Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2011-09-27-Speech-2-434-187"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20110927.26.2-434-187"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"I would, in theory, be in favour of the report because, under the principle of subsidiarity, the European Union ought to set out a general framework and some objectives on road safety to act as a focal point for national and local strategies.
In order to reduce the number of fatal accidents, I think it would be well worth putting controls in place, harmonising road signs, creating safe road-traffic infrastructure and promoting the sale of safe vehicles fitted with mandatory alcolocks. We would also need the United Kingdom to stop driving on the opposite side of the road to all other European countries and get into line with the rules in place in the EU.
Unfortunately, however, this report suffers from the negative influence of a series of amendments adopted in this House, which make it too oppressive. For example, forbidding people from driving when using medicines that influence their fitness to drive is absurd since, precisely for their own peace of mind, most pharmaceutical companies advise against it in their instruction leaflets. In reality, very few people using such medicines have any problems driving as a result.
Another overly burdensome amendment for licence-holders is the obligation to attend first-aid refresher courses every 10 years. I have therefore voted against the report."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples