Paul… (I can see why you might think “undecided”… but no…)
Certains présidents de départements se montrent toutefois prudents, refusant d’assumer la responsabilité d’une hausse potentielle de la mortalité routière.
The word means the same in English… be prudent…
It might not be “prudent” for these Dept Heads to take on the responsibility for a speed increase… (which is what they are worrying about… getting sued by a grieving family)
when one sees “prudence” on a road-sign… it is warning you to be wise/cautious … not to be undecided…
there’s logic… and there’s logic… depends on the language and the weather forecast…
It would have helped had I read all the way to the bottom of the page, I suppose
OK, I guess “cautious” it is. Not sure it is the best translation as the sense is “unwilling to take this responsibility” but I can’t think of a better single word.
The point is… Govt are willing to thrust the decision onto Dept Heads. Some of whom are yelling… yes, yes…
While others “are being cautious” (se montrent toutefois prudents) and refusing to assume the responsibility of a potential hike in deaths on the roads…
Can’t say I blame them… as they could be held personally liable… for future disasters…and which of us would want that hanging over us…
I can’t see that councils would be held to blame if there is an accident after they put the limit back up to 90kph. It would be a very tricky thing to show that they were liable, you’d have to be certain all vehicles was travelling between 80 and 90kph, that they would have been travelling more slowly had the limit been lower and that the incident would not have taken place had they been doing so.
And there’s hardly a huge number of councils been held liable for accidents where everyone was doing 79kph (or 89kph before the limit was reduced) on the grounds the département should have posted a lower limit.
The present situation - some in favour of putting it back up and some not could lead to the distinctly daft situation where there is a patchwork of limits and no-on is sure what speed they are supposed to stay below (I presume that, as the national limit would still be 80, individual roads would have to have a “90” sign posted - I’d have thought the expense alone would put most départements off the idea).
Hi Simon… is that for me to answer… if so… an example… drunk at the wheel 'cos he/she drank too much at a local event.
The event organiser (President Comité des Fête/Maire or whoever)… can be held responsible and can be prosecuted/fined or whatever… if they cannot show due care and responsibility or whatever the phrase is…
There have been successful cases… and this has put the wind up various Presidents etc…
The decision is a huge cop-out IMO, the speed reduction was meant to be a trial to see if it had any effect on road deaths yet after less than a year the government is pandering to popularity rather than showing strength of conviction.
I believe so, since some years ago… the then President CdF (held the post for nearly 20 years)… anyway he was in a terrible state to ensure we toed the line… 'cos someone had (at that time) been successfully “done”…
While that might be true I will refer back to my point - actually proving that the cause of an accident was uniquely due to a change in speed limit from 80 to 90 would be almost impossible.
Feeding someone that you know will drive home more alcohol is quite a different matter.
The Maire and his adjutants have to have Insurance to cover the adverse results of any decisions they make… that is certainly no urban myth…
I suspect the Dept Heads will need to up their cover … and that might well be the end of the worries for them… but it will be an extra expense on the budgetll
Stella I think we’re at odds here - I’m not questioning the fact that elected officials may be personally liable for their actions - I simply doubt any have ever been prosecuted.
Lots of rules but hardly, if ever, enforced! Système D etc etc
Re the alcohol… as always a very difficult line to draw… who knows what a person has consumed before they arrive…
We try to limit the strength of the alcohol on sale at our fairs … and put “real grown-ups” in charge of the “bar” ones we know will act responsibly and not drink the profits themselves…
Quite so… I never give guests too much to drink…that would be dreadful. I make a point of drinking most of it myself… but I don’t leave the house until I can see straight… and my head stops spinning… hic
