Comparison between french and british legislations about road offences

Article rédigé par [Fayevalentine->phantomette06@hotmail.com]

mis à  jour au 26/03/2008.

A titre liminaire, nous vous rappellons que cette fiche n'engage en rien l'association Juristudiant quant aux affirmations inclues ci-après et que pour toute application à  votre problème personnel, nous ne pouvons que vous conseiller d'aller voir un avocat spécialiste de la matière ou un notaire.

Pour toute erreur relevée dans ce document, nous vous serions reconnaissant de nous en informer en la signalant soit par mail (en utilisant la page [contact-> http://www.juristudiant.com/contact/contact.htm]), soit directement sur le [forum Juristudiant -> http://www.juristudiant.com/forum/].

Vous trouverez cette fiche au format pdf [en cliquant ici-> http://www.juristudiant.com/site/fiches/Juristudiant-exposeanglaisPDF.pdf]


***


I would like to compare the French and the English laws about road safety.
It is interesting to pick out the British case, because it is a comparable state with France on grounds of population, distance travelled and car park.
A European driving licence is expected in late 2012. As yet, each state get on with own traffic law.


As regards it, what strikes me is the difference between France and Great Britain about the form of the law:

- In France, it is the “{Code de la route}â€, which is a group of laws and regulations about the use of the highway by the road users. It is not a Code, in the sense of penal, as the labour code for example, but it is a mix between rules and laws of civicism and good behaviour (according to Wikipedia's definition).

Yet, the “{Code de la route} » describes the offence and the sanction that the offender face.

For example, the article R412-6-1 of the “Code de la route†says (it is an approximate translation), I quote: “Cell phone use while driving is forbiddenâ€.

Actually, the “{Code de la route}†is law; it is not just good guidance.

- The “{Highway Code}†is the official road safety manual for Great Britain (it applies to England, Scotland and Wales).

“The Code compiled by the Secretary of State comprising such directions as appear to him proper for the guidance of persons using roads. Failure to observe it is not itself an offence, but may be relied upon in any proceedings to establish or negative liability†(Definition of the Osborn's concise law dictionary).



For example, the article 149 of the “{Highway Code}†says,
I quote “You MUST NOT use a hand-held mobile phone, or similar device, when driving or when supervising a learner driver, except to call 999 or 112 in a genuine emergency when it is unsafe or impractical to stop.â€

So, it is possible to support the fact that the “{Highway Code}†is not a legally enforceable document but just guidance that you should follow whenever possible.


And now, I take sides to say that the British road law is more repressive than the French one:



First, unlike France, GB has a repressive policy to struggle against road offences, thanks to the use of 6000 “speed camerasâ€. This system is able to “flash†2.000.000 road offences, each year. It is not a common radar; it permits to trap drivers doing speed limits, using phone, smoking, eating and drinking, etc.

But, France and GB share the will to create new road offences. For example, driving and talking on the phone at the same time is a specific offence.

Then, in GB, bad drivers could face harsh sanctions. The example of the phone is very striking: in GB, drivers risk two years in jail for using their mobile phones, whereas, in France, the maximum sanction is to pay 150 €(ticket).



My second statement is to think that the British road law is likely more effective than the French one:

The evidence results from the facts, especially from the figures: there are twice fewer deaths in GB than in FRANCE.

On the one hand, this positive report is the result of the British prevention campaigns.
From the school, children learn the road safety, thanks to animations, book etc. Moreover, there is a lot of information campaign, on TV etc.
Furthermore, most of the Anglo-Saxon countries make behaviour tests on drivers, easy and very effective to judge the driving capacities of people; but in France, this system is not allowed. It is the role of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to promote road safety by establishing whether drivers who have medical conditions can satisfy the medical standards required for safe driving.

On the other hand, the main explanation of those good results lies in the British “control-sanction systemâ€.

It means, in GB, a lot of road offences are recorded, because of the speed cameras. Besides, drivers know if they do not respect the law, they have not lucky enough to escape the sanction because the law is applied and it is quickly applied.

As a conclusion, I would like to quote the S.A.R.T.R.E. study. S.A.R.T.R.E. is the acronym of Social Attitudes to Road Traffic Risk in Europe. This study aims at drawing up a portrait of European drivers; it analyzes the answers of 24 000 drivers debriefed (face to face) in 2002 through 23 countries.
According to SARTRE, the majority of drivers feel concerned by road safety and they admit the consequence of the behaviour in the road safety.


In years to come, we have to hope cooperation will increase between France and England, in terms of road safety, in sense of a harmonisation of the road regulations.



{{SOURCES}}:

- Osborn's concise law dictionary
- Wikipedia
- fenêtreeurope.com
- Senat.fr
- thisislondon.co.uk
- directgov.uk
- Ici-londres.com
- Sartre.inrets.fr