Our French Friends - God bless 'em

[Vernon B]

Just read a reminder in the CC mag that sat nav speed camera alarms are banned in France. Fines can be up to 1,500 euro and your sat nav confiscated. Intersting. Our friends are also removing warning signs for speed cameras. Now, before some one jumps in, I know this is not "new news" - but a thought has just ocurred to me. Surely, if there is a "'uman right" it is that you should have access to information that enables you to adapt your behaviour to laws that operator within a EU member state, so that you can comply with those laws. Anyone willing to test this theory?

 

Oh, the article also draws attention to France's new dangerous dog legislation. All you dog loving motorhomers will need a "certificate of aptitude" - for the dog not yourselves - if your man's best friend is on the danger list. Have no fear you chavs the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not on the list - and why should it be?

 

Richard Littlejohn would have a field day with this little lot.

 

V

[Guest pelmetman]

What kind of certificate should I get for Troy :-S...................He's very good at cocking his leg :D

[malc d]

Vernon B - 2012-08-24 5:39 PM

 

Surely, if there is a "'uman right" it is that you should have access to information that enables you to adapt your behaviour to laws that operator within a EU member state, so that you can comply with those laws.

 

V

 

But surely you do have access to the information.

 

It's called a ' speed limit sign '

 

 

 

;-)

[Derek Uzzell]

Although France (and Switzerland), unlike the UK, has chosen to ban in-vehicle GPS-based speed-camera warning devices, as far as I'm aware all EU states (including the UK) ban 'active' speed-camera warning devices (ie. devices that actually sense the radio-type signatures that speed-checking equipments produce). If you wanted to test your 'human rights' idea, you should try it out with an 'active' speed-camera warning device as there's absolutely no doubt that, if you get caught with one of these in your vehicle, you'll be up for prosecution and be able to argue your case in court. The French halfway-house law (with its 'Danger Zone' loophole) is a daft one, and seemingly impracticable to police.

 

(I note that the "Stay Legal in France" article in the CC magazine also advises that carrying TWO single-use breathalysers in a vehicle has been a legal requirement in France since 1 July 2012. While this is recommended practice, the legal requirement is to carry just ONE unused breathayser.)

[Brian Kirby]

Vernon B - 2012-08-24 5:39 PM.......................... Surely, if there is a "'uman right" it is that you should have access to information that enables you to adapt your behaviour to laws that operator within a EU member state, so that you can comply with those laws. Anyone willing to test this theory?................V

I hate nicking other people's ideas, Vernon, so I'll leave it to you to take the French government to the European Court of Human Rights. Good luck! :-D

[Robinhood]

Brian Kirby - 2012-08-24 7:25 PM

 

Vernon B - 2012-08-24 5:39 PM.......................... Surely, if there is a "'uman right" it is that you should have access to information that enables you to adapt your behaviour to laws that operator within a EU member state, so that you can comply with those laws. Anyone willing to test this theory?................V

I hate nicking other people's ideas, Vernon, so I'll leave it to you to take the French government to the European Court of Human Rights. Good luck! :-D

 

....but the French have the habit of using Madame Guillotine to arbitrate on 'uman rights issues, Brian - so maybe best to be not so fast in more sense than one. ;-)

 

[Mike B.]

Derek Uzzell - 2012-08-24 6:55 PM

 

Although France (and Switzerland), unlike the UK, has chosen to ban in-vehicle GPS-based speed-camera warning devices, as far as I'm aware all EU states (including the UK) ban 'active' speed-camera warning devices (ie. devices that actually sense the radio-type signatures that speed-checking equipments produce). If you wanted to test your 'human rights' idea, you should try it out with an 'active' speed-camera warning device as there's absolutely no doubt that, if you get caught with one of these in your vehicle, you'll be up for prosecution and be able to argue your case in court. The French halfway-house law (with its 'Danger Zone' loophole) is a daft one, and seemingly impracticable to police.

 

(I note that the "Stay Legal in France" article in the CC magazine also advises that carrying TWO single-use breathalysers in a vehicle has been a legal requirement in France since 1 July 2012. While this is recommended practice, the legal requirement is to carry just ONE unused breathayser.)

 

There is also a post on the CC forum that says you need FOUR because if you are tested (Presumably by the police?!) you need to replace the 2!! God knows how 2 take away 1 equals 3 needed but him being a tugger what can you expect?? :D :D Does that mean if I have the bike on the trailer I need 8??

 

Mike

[malc d]

Vernon B - 2012-08-24 5:39 PM

 

Have no fear you chavs the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not on the list - and why should it be?

 

 

V

 

 

But don't take yours to the Ile de Re

 

;-)

[malc d]

Vernon B - 2012-08-24 5:39 PM

 

Have no fear you chavs the Staffordshire Bull Terrier is not on the list - and why should it be?

 

 

V

 

 

But don't take yours to the Ile de Re

 

;-)

[Mike B.]

What's a Tosa-inu ?? ;-)

[Guest pelmetman]

Mike B. - 2012-08-24 8:13 PM

 

What's a Tosa-inu ?? ;-)

 

I dunno.............but I bet it makes your eyes water 8-)

[sheer lunar-see]

Hi all, dont worry about turning off the speed camera setting on your sat nav, "les ordinaire gendarme" are not allowed to search your car, only the customs, and anyway they're not interested in them, more concerned with drink driving and speeding on roads without camera positions. If in doubt of any infringement of road traffic law here in France, do it between 12 and 2. Lunchtime, you'll probably get away with it. ;-) ;-)

[Mel B]

pelmetman - 2012-08-24 8:22 PM

 

Mike B. - 2012-08-24 8:13 PM

 

What's a Tosa-inu ?? ;-)

 

I dunno.............but I bet it makes your eyes water 8-)

 

I suppose it depends on where it bites you Dave!

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tosa_%28dog%29

[Syd]

Mike B. - 2012-08-24 8:13 PM

 

What's a Tosa-inu ?? ;-)

 

 

Don't know but if you have two of them you will probably fail the brethaliser :D

[BGD]

Mike B. - 2012-08-24 8:49 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2012-08-24 6:55 PM

 

Although France (and Switzerland), unlike the UK, has chosen to ban in-vehicle GPS-based speed-camera warning devices, as far as I'm aware all EU states (including the UK) ban 'active' speed-camera warning devices (ie. devices that actually sense the radio-type signatures that speed-checking equipments produce). If you wanted to test your 'human rights' idea, you should try it out with an 'active' speed-camera warning device as there's absolutely no doubt that, if you get caught with one of these in your vehicle, you'll be up for prosecution and be able to argue your case in court. The French halfway-house law (with its 'Danger Zone' loophole) is a daft one, and seemingly impracticable to police.

 

(I note that the "Stay Legal in France" article in the CC magazine also advises that carrying TWO single-use breathalysers in a vehicle has been a legal requirement in France since 1 July 2012. While this is recommended practice, the legal requirement is to carry just ONE unused breathayser.)

 

There is also a post on the CC forum that says you need FOUR because if you are tested (Presumably by the police?!) you need to replace the 2!! God knows how 2 take away 1 equals 3 needed but him being a tugger what can you expect?? :D :D Does that mean if I have the bike on the trailer I need 8??

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

Mike - If that's what the post on the CC forum says, then it is, once again, completely wrong.

 

 

The French law requires that you carry ONE unused, in date (valid for two years from manufacture date), "NF" quality-standard -labelled, breath tester per vehicle.

No more.

Just one.

 

The Police would NEVER require you to use that chemical, rough-guide, single use tester that you're carrying if they had stopped you and wanted to test you for drink-driving.

They'd always use their own electronic, much more accurate, stand-up-in-court, breath tester on you.

 

 

 

The whole point of why these one-use tester things are being made compulsory (which many people seem to have totally missed) is to try to encourage self-testing before driving home, not just driving anyway and waiting to be stopped/ tested by the Gendarmes.

 

 

 

 

The reason why people are suggesting that buying TWO is a good idea is so that you could SELF-TEST if you've had a beer or two. and then still have the required unused tester in the vehicle if stopped by the Plod.

If that's your bag, then buy 3, or 4 or 5. But there's NO legal requirement to carry more than 1.

 

Remember, it is a legal minimum of just ONE "NF" labelled, in-date, tester to be carried in/on each vehicle (which includes motorbikes of 125cc and above).

 

Additionally, the French Minister for Transport has said that no-one will now be fined ( the fine for not carrying a tester is fixed at 12 euros I think), until after 1st November, even though the new Regulation came in of 1st July, as so few French people have bought testers, so few companies have produced them, and so many complained about the short notice leading up to this new requirement.

 

[Derek Uzzell]

This is the CC forum thread Mike B mentions - you'll see that the must-carry-four misunderstanding has been addressed.

 

http://www.caravanclub.co.uk/community/discussions/caravan-sites/overseas-sites/Do-we-need-breathalizers/rt/16207/?p=6

 

The fine for 'non carriage' is €11. The original intention was to introduce the law in Spring 2012, but the implementation date was delayed until 1 July, presumably to allow production of breathalysers meeting the French norm to be increased and widespread national distribution to be carried out.

 

As the law was in force from 1 July, the French police would have been entitled to fine people for non-carriage from that date. However (just like when France made carriage of a warning triangle and a high-visibility vest mandatory) a period of grace was agreed from 1 July 2012 until 31 October 2012, during which the police would not impose the €11 fine.

 

The French decree bringing the breathalyser law into force was issued on 28 February 2012. The 1 July start-date and 1 November 'fine date' were stated within the decree. Consequently, your suggestion that the reasons for the period of grace were because "so few French people have bought testers, so few companies have produced them, and so many complained about the short notice leading up to this new requirement" is not correct.

[BGD]

Derek Uzzell - 2012-08-25 8:40 AM

 

 

The French decree bringing the breathalyser law into force was issued on 28 February 2012. The 1 July start-date and 1 November 'fine date' were stated within the decree. Consequently, your suggestion that the reasons for the period of grace were because "so few French people have bought testers, so few companies have produced them, and so many complained about the short notice leading up to this new requirement" is not correct.

 

 

My apologies...I should have used present tense and future tense rather than past tense when referring to the reasons for the difference between the introduction of the regulation,and the 4-month-later introduction of the authority of the Police to fine for non-compliance.

 

 

[mel wood]

malc d - 2012-08-24 5:57 PM

 

Vernon B - 2012-08-24 5:39 PM

 

Surely, if there is a "'uman right" it is that you should have access to information that enables you to adapt your behaviour to laws that operator within a EU member state, so that you can comply with those laws.

 

V

 

But surely you do have access to the information.

 

It's called a ' speed limit sign '

 

 

 

Quite righ malc - if we keep to the speed limits there is no issue!

 

 

;-)

[Vernon B]

mel wood - 2012-08-25 1:26 PM

 

malc d - 2012-08-24 5:57 PM

 

Vernon B - 2012-08-24 5:39 PM

 

Surely, if there is a "'uman right" it is that you should have access to information that enables you to adapt your behaviour to laws that operator within a EU member state, so that you can comply with those laws.

 

V

 

But surely you do have access to the information.

 

It's called a ' speed limit sign '

 

 

 

Quite righ malc - if we keep to the speed limits there is no issue!

 

 

;-)

 

Not sure if things are quite that simple chaps. I think you're assuming that speed limits are always well signed and drivers always see and take that information in. Perhaps you are assuming that speeding offences are only due to drivers deliberately exceeding the limit.

 

I have no idea if any research has been done to confirm that theory but anecdotal evidence from friends, family and blokes in the pub suggest that a high number of those convicted of speeding were unaware of the limit and/or the relative speed at which they were driving. Certainly I think you might agree that the possibility of this happening is more likely to arise in a foreign country where you are driving on the "wrong" side of the road, speed is measured in kph, signage is not always clear and consistent, speed limits vary with weather conditions, the weight of your vehicle and local regulations. In that regard a country called France springs to mind.

 

But, if we take a more benevolent view of the human race and assume that many drivers actually wish to drive within in the limit - and I think that would be a reasonable assumption to take for motorhomers rather than boy racers - could it not be argued that more information could help us achieve that intention?

 

I for one would be delighted if the transport authorities in all EU countries cooperated with the likes of TomTom to give us a continuous read out of our speed relative the prevailing limit and an audable warning signal if we approach that limit. But then I'm interested in improving road safety and not paying off the national debt.

 

V

[malc d]

Vernon B - 2012-08-25 3:04 PM

 

 

 

Not sure if things are quite that simple chaps.

 

 

 

V

 

Seems fairly simple to me.

 

Authourities should clearly mark areas where speed limits apply, so that everyone is aware of them.

 

Don't see that any electronic connections to people with Tom-Toms ( or any other sat navs ) would be necessary.

 

What about people who don't use sat-navs ?

 

What about me on my bike ?

 

;-)

[Brian Kirby]

There is one flaw in that line of thinking, Vernon, and it is that speed limits change more quickly than sat nav mapping! It seems, for one example, that there is an increasing move to install 70kph limits on approach to French towns and villages, so that one is not tempted to race up to the nameboard at 90kph and then brake to 50kph - almost invariably meaning, with smaller places, that one enters at around 80, and only makes it down to 50 just before exiting on the other side! :-)

 

I lost count of the number of 70kph limits I encountered in France this spring that were not mapped. My Garmin does give warning where recorded speed exceeds mapped limit, by turning the on-screen speed indication from black to red (and can give audible warnings, but the clanging drives me mad, especially where the mapped limit is clearly wrong, so I've turned them off), but if one is to drive with ones eyes continually on the sat nav, I think other violations, or worse, are more likely to arise!

 

It may be that before long the warning signs will contain a transmitter, and cars a receiver, so that speed limits are automatically displayed on-board. It would be neat if they could interface with cruise control, and if cruise control would also operate the braking, so as to clip speed on descents, especially in hilly towns. However, it must ultimately remain the driver who is responsible for selecting speed and trajectory, and for remaining attentive, observant, and alert. I tend to set the cruise to the limit most of the time, especially on those long drags of 50 or 70kph through ribbon towns. Then, if I take my foot off, I'll generally just ease down to what is legal anywhere I can't clearly see the road well ahead. But most speed limits are logical, and the number of cases where prevailing conditions dictate that the permitted speed is unsafe far exceeds the number where it appears restrictive.

 

It is true there are odd examples of obstructed limit signs, and of apparently missing signs, but most are clearly visible, and most limits arise where one would expect them, at junctions and in and around built-up areas, so the they can largely be anticipated even in the absence of signs. France is a big, surprisingly empty, country, with generally superb roads. The smaller roads with D, and even C, classifications generally carry little traffic, consequently being far less Gatso infested, and are far nicer to drive than the (diminishing number of) N roads, and are infinitely nicer than any autoroute.

 

Just keep a sharp eye out for blue vans parked at the roadside, and check your speed if "flashed" by oncoming vehicles!

[elamessa]

For information usual speed limits in France are as such.

Motorways (A roads) 130kph unless signposted differently (110 kph in rain)

N Roads - Dual carriageway 110kph unless signposted differently (90 kph in rain)

N Roads - Single carriageway 90kph unless signposted differently (80kph in rain)

All other roads 90kph unless signposted differently.

70kph limits are usually placed at the approach to towns, industrial areas or areas of risk i.e. crossroads etc.

50kph limits in all cities, towns and villages with some signed at 30kph.

 

Drive safe and keep to the limits.

 

Steve

[Mike B.]

BGD - 2012-08-25 12:08 AM

 

Mike B. - 2012-08-24 8:49 PM

 

Derek Uzzell - 2012-08-24 6:55 PM

 

Although France (and Switzerland), unlike the UK, has chosen to ban in-vehicle GPS-based speed-camera warning devices, as far as I'm aware all EU states (including the UK) ban 'active' speed-camera warning devices (ie. devices that actually sense the radio-type signatures that speed-checking equipments produce). If you wanted to test your 'human rights' idea, you should try it out with an 'active' speed-camera warning device as there's absolutely no doubt that, if you get caught with one of these in your vehicle, you'll be up for prosecution and be able to argue your case in court. The French halfway-house law (with its 'Danger Zone' loophole) is a daft one, and seemingly impracticable to police.

 

(I note that the "Stay Legal in France" article in the CC magazine also advises that carrying TWO single-use breathalysers in a vehicle has been a legal requirement in France since 1 July 2012. While this is recommended practice, the legal requirement is to carry just ONE unused breathayser.)

 

There is also a post on the CC forum that says you need FOUR because if you are tested (Presumably by the police?!) you need to replace the 2!! God knows how 2 take away 1 equals 3 needed but him being a tugger what can you expect?? :D :D Does that mean if I have the bike on the trailer I need 8??

 

Mike

 

 

 

 

Mike - If that's what the post on the CC forum says, then it is, once again, completely wrong.

 

 

The French law requires that you carry ONE unused, in date (valid for two years from manufacture date), "NF" quality-standard -labelled, breath tester per vehicle.

No more.

Just one.

 

The Police would NEVER require you to use that chemical, rough-guide, single use tester that you're carrying if they had stopped you and wanted to test you for drink-driving.

They'd always use their own electronic, much more accurate, stand-up-in-court, breath tester on you.

 

 

 

The whole point of why these one-use tester things are being made compulsory (which many people seem to have totally missed) is to try to encourage self-testing before driving home, not just driving anyway and waiting to be stopped/ tested by the Gendarmes.

 

 

 

 

The reason why people are suggesting that buying TWO is a good idea is so that you could SELF-TEST if you've had a beer or two. and then still have the required unused tester in the vehicle if stopped by the Plod.

If that's your bag, then buy 3, or 4 or 5. But there's NO legal requirement to carry more than 1.

 

Remember, it is a legal minimum of just ONE "NF" labelled, in-date, tester to be carried in/on each vehicle (which includes motorbikes of 125cc and above).

 

Additionally, the French Minister for Transport has said that no-one will now be fined ( the fine for not carrying a tester is fixed at 12 euros I think), until after 1st November, even though the new Regulation came in of 1st July, as so few French people have bought testers, so few companies have produced them, and so many complained about the short notice leading up to this new requirement.

 

Sorry I knew that-My post was tongue in cheak about how people can misunderstand things and then it gets out of all proportion.

I bought 2 breathalisers in Carrefours for €1.99 in July and they will do me until our 2015 holiday-1 for the bike & 1 for the van-I don't drink & drive so I don't intend to use them. They are just to comply with the law-easier than trying to buck the system-their country, their law-C'est la vie!

Mike

[Vernon B]

Brian Kirby - 2012-08-25 5:33 PM

 

There is one flaw in that line of thinking, Vernon, !

 

I guess my main point Brian is that speed limit signs alone do not provide an effective aid to drivers wishing to observe speed limits and that, for example, sat nav technology could improve the situation. Unfortunately the actions of the French authorities in almost banning such devices could hinder those developments.

 

If, as is likely, the speed cameras are being located on the most critical or dangerous sections of roads then surely the aim should be to ensure that as many people as possible adhere to those limits as they pass through the sections rather than penalise those people who don't. - after the event. If speed kills - kill speed don't fine the speeder - it could be too late. Is this new "cat and mouse" act really going to help?

 

I hope I haven't given the impression that I have it in for the French, that is certainly not the case. But their actions on this issue as on motorway pricing seems quite out of character and perverse. You mention for instance that they are constantly changing speed limits, true. And you'll find that on each of those occasions it results in more restrictions and complications for the driver. All this from a nation that is rightly proud of its libertarian attitude to life.

 

As you point out "it must ultimately remain the driver who is responsible for selecting speed and trajectory, and for remaining attentive, observant, and alert." If an emphasis was placed on that mantra and the French really kept faith with their heritage we'd see fewer limits rather than many more and [together with good information for the driver] a better safety record on their "generally superb roads".

 

V

[Robinhood]

....it appears to me that the debate going on is purely academic.

 

I wasn't aware that the French authorities were insisting on the removal of speed limits (and/or any display or warning of exceeding them) from the mapping and devices.

 

AFAIK, they are simply insisting that the position of any speed cameras should not be (accurately) portrayed.

 

Hence, all the extra assistance that Vernon appears to want (need?) to stay within the speed limit can legally stay as it is, or be further developed. ;-)