EU Driving Harmonisation

Patrick Hennessy in the Telegraph complains today about EU harmonisation of driving standards.

British motorists face the imposition of “European standard” speed and drink-drive limits under plans by Brussels to cut deaths on the road, The Sunday Telegraph has learned.

The European Commission wants a continent-wide “harmonisation” of traffic laws. This could see many of the penalties currently set by national governments standardised across the EU.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I am reluctant to submit to rule from Brussels. On the other, not everything being proposed is that bad.

Britain’s permitted level for alcohol in drivers – 80 milligrams per 100 millilitres of blood – is much more liberal than in most EU countries where the level is 50 milligrams or less.

I don’t have a huge problem with this one. One alternative is to do away with drink driving offences altogether and use prosecution under the offences against the person (1861) act for drunk drivers, which would carry far heftier penalties for causing death or injury while driving under the influence. I have some sympathy with that idea as it would be so much simpler and the punishment more fitting. Whatever the ruling, the “don’t drink and drive” is a sensible message. Even 50 milligrams per 100 millilitres is too much as far as I am concerned.

However, this:

Commission papers say other planned moves would compel drivers to have their headlights on at all times, and would give Brussels effective control of Britain’s network of speed cameras.

Is scary. There is no evidence whatsoever that the use of daytime headlights has any effect on road safety. It’s one of those arguments that motorcyclists debate with passion, but whatever one’s individual take, there is no evidence to substantiate it one way or the other. To legislate on the basis of perception without evidence is frightening; but, I guess, nothing new. Mind you, if we are to harmonise, perhaps we could go along with the way the French do it; where there are cameras, they are clearly signposted several hundred metres beforehand and otherwise, everyone drives pretty much as fast as they like… Oh, not so very different, then…

In addition, British drivers could be made to re-apply for licences every 10 years – requiring individuals to show they are fit to drive and placing big potential obstacles in the way of people fitted with pacemakers and sufferers from angina or diabetes.

This is a little piece of scaremongering. We already have procedures for people with conditions that may threaten their ability to drive – and, frankly, if one has such a condition, then this is a pragmatic approach. Unless Patrick Hennessy thinks people should drive when they are medically unfit? We also require photo licenses to be renewed every ten years, so, again, a panic over nothing.

This, from Chris Grayling, shadow transport secretary:

“Surely it’s for the democratically elected governments of member states to decide policy on things like speed cameras – not for unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.”

Yes, absolutely. Let’s stick with the issue here; rule from Brussels by unelected bureaucrats or from the despots in Westminster. Getting bogged down with the proposals themselves may well mean arguing against a perfectly reasonable suggestion.