a limited role in the total number of accidents. Alcohol, excessive speed, not wearing a belt, on the other hand, remain the three biggest killers in traffic. In 25% of fatal accidents, the driver is drunk behind the wheel.

The mentality change has also had a positive impact on road safety. The BOB campaigns have proven their added value since 1995. Social disgust for driving under the influence of alcohol has grown significantly since then. Nevertheless, we must conclude, Mr. Minister, that the percentage of drivers driving under the influence of alcohol remains far too high.

An analysis of the results of the BOB campaigns may show that the number of drivers under the influence of alcohol decreases annually, but the problem is that one especially drinks strongly at the wheel.

Up to two-thirds of the caught drivers have an alcohol content of more than 0.8 grams per liter of blood. A European survey found that 30% of Belgians see no problem driving with a glass. Our country scores much worse than the European average of 22%.

Despite the mentality change, Belgians seem to remain much more tolerant than other Europeans when it comes to drinking and driving together.

Mr. Minister, we of the sp.a. group are therefore very pleased that you have been inspired for your bill, among other things, by our bills on the alcohol lock and on flight crimes, which we submitted in 2010 and 2016 respectively. We hope that your bill will be unanimously approved today.

After all, traffic safety, colleagues, exceeds the political groups. Drinking and driving is a global problem that we must tackle together.

In the committee, all political groups voted almost unanimously in favour of the draft. Sp.a will be very happy to support your bill today, Mr. Minister. However, allow me to make a few small comments.

We are pleased that the judges are now obliged to impose an alcohol lock on offenders with an excessive alcohol concentration from 1.8 promile. We dare to go further in this. According to the draft law, the court may limit the mandatory driving prohibition to one or more categories of driving licences, provided that a driving prohibition must in any case be issued for the category of the vehicle with which the infringement was committed.

Colleagues, do we want someone of whom we believe that a alcohol lock is necessary for him to just drive a bus from De Lijn? We believe that, like in Sweden, all professional vehicles should be equipped with an alcohol lock as standard.

Mr. Minister, in your answer to a written question, you showed your support for that principle. In that case, the exception now drawn up does not need to be made. After all, if a bus driver sentenced to an alcohol lock wants to do his job, there is no problem anymore when the bus is equipped with an alcohol lock. I am talking not only about the vehicles of De Lijn but about all professional vehicles.

It may sound strange that we advocate a general demand for alcohol locks in professional vehicles. It has also been very strange for a long time that, for example, smoking was permitted everywhere. The time may not yet be ripe to bring everyone with the idea, but we hope that the time for it will one day ripe.

Second, I would like to emphasize that the extension of the limitation period from one to two years is good, but it should not be a free guide for the prosecutor to leave his affairs for longer. Even better than extending that limitation period, it would be better to do everything possible to have such facts judged within the year.

Mr. Minister, colleagues, by approving the bill, we hope to give a very strong answer to the issue of road safety, in particular the question of taking action against very serious facts, such as driving without a valid driver's license, driving without insurance, flight crime, recidive and driving under the influence of too much alcohol.

Mr. Speaker, colleagues, when reading the draft law to improve road safety, one does not think to see spectacular changes at first glance. On the one hand, it is about the extension of the limitation period in case of change of language role, with a referral resulting, which seems quite logical. On the other hand, it is about imposing on the registration holder of a car to pass on the identity of the driver in the event of an infringement. This also seems logical and obvious.

What is less obvious, however, are the changes we are implementing in the regulation regarding the alcohol lock.

It is good that in the present bill a balance is ⁇ ined between the police judgment of the police judge and the clear signal that the legislator wishes to give with it.

The police judge can impose punishments on scale, still, and retains its freedom of judgment. The maximum penalty is increased. The minimum penalty remains. He may start imposing an alcohol lock in various scenarios, while driving under influence, and especially with high alcohol intoxication and with repetition, is punished more severely. Remarkably, but after all those years of BOB campaigns, we see that in our country there are still people driving under the influence of the car.

From now on, an alcohol lock will be mandatory to be imposed at + 1,8 promile or repeatedly at 1,2 promile. Clearer one cannot be. Driving under influence increases the likelihood of accidents, often with ⁇ sad consequences and fatalities. This is a measure that will indeed increase road safety.

Offenders with an alcohol problem are not fished. They do not want to do them the duel. They want to be helped with recovery measures, with appropriate guidance. The alcohol lock is therefore seen as a punishment for people who think they will escape alcohol controls.

New in this bill is that the offender himself gets participation in his punishment. He will be given the choice between a alcohol lock or submitting his driving license for the duration of the alcohol lock. The lawmaker once again makes it clear to everyone that driving can only be done with an alcohol lock. People who do not want or can install an alcohol lock, because it is not possible in principle or financially, still have the choice to simply submit the driving license for that period.

The bill that is on the table today, therefore, actually refines the existing regulation and is not merely an aggravation of the punishment. In fact, heightening of punishment implies a danger, in particular the danger that the number of flight crimes will continue to increase. Today we are just strengthening the arsenal of the police judge to be able to impose punishments on a tailor-made basis, with the signal that driving under influence can not instead merely increase the punishments.

Flight crimes can also be avoided by proper training. We must teach young people already on the school benches that flying after a traffic accident can really not go through the fence. Also in the driving training and the driving exam should be paid due attention to this.

Mr. Minister, we believe that the driving license with points should also be urgently introduced. You will soon come to Parliament with the results of a new study. We hope that the study will bring all minds in the same direction and that one will also be convinced beyond the language boundary that a driving license with points needs to come urgently.

Raising the packs is a work of long breath. This government is taking steps to also invest more in this and to ensure that through checks the chance of package is increased.

We must strike the heavier road offenders where it hurts. I then look at the proposal of Jef Van den Bergh with which the confiscation declaration of vehicles comes to the table. We are still working in the Chamber on its refinement, but that is also a very good proposal, which needs to come urgently.

All these things together will increase road safety. Mr. Minister, my colleagues, what is put to the vote here is indeed a good signal. This will increase road safety. The N-VA group will therefore fully support the bill.

In order to shorten the debate, I will speak from my bank.

I understood that today Mr. Bellot was celebrating his birthday, but in addition, it was his holiday, because he will probably be unanimously supported by this House. The debate is very important. Therefore, after discussing this issue in the committee, we will discuss it again in plenary session. But what matters most importantly is the fifteen points that the General States of Road Safety had issued, Mr. Minister. Here are some of the most important ones in terms of road safety with the goal of halving the number of deaths on roads. This is an ambitious goal.

I would simply add that, among the important files that participate in this bill, there is the problem of alcohol and therefore, of influenced conduct. I’m not talking about this parliament and its bottle! I’m talking about driving and, above all, the harmful consequences. With regard to the problem of alcohol, there are technical and technological means: alcoholocks.

However, we discussed in the committee the conduct under the influence of other substances. I’m not naming them here to avoid advertising. However, a number of drugs and drugs and the mixture of these substances with alcohol also constitute an unknown cause.

Mr. Minister, I do not believe that, since the discussions in the committee, we have more explicit figures that could give us cause-to-effect elements. I insist, therefore, that we dig into this question, because driving under influence is not limited to alcohol. Let us not think that we have solved all the problems that arise today! It is well known that most serious accidents and deaths are caused by such abuses.

Mr. Minister, we often have interesting debates about autonomous cars and technologies that, thanks to the positive use of GPS, will give us other ways to limit both speed and dangerous situations in driving. However, there is still work to be done.

But that is not a reason to ruin Mr. Bellot’s party. I would like it very much, because I know how much it stands, Mr. President, in the same capacity as Mr. Gilkinet who, I think, will apply the “Bellot method.”

Mr. Minister, today we can only rejoice that this draft decree is voted unanimously and, I hope, followed by other texts, with other ambitions. Indeed, the issue of mortality on our roads remains still, for the families concerned, a terrible drama, which must unfortunately accompany them all their lives.

Dear colleagues, I think that all the sensitivities and points that were discussed in the committee by the colleagues consists in the translation of five of the fifteen recommendations of the General States on Road Safety. I think this is an important step in the fight against drivers and inappropriate behavior.

A number of questions were asked in the committee. For some, for example, the time between when drivers will be checked positive in very high margins and when people will be able to equip their vehicles with an anti-start ethylotest. This period should be as short as possible.

The second element is that the cost announced today is in the order of 3 to 4 000 euros for a two-year period of the ethylometer. It can be assumed that there will be a volume effect since, according to estimates, approximately 10,000 people are controlled each year either above 1.8 or in recurrence of 1.2. We will see, from 1 July, the date of entry into force of this provision, what will be.

Of course, the choice will remain between anti-start kilometers and the withdrawal of permits, knowing that the fines that are perceived when the concentration rates are very high already amount to several thousand euros. So it is comparable. Solutions can, of course, be considered, including not an immediate payment but a monthly payment, a rental rather than a total and immediate purchase.

The last element is prevention, communication, explanations, for which the press and specialized media will play an important role. One last question remains to which I am very sensitive: when a driver uses several vehicles, which vehicle should be equipped?

It should be left to the judge. This is the choice that has been made, knowing that after one or two years of implementation of these devices, an evaluation will need to be carried out. I have already ⁇ it on VAS. If it appears necessary to equip several vehicles, this could be considered.

Having met people whose vehicles were equipped with ethylotests with anti-boot system, I keep in mind that this is of course, more than an equipment; it is a psychological accompaniment that is necessary to try to reduce alcohol and drug addiction. We’ll see what the results will be, but I imagine that people, whose profession consists of driving public transport, public transport, and who would be verbalized by driving a bus or bus, should see their vehicle equipped.

Regarding drugs, Mr. Cheron, since our meeting in the committee, I have obtained the information that it was possible, like what is happening with the ethylometers which the police have at their disposal to measure the rate of concentration of ethyl in the breath of drivers, in case of mass effect, that equipment be developed for direct measurement of the concentration of certain drugs in saliva. We will dig a little into the issue with companies specializing in medical analyses, provided that it is possible to put such equipment in place, first in the police service, then eventually in vehicles.

In any case, Mr. Speaker, you put a project on the agenda without looking at the birthday date. But I would be happy to be able to count on unanimity. It is a project recommended by the General Stats of Road Safety, which brings together all the actors, whether it is road safety specialists or the families of road victims. Compared to the latter, this is a signal to be given. But, of course, everyone is free to make the choice that comes to them, within a few dozen minutes.