I agree with that, but my 2 most personal objections are common to most countries, it seems to me, and France is no worse than the UK in that respect.
Seatbelts. I know that they are lifesavers, I know that they are injury savers, but why should something which overwhelmingly saves only the wearer from death and injury be obligatory for all? I have heard people mention injury to others outside the car being hit by a flying body but never actually read of a case. That is not to say that it hasnât happened, but it must be so rare that banning traffic altogether should be on the cards. I prefer to take the risk with my own life because I find them unacceptably uncomfortable to wear and, to keep myself safe from prosecution always have a clip keeping it slack. I should say that I am speaking only as a driver, front seat occupants can be injured by un-belted passengers in the rear seats, so wearing them there is justified.
Dangerous Dogs. There is absolutely no reason why certain dogs should be so heavily controlled by law purely on the basis of breed, or assumed breed. Dogs of any breed, large or small, can be dangerous either by life experience or, more often, by human training. The ridiculous lengths, and expense, I had to go through to adopt and keep an extremely aged and gentle Rottweiler, despite his very bad experience in early life, was beyond commonsense.
But, I bear it, but not necessarily with a grin. 
We had people in our village who refused to be tested and certainly not vaccinated. It beggars belief and that is why our village mechoui had to be cancelled.
My friend was at an organ concert in Charolles when wanted to come in who hadnât got the documentation for either a recent test or double vaccination and she kicked up a huge fuss. I can see that there will be many people who just think it is their right to do what they want, never mind anyone else.
Too much liberty, hardly any egality and certainly no fraternity.
It looks as though I am still having a problem replying to certain posts.
this has just popped up and I posted yesterday.
how were you replying @Jane_Williamson
was it through the site or by using the email function?
You may want it to be your choice as to the extent of your injuries in the event of a crash, but itâs selfish to add to the burden on a health service in the event that you need a lifetime of care, rather than treatment for a few cuts & bruises. Also fire & ambulance crews already see far too much unavoidable trauma without unecessarily adding to their experience.
At least your slack belt will help, but not as much as a properly worn one. Many years ago I had a crash whilst wearing an old type fixed belt that wasnât adjusted properly. I was lucky not to have my face pushed through the steering wheel (there werenât any vehicles with air bags back in 1978âŚ).
5 Likes
Badger has said exactly what I would have said.
Itâs basically the same as the case for vaccination.
You donât live in a bubble. Your decisions may affect other people besides yourself. If you injure yourself/get ill because you chose not to do a simple thing that would have protected you from injury/illness, you potentially become a burden on society. I think it has be everyoneâs personal responsibility to try not to become a burden on others.
Dangerous dogs, I donât think there is any doubt, objectively speaking, that each breed has its own innate characteristics. Some breeds tend to be naturally more aggressive than others, I suppose itâs a gene thing. If you have a long line of dogs bred to fight and kill, they will pass that on to their offspring. Nature versus nurture. I think it would lead to many more injuries if you simply got rid of all the rules intended to reduce the risks from dogs. There will always be exceptions but they say it is the exceptions that prove the rule. But I am very glad you managed to keep your gentle Rottie.
1 Like
including kids acting as projectiles from the back seat in an accident hurtling their way through the windscreen taking the driverâs and passengerâs necks with them - not a pretty sight their bloodied heads poking through the screen
Clunck-Click every trip!!!
2 Likes
Through the site. I have restarted my lap top, but there seems to have been a hangover from yesterday, weird.
1 Like
@Badger I reject all you say about selfishness towards society, to follow that logic we must ban all dangerous sports, sky diving, mountain climbing and numerous other allowed activities. Many requiring the risking of unpaid volunteer lives rather than the professionals who are there for the purpose. I have already stated that those in the rear of cars, kids etc. should be belted to protect the lives of those in the front. That is the point, where they directly threaten other lives it should be obligatory, as a driver, my demise does not.
@Sandcastle I similarly reject your notion of dangerous dogs. There is no such thing as an inherently dangerous breed of dogs, only dogs who are dangerous, and they are common to many breeds. I have transported 100s of Dobermanns from Spain and elsewhere, precisely because they are regarded as a dangerous breed there, but not in France, and have never once been threatened by one, let alone bitten. But I have been bitten by a Terrier, a Collie and a Pyrreneen Mountain dog, non of them classed as dangerous in France, and possibly nowhere else either. The whole concept is pure nonsense.
BTW the vaccination debate is a complete red herring. I was vaccinated as soon as I could, partly because the more that are vaccinated the more that we protect others. If only to be more likely to avoid taking up beds in hospitals.
but it wonât half frighten the horses 
Fortunately, half frightening horses is not net a criminal offence. 
1 Like
Going back to the original point of the thread.
Whay on earth would one forgo the DDC. Itâs a legal requirement so the Notaire should insist that it is available but even if you trust the vendor implicitly there might be stuff they donât know about or which the previous diagnostic did not find.
If you have the information you can choose whether (or not) to act upon it. If you donât have it you might well find yourself in a position where you wish you had had it and are now stuck up the creek sans the proverbial paddle.
4 Likes
It is my understanding that the notaire handling the transaction and upon signature will ask if the buyer has seen/read the diagnostic and accepts it. The buyer can say they havenât seen it and ânot careâ. And the seller has a witness to the fact - the notaire.
If selling, youâd best be prepared to have one - and redo the property should anything serious/harmful be found. Otherwise the seller remains liable for serious defaults even if the property is sold. And, unless Iâve got this wrong, what has occurred is âillegalâ if the seller does not or cannot show the buyer the propertyâs full-diagnostic (and it must be fairly recent) âŚ
1 Like
Thatâs a bit of a joke! It is, as you say a legal requirement but after we moved in I found bare LIVE wires protruding over the front door; the same in one of the main rooms. In the garage there were electrical wires that had been cut to the underground inspection pit .
Likewise under one of the raised floors wood support was rotten. Also several of the areas in the attached had live woodwormâŚOf course NONE of this was on the diagnostic report.
OK, but I think the connection is flawed. In comparison to driving the numbers are tiny.
1 Like
could that have been done by the outgoing occupier after the inspection? It is often the case that light fittings, kitchen units etc are taken by the out goers.
Canât offer any explanation for the floor issue but should that have been dealt with on discovery through the notaire as a potential vice cache issue?
2 Likes
Not compared to the number of unsecured drivers who are hurled through the screen and kill or injure somebody else with their bodies. That is the flawed connection.
1 Like