Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-01-17-Speech-3-288"

Predicate	Value (sorted: default)
rdf:type	lpv_eu:Speech2
dcterms:Date	"2001-01-17"^^xsd:date2
dcterms:Is Part Of	lp_eu:Priorities in road safety2
dcterms:Language	"de"^^xsd:language2
lpv:document identification number	"en.20010117.9.3-288"2
lpv:hasSubsequent	lp_eu:2001-01-17-Speech-3-2892
lpv:speaker	lp:Georg Jarzembowski2
lpv:spokenAs	member; EPP-ED (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3 substitute; Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 member; Committee on Regional Policy, Transport and Tourism (1999-07-21--2002-01-14)3 vice-chair; Delegation for relations with Japan (1999-07-22--2002-01-14)3 unknown; Christlich Demokratische Union Deutschlands (1999-07-20--2004-07-19)3
lpv:translated text	". Mr President, I can only support the Commission in not presenting a Community regulation on blood alcohol content. My colleagues are holding a sham debate, a totally sham debate. The socialists and our group decided jointly a year ago, when the proposals from the previous period were taken up again, that we do not want Community legislation here. The point we make is this: we want checks. That is the crucial question, not what the law says. It is crucial to have on-the-spot checks. Here I can only reply to my UK colleague: if your police carried out checks over Christmas, it would take these people off the roads and prevent the accidents. So I can only repeat that the crucial factor is to check the blood alcohol level rather than to issue a Community regulation. That is why we will reject the first part of Amendment No 4. If it is nevertheless carried, my group will reject Mrs Petersen's entire resolution, because it is hypocritical to call for Community legislation when there is no need whatsoever for it. Talk to your countries. Most countries agree with the common view of this House that 0.5 parts per thousand is quite adequate, as the Commission rightly said. That is what we recommended to all these countries. The people you should talk to, Mr Watts, are those who do not apply that. So it is not a question of a sham debate or of what the law says; the police must carry out-on-the spot checks and pick out all the drunken drivers. That will give us the greatest road safety. Secondly, we will not accept Amendment No 6 either, with which the Greens are once again trying to start another sham debate, namely on a general speed limit of 120 km/h. We already have speed limits on most European roads. In my country we have speed limits on 95% of all roads. Where do the accidents happen? On the 95% of roads, because there are not enough speed checks there either. So, fewer laws and more checks will do more for road safety."@en1

Named graphs describing this resource:

The resource appears as object in 2 triples

Context graph