Motoring in France becoming out of EU rules Police State for Drivers?

[just john]

Comparing the requirements in France with those of the UK and even the rest of the EU it seems its turning that way to me;

High Viz([:P]) jackets, removal of speed camera device warning devices, Breathalyzers, on the spot fines, none of which seem scheduled for the UK, what ever happened to common EU policies?

[Bugsy]

Last gasps of a dying government perhaps.

.

[Théière]

I think high viz makes sense

[EuroTrashII]

The only other country I know anything about is Spain, where radar detectors are illegal, on the spot fines are common and you have to carry even more hi viz vests.

So your point is ...?

Maybe it is the UK that is out of line.

[Théière]

Germany, Switzerland or the silly USA 427ci and 55mph, they really need detectors.

[Sprogster]

Theire, you cannot have been to the USA for many years as the speed limit on most interstates was increased back to 70 mph twenty years go and the police turn a blind eye on anyone doing up to 80mph. In fact so under funded are the State Troopers you rarely see them on the interstates these days and most drivers speed with impunity.

What you will never see on the interstates are speed cameras, as attempts to introduce them have been thrown out by the Courts.

Not that I commend this, as the roads in the US, especially States such as Florida are now very dangerous.

The breathalyser limit is the same as the UK and in most States random breath testing is illegal, as you have to be in an accident and or fail a sobriety test of touching your nose etc, before you can be breathalysed.

[idun]

My view on french driving in my early years was it was the only place that french people felt 'truly free'. Deaths on french roads were horrendous then too, but, I did understand why people acted as they did in their cars, their recklessness. And before I had my kids, it was sort of liberating and I do believe that I am a better driver for it.

As I said my point of view in all this, I'm not even sure what my french friends would say about it, it was purely on my own observations.

That the government is now reigning things in is no surprise at all. And a little sad to me.

 

[Sprogster]

idun, if I recall correctly the number of French road fatalities were horrendous, being amongst the worst in Europe and the previous French President decided enough was enough, something that Sarko has continued with.

[Théière]

So fill in the drainage trenches and stop fitting concrete blocks in the middle of motorways, oh yes buy some British cat's eyes too. Energy absorbing barriers save lives concrete blocks kill.

[crossy67]

I can't believe the huge ditches waiting to "catch" you should you stray from the tarmac.  Scary.

[Salty Sam]

[quote user="Théière"]So fill in the drainage trenches and stop fitting concrete blocks in the middle of motorways, oh yes buy some British cat's eyes too. Energy absorbing barriers save lives concrete blocks kill.[/quote]

"Concrete blocks" prevent crossovers, Armco type barriers offer no protection from crossovers by HGV's, concrete barriers contain the vehicle and slow it. The concrete barrier is also safer for motorcyclists!

 

[Théière]

[quote user="Salty Sam"]

 concrete barriers contain the vehicle and slow it. The concrete barrier is also safer for motorcyclists!

[/quote]

Whilst they may contain the vehicle they most certainly don't slow it, they can't as they don't absorb the the inertia they merely deflect off it into the path of other vehicles contained in that carriageway.

Energy absorption is the only way to slow a vehicle unless you hit the concrete head on which will slow it very quickly breaking the necks of all the passengers as do drainage ditches. In the few years i have been coming to France and only for a few weeks every year on the D750 at a bend in the road i have seen 4 deaths and know of 2 more, there is a speed camera there now and that is in the correct place for the correct reason.

[crossy67]

That's the thing with a speed camera.  In the UK I feel we are encouraged to think that people that slow down for speed cameras are cheating in some way.  Yes, they are breaking the law for all but a few hundred meters of their journeys but if the speed camera is placed in where it can do it's job and slow people down because of a danger then that's job done surely.

[Salty Sam]

Sorry Théière, but the evidence points towards the concrete barrier being safer,

http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com/features/feature67206/

http://www.brake.org.uk/facts/motorway-crash-barriers.htm

Granted, the N2 type metal barrier is designed to buckle and absorb but, they are also only designed and tested to absorb the impact of a 1.5 tonne family car, yet they still manage to breach the N2 barrier!

A 4x4 can easily surmount the barrier rail, and as far as commercial vehicles are concerned, the barrier offers little or no protection. To increase the height of the N2 type barrier in order to offer greater protection to HGV's actually increases the dangers for the occupants of the average family car if a collision occurs!

Many areas have had metal barriers replaced by concrete at for example, motorway over-bridges where the metal barrier offered minimal protection against breaching and impact with bridge supports. 

[just john]

The last few posts illustrate part of the problem; there are many different points of view on this, and of course when trying to apply it choices have to be made, unfortunately despite being part of  EU there are in my view too many different rules, so that driving from state to state becomes a problem. I could guess that the rules regarding speed camera disclosure are based on the premise that if they can not be spotted then everyone will drive within the limits. Maybe, Maybe not, but, where locals become familar with locations they either know when to limit speed or avoid the route. Likewise I know Bars in France where there is virtually no police presence and locals choose to drink on the basis that they can use minor roads to drive back home. Rules alone do not solve the problem if people can find a way around them. Frankly the fuel cost has probably had the biggest effect on motoring ethics, journeys are now reduced and speeds have dropped to an economical progress.

[idun]

How true Just John, that they believe that using minor roads'll be safe. Our primary school's headmistress had a husband who believed just that, soulard he was. I say 'had' and 'was' as he met a grizly end in a car crash on his way home from the bar. Never put his drinking pals off and we didn't get a better police presence either.

[Gyn_Paul]

[quote user="crossy67"]That's the thing with a speed camera.  In the UK I feel we are encouraged to think that people that slow down for speed cameras are cheating in some way.  Yes, they are breaking the law for all but a few hundred meters of their journeys but if the speed camera is placed in where it can do it's job and slow people down because of a danger then that's job done surely.

[/quote]

Quite right. And a speed camera which you don't know about (hidden or secret), doesn't  slow ANYONE down. So contributes nothing to road safety, just more cash to the state's coffers.

p

[Sunday Driver]

[quote user="Gyn_Paul"]

And a speed camera which you don't know about (hidden or secret), doesn't  slow ANYONE down.

[/quote]

It does around here.

In our local town, the gendarmes routinely set up their mobile radars which are hidden (they lurk behind a tree or large hedge) and secret (they don't tell us when they are going to do it) so we all keep to the limits just in case 'today's the day'.....[:-))]