“Radar risks becoming a political weapon”, warns the 40 million motorists association

Pour Pierre Chasseraydélégué général de l’association 40 million motoriststhis measure is “catastrophic”. He questions the political context in which it intervenes, evoking “extremist tendencies” likely, according to him, to use these devices “not for security, but to drive cars out of cities.”

He thus fears a instrumentalization of radarswhich would become “a political weapon to economically penalize those who need their vehicle.”

Lack of safeguards

At the heart of his criticisms: the absence of clear safeguards.

“We open the door to a totally uncontrolled system “, he warns, imagining opportunistic installations, for example “at the bottom of a descent limited to 30 km/h”, where a minimal excess could cost “135 euros and a license point”.

He denounces a disproportionate punitive logiccapable of transforming the radar into massive sanction tool. “In one day, you can lose a salary. HAS”

The association also points to a incohérence in road safety policies.

We have been told for years that radars save lives, but the figures show that mortality is no longer falling significantly.

Pierre Chasseray calls into question the institutional discourse, particularly on the impact of radars since 2002, recalling that “the first devices were only deployed from 2003”.

The English model

Another major criticism : the comparison with the British model. According to him, the United Kingdom, although better ranked in terms of road safety, applies “much greater margins of tolerance” and sometimes higher limitations.

“There, radars are popular because they really target dangerous behavior,” he explains, contrasting this approach with the one he considers too repressive in France.

Pierre Chasseray insists on the need to distinguish truly dangerous behavior from simple minimal excesses. “The radar is blind. He only sees the speed, not the behavior,” he emphasizes.

You can have a motorist respecting the speed limit while engaging in risky driving (driving under alcohol or drugs, cell phone while driving) and another driver exceeding the speed limit by 3-4 km/h but who generally remains very careful. The radar will not distinguish.Â

If he recognizes theutilityé radars in certain situations, particularly in the face of significant speeding in populated areashe calls for a strict supervision. “Yes to punish drivers, no to trap ordinary motorists,” he summarizes, pleading for “precise specifications” including wider margins of tolerance and implementation criteria based on accidentology.

Finally, he warns against loss of national coherence and one increased distrust of citizens.

“If everyone makes their own policy in their own corner, we are heading towards total disorganization,” he believes, adding that the perception of radars as “budgetary tools” risks aggravating the divide between users and public authorities.

Face à ces challengesthe association intends to make concrete proposals to the authorities. Objective: to avoid, according to Pierre Chasseray, “a drift towards a system where radar becomes a sanctioning machine, rather than a security tool”.

Personalize your news by adding your favorite cities and media with My News.