For Antoine Régley, lawyer at the Lille bar, specializing in road law and in the defense of road victims, guest Sunday February 19 on franceinfo, “there is no logic” in the announcements made by Gérald Darmanin in the JSunday newspaper. The Minister of the Interior proposes the withdrawal of the 12 points of the license in the event of driving under narcotics. An announcement “disappointing” for the lawyer who sees in this a desire to “stigmatize” because “the news allows it”.
franceinfo: What would Gérald Darmanin’s proposals change compared to today?
Antoine Regley: Anything that lowers mortality is good to take. We must congratulate the Minister for being concerned about this even if, let’s face it, the timing and the proposals are extremely disappointing. What would change with this proposal is that drivers under narcotics would be more harshly sanctioned than those who drive under alcohol and those who commit excessive speeding. There is no logic in this. For what ? As we know, two out of ten fatal accidents are drug-related, while alcohol is three out of ten and speeding is two or three out of ten. So there we stigmatize, legitimately and because the news allows it, drug users who get back behind the wheel, but what do we do with those who drink and those who kill because of speed? There we have no answer. We really have the impression of being in the Sarkozy method which says: “A news item, a reformette”.
Are the effects the same whether you took drugs or alcohol before driving?
It is no coincidence that drugs are prohibited. Already, because it is very bad for health and because it has psychotropic effects which therefore act on the brain. The different drugs do not have the same effects but, as we know, driving behavior is not at all adequate when cannabis or cocaine has been used. These effects are also found in alcohol consumption. It’s been years that alcohol and narcotics while driving have been punished with the same penalties both for the first time and for repeat offenses and today – when nothing other than the news allows us to wonder about this – we come to say: “We are going to be more severe against those who consume narcotics than towards those who consume alcohol”. It is certainly a call to stop narcotics but there is still no call to stop drinking and driving.
It would therefore perhaps be necessary to toughen the law and the measures in place against the consumption of drugs and alcohol? Does this withdrawal of the 12 points wanted by the Minister seem measured to you?
I wouldn’t say measured. If I put on my hat as a criminal defense lawyer in traffic law, I would tell you that this excludes the right to make mistakes. We have 12 points on a driver’s license and those 12 points could be taken away from us. I don’t think that’s the right measure. What shocks me more is that when you drive under drugs or under alcohol for the first time, you do not have access to a court, that is to say, you do not see any judge. You will receive a letter, a criminal composition or a criminal order which will suspend your driver’s license and impose a fine. You will never go to court, you will never meet a prosecutor, you will never have that fear. If we want to make people aware of caution, and to stop these behaviors, it would be good if we stopped sending them a little letter telling them that it is not good. They should be brought before the courts so that they fear the sanction pronounced by a court.
Are we doing enough today in terms of prevention?
We put the package on drinking and driving, on the phone while driving, on speed. The road safety spots were very brutal, very violent, but it worked. On narcotics, I believe that there is not enough prevention. Regardless of that, it will be good if Gérald Darmanin – with Eric Dupond-Moretti – stops thinking about the “repression ++” and they start to think about the “prevention” but above all that they begin to think about “victim support”. They are waiting for psychological cells, faster hearings in court, a reform of the Badinter law on compensation for road victims. [Concernant la création d’un homicide routier voulu par les associations et le fait que Gérald Darmanin dit travailler sur ce point] he takes a tiny step. Today, [les accidents mortels de la route sous emprise d’alcool ou de stupéfiants] are classified as manslaughter. The victims – legitimately – tell themselves that it is not involuntary. The person took so many risks by driving that they cannot say that. We have this legal difficulty which says “we did not want to kill” so we can’t call it intentional homicide, but we behaved in such a risky way that we can’t say it’s not our fault. So I don’t know if the minister is saying that only to please the associations and is just making a semantic change or is it going to hide a greater repression of these homicides with alcohol or narcotics? He tells us nothing.