Jump to content

Breath testers mandatory in all vehicles from Spring?


Pickles
 Share

Recommended Posts

[quote user="Quillan"]You see this is what I can't get my head round. I can't find any Decret or other official French government document that says this is law and the date it will be implemented.[/quote]

The only official references to the intention to enact this provision are contained in a speech made by Sarko on the 30th November 2011:

http://www.elysee.fr/president/les-actualites/discours/2011/ceremonie-des-echarpes-d-or-de-la-prevention.12552.html?search=%C3%A9thylotest&xtmc=ethylotest&xcr=1

reported in the press release:

http://www.elysee.fr/president/les-actualites/dossiers-de-presse/2011/ceremonie-de-remise-des-echarpes-d-or-de-la.12547.html?search=%C3%A9thylotest&xtmc=ethylotest&xcr=2

and discussed in a ministerial communication of the 4th January 2012

http://www.gouvernement.fr/gouvernement/la-securite-routiere-1

[quote user="Quillan"]People can quote the media as much as they like but surely if it has not been passed by Counseil d'Etat and by the General Assembly then as far as I understand the French constitution it cannot become law. I am also of the opinion that the president of France cannot and is not allowed to create new laws and put them in to practice without the agreement of at least on or both of these parties.[/quote]

In this case it looks like only the accord of the Conseil d'Etat is required to apply the finishing touches (eg date) to the provision already extant in the code de la route, but I believe that you are correct.

[quote user="Quillan"]So personally I believe that unless somebody can show me proof from a French government website that the Decret actually exists I shan't be rushing out to buy and of these kits for my car.[/quote]

It doesn't exist - as you know. Yet. Sarko has only announced his intention to enact it - but has still not followed it up with a decree. It could still fall by the wayside. However, although I think that the measure is pointless, I don't think that it is a vote-loser, and it is possible that the decree will be promulgated as a presidential campaign stunt.

[quote user="Quillan"]I also believe by the way that in times of austerity that the cost in implementing this law on a day to day basis will be extremely expensive (extra police, cost of prosecution etc, etc).[/quote]

I suspect it would be enforced in exactly the same way that the reflective jacket for drivers is enforced (ie not).

[quote user="Quillan"]I also believe that the IF this law was implemented it would make very little difference to the number of people killed on the roads in France. [/quote]

If by "very little difference" you mean "absolutely no difference at all" then I'm in full agreement.

I hadn't realised that the DM had bothered to rattle its cage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 211
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Q wrote:

As far as the media are concerned especially the DM and based only on the article I saw on the DM website (I have no idea if it was actually in the paper) I think they have behaved very irresponsibly. Working in the tourism industry I am concerned that such misinformation could result in people deciding not to visit France this year for their holidays and the effect it might have on the industry. Of course you can't say it will or it won't because we will never know.

END

Come now Q you are missing a trick here - think marketing:

Free breathalyser kit with every booking

you will be turning people away because you are fully booked [:D]

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In doing my research I did of course look at French newspaper articles hoping one would quote the decret. In doing so it was interesting to read the comments left by people. Apart from the more stupid ones the main thrust of peoples thoughts were twofold. One was the cost of putting up the 400 plus extra speed cameras the other was the cost of implementing this scheme. It would seem that it would require more Gendarmes and functionaires all of which would have to be paid for buy the already over burdened tax payer.

When I think about the latter I think of Quillan and it's population of just over 3,000 and the fact it has recently had a new Gendarmerie built along with housing for the Gendarmes, all 21 of them (one Gendarme per 144 of the populous!). There may be more Gendarmes as I believe they don't all live in. Quillan also has it's own town police. If the number of Gendarmes were to increase to cope with this law, should it come in to force, would just be stupid.

My point being that I don't think this extra cost is going to be a vote winner, more of a vote looser especially when added to the other list of things people feel Sarkozy has got wrong so I believe he won't do anything before the elections.

I was surprised that nobody has drawn our attention to the new laws on rehabilitating drink drivers which actually seems a good idea. For those that don't know it is in the link I gave a couple of posts back. Once you have been fined and you get your licence back you can be forced to have one of these breathalyzer machines connected to your cars ignition for up to five years. I think this would have a very good effect, imaging the 'pain' in having to blow in to a machine, in public, just to start your car?

With road deaths dropping since 2000 to around 4,000 per year and given the fact that of course any death is very regretful one does, I think, need to get this in to perspective. With around 65M people living in France we are talking about a very small number and with just under 2,000 deaths caused by drinking the question is the cost, is it justified? The other question is also does Sarkozy seriously believe that this would drop to zero especially when you consider the amount of people driving in France without a licence (2.4M in 2007). Personally I think he has more chance of finding rocking horse manure outside his front door.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think I've found the source for the "latest" date announcement: according to

http://blog.40millionsdautomobilistes.com/2012/02/20/circulaire-obligation-detention-ethylotest/

Claude Gueant has sent a letter to the prefets announcing 1st July as the intended date. However, as the article above points out, this is just another statement of intentions and not an official announcement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pads"]Also what about my Tom Tom am I not allowed to use this any more as it tells me where the speed camera's are ?[/quote]

If it has the latest speed camera database update then there is no problem - camera locations are now replaced by larger "danger zones" which may or may not contain cameras. Otherwise, just turn off the camera warnings.

However, again, I don't see the Gendarmes specifically searching for non-compliant GPS units, in the same way that they don't seem to be looking for cars without reflective jackets, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="andyh4"]

  There is a wealth of information on desorption/mutation of alcohol in the blood stream.  Admittedly it has to deal with averages, but it is good enough as a guide.

 [/quote]

Except that, when you ask the policeman who is telling you not to drink and drive, he says "Oh, but we can't say". The information available does not seem to have a stamp of approval on it.

By the way, I don't usually drink more than 2 pints of ordinary beer even when I'm walking home. I just find it annoying that when asked for "official" guidance, nobody is prepared to give it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="JohnM"][quote user="andyh4"]

  There is a wealth of information on desorption/mutation of alcohol in the blood stream.  Admittedly it has to deal with averages, but it is good enough as a guide.

 [/quote]

Except that, when you ask the policeman who is telling you not to drink and drive, he says "Oh, but we can't say". The information available does not seem to have a stamp of approval on it.

By the way, I don't usually drink more than 2 pints of ordinary beer even when I'm walking home. I just find it annoying that when asked for "official" guidance, nobody is prepared to give it.
[/quote]

But everyone has different metabolic rates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="PaulT"]

But everyone has different metabolic rates.

[/quote]

Agreed, so....... How do I know when I can drive again????? That's what I need to know to be sure of i) being safe - the most important thing and ii) obeying the law.

(Yes, OK, my own breathaliser might tell me.... but I seem to recall that the police have previously considered these to be a bad thing!). I do realise the difficulties of saying when people are safe to drive, I just feel the authorities ought to be making it easier for those of us who wish to obey the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="JohnM"][quote user="PaulT"]

But everyone has different metabolic rates.

[/quote]

Agreed, so....... How do I know when I can drive again????? That's what I need to know to be sure of i) being safe - the most important thing and ii) obeying the law.

(Yes, OK, my own breathaliser might tell me.... but I seem to recall that the police have previously considered these to be a bad thing!). I do realise the difficulties of saying when people are safe to drive, I just feel the authorities ought to be making it easier for those of us who wish to obey the law.


[/quote]

How many times do you have to be told if you aren't sure don't do it, simples. The main job of the authorities in my opinion is to make it difficult for those who break the law.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="JohnM"][quote user="PaulT"]

But everyone has different metabolic rates.

[/quote]

Agreed, so....... How do I know when I can drive again????? That's what I need to know to be sure of i) being safe - the most important thing and ii) obeying the law.

(Yes, OK, my own breathaliser might tell me.... but I seem to recall that the police have previously considered these to be a bad thing!). I do realise the difficulties of saying when people are safe to drive, I just feel the authorities ought to be making it easier for those of us who wish to obey the law.


[/quote]

Is it not 16 hours between drinking and flying for aircraft pilots

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lifestyle and Adverse Performance Effects (OGHFA BN)

Most countries and airlines have a bottle to throttle rule specifying how much time must elapse from the last drink until a pilot flies. The typical value is 8 hours, although some rules specify 10 or 12 hours. There are also BAC limits for flying, which typically are zero (0.00) or 0.02. An important point for a pilot to note is that alcohol can be impairing even after your BAC returns to zero. Anyone who has ever experienced a hangover can tell you that. Thus, while a nice cocktail and glass of wine at dinner before a noon departure the next day is probably fine, more extensive drinking can significantly increase safety risk even if your BAC is zero when you get to the cockpit.

When is was 'in' (1972 to 1983) for the pilots I flew with it was 12 hours minimum. It's the hangover thing that gets you, try vomiting in to a mask when your being thrown all over the sky by some fella who thinks it's funny when they know you are 'suffering'. [:'(]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pickles"]I think I've found the source for the "latest" date announcement: according to

http://blog.40millionsdautomobilistes.com/2012/02/20/circulaire-obligation-detention-ethylotest/

Claude Gueant has sent a letter to the prefets announcing 1st July as the intended date. However, as the article above points out, this is just another statement of intentions and not an official announcement.

[/quote]

Looks like the decret has been published - 2012-284. Always keep an unused one in your car or you will be busted - after November of course ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Pickles"]I think I've found the source for the "latest" date announcement: according to

http://blog.40millionsdautomobilistes.com/2012/02/20/circulaire-obligation-detention-ethylotest/

Claude Gueant has sent a letter to the prefets announcing 1st July as the intended date. However, as the article above points out, this is just another statement of intentions and not an official announcement.

[/quote]

Looks like the decret has been published - 2012-284. Always keep an unused one in your car or you will be busted - after November of course ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen them in supermarkets, usually next to the tills.

Here's the link to the decret:

http://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/affichTexte.do?cidTexte=JORFTEXT000025417826&dateTexte&categorieLien=id

As some people have commented on the TF1 news website - in reality you probably need to have TWO in the car, since if you use the one you've got to check your limit, you're ok so you drive home - you could then be fined for not having an unused one available in the car........

Madness which I'm sure won't change a damn thing in terms of drink-driving

Lou

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...