"Is he responsible for wanting to abandon the permit on time?"

Mathieu Flonneau is a historian at the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne, specialist in mobility and director of the AES-EDS Institute.

To discover

• Michel Houellebecq: "A civilization which legalizes euthanasia loses all rights to respect"

FIGAROVOX.

- Éric Zemmour recently proposed to abolish the point permit.

Can we really do without it?

Mathieu FLONNEAU. -

We can especially reflect on the logic that pushes a candidate, who intends to assume a now serious status of challenger in the presidential campaign, to come and speak so verbally on the long neglected social role of the automobile. The points permit has been a sensitive subject since its introduction in the early 1990s. It is clear that since then, periodic fever attacks have shaken its existence, which has nevertheless largely become commonplace. To claim to overturn the table in matters of road safety is excessively provocative and is obviously the cookie-cutter of disturbing populism at first glance. This subject does not suffer from flirting with demagoguery and irresponsibility.

Challenging the “speed chase” - radars to put it mildly - cannot be a political program.

Mathieu Flonneau

Detailed sociological analyzes testify over the course of studies of the unequal exposure of the public to road insecurity.

Here as elsewhere, acting blindly is not a guarantee of equity for so-called “at-risk” populations and knowing how to recognize the overall effectiveness of the policy of automatic sanction control should be part of the debate.

In short, contesting the “speed chase” - the radars to put it quickly - cannot be a political program.

But we will add: its symmetrical inverse cannot be either.

Accelerating no longer makes sense in itself, but neither does slowing down blindly, and the slowing down or exclusion of mobility may be perceived as excluding, divisive and vexatious.

This was the case with 80 km / h everywhere, which ended up being discriminatory and triggering a form of rural and peri-urban anger in 2018. This is therefore the relevant, even legitimate point of attachment of the remarks in question.

What is the position of the motorist unions on this issue?

Would its removal really change the daily life of motorists?

Contrary to what it seems, it is difficult to point out a univocal position among the "representatives" of "motorists" as their interests can be varied.

That the Pavlovian reflex goes in the direction of a relaxation of the rules is obvious, but that the most responsible professionals, for whom the road is a profession, call for a road pacification is also a fundamental fact of the debate.

Read also "The automotive sector is a victim of

"

In

written four hands with Jean-Pierre Orfeuil in 2016 - well before the “yellow vests” - we insisted on the necessary “new objectivity” to consider the road questions. Their role in providing opportunities for access to services and employment, at all stages of life, had to be recognized and the recent Mobility Orientation Law constituted a step forward in this area, by contrasting with the permanent and ideological archaism that reigned until then.

However, a pillar like the point license, which requires a great deal of responsibility from citizens, was not fundamentally called into question. Its abandonment would open the door to a risk of becoming savage and social regression when, in fact, what is rather desired is, as elsewhere, an increase in civility. In many areas, society demands a shock of responsibilities which, if it is poorly presented, by dint of skipping certain stages in some, risks in the end being counterproductive, including in the self-interest of that person. candidate. Coming to the uncertain ground of calling into question the rules - by abandoning the absolute respect due to them is not a message to be relayed: it would be better to recall the scandal of the non-application of certain rules, of the 'road insecurity close to delinquency due to populations without license or insurance and the incurable incivism of a few.

The speech is made "audible" by the unacceptable atmosphere of infantilization of the users.

Mathieu Flonneau

In addition, the speech is made "audible" by the unacceptable atmosphere of infantilization of the users, constantly shaken by gendarmes lying in speed bumps on moderately maintained roads, to whom it is claimed to explain and impose how to drive. In short, there are certainly limits to be remembered when it comes to the use of commercial coffee arguments, but we must also bring counterfeits to the ever more contemptuous look on motoring and road culture, taxed and repressed from the public space and debate. It is this form of unrealism disconnected from realities that explains the audience for such arguments. In an era that requires revision or even cancellation in all directions, dare to write that motoring has built a road empathy swept away nowadays by therelentlessness in first accusing, and then definitively burying the old world, is courageous.

What is the legislation of our European neighbors?

And what is the policy of countries without a license point?

Comparing oneself is always useful, but national road cultures despite converging lines of European integration remain particular.

Some neighboring countries do not have a points permit (Belgium, Sweden, Switzerland), others proceed differently, some of them withdrawing points from an initial capital as in France (Italy, Norway, Poland) , others by adding them (Germany, United Kingdom, Denmark).

What is certain is that France is no longer the bad student it was and that a "hard" phase of the system was necessary.

In this year when the national driving license ("permission", and not "right" therefore) celebrates its hundredth anniversary since it replaced the "certificate of capacity" which preceded it (May 27, 1921: Promulgation by decree of the Code of Road - Institut de France), perhaps it would be advisable to revitalize in more sustained educational terms the founding role of this "Civil Code of the Road", the objective of which is to guarantee a safe existence for each user when traveling. .

We will therefore suggest to personalities in need of singling out in their “mobility” program to insist on these points which are more unifying than dividing.