Há 16 horas
terça-feira, 30 de setembro de 2025
PS loses agreement with PSD and Chega helps approve law that reduces entry of immigrants / PS perde acordo com o PSD e Chega ajuda a aprovar lei que reduz entrada de imigrantes
Politics
PS loses
agreement with PSD and Chega helps approve law that reduces entry of immigrants
It was
even at the last minute, but it was confirmed that Chega is the Government's
ally in migration policy. Even with positions such as the defense of
remigration in the plenary, PSD rejected positions of the PS - which wanted one
year instead of two for family reunification and also the extension of the work
search visa for "essential" workers.
Amanda
Lima
Published
to:
30 Sep
2025, 19:30
At the
end of a debate in which Chega normalized remigration - mass deportation of
immigrants - and defended "the Portuguese family", André Ventura's
party provided the Government with the approval of the new Foreigners Law. The
legislation has several changes, but all with the same objective: to reduce the
entry of immigrants into Portugal. This objective translates, for example, into
making work search visas only for professionals "with high
qualifications" and restricting the right to family reunification.
In
addition to Chega, Luís Montenegro's executive had votes from the Liberal
Initiative (IL) and Together for the People (JPP). Until the last minute - from
10:30 am and until shortly after 12:00 pm, the Socialist Party (PS) met with
the Government in Parliament, but they did not reach an agreement. As José Luís
Carneiro, leader of the socialists, explained to journalists, "the
Government was not available to accept these proposals and, therefore, the
Socialist Party was not able to follow these proposals, which have now been
closed with the agreement between the Government and Chega in Parliament".
Among the
proposals that the PS suggested was to extend the work search visa to
"essential sectors", in addition to the highly qualified, as stated
in the PSD text, and to reduce from two to one year the period required to
apply for family reunification. At the same time, José Luís Carneiro assured
that he will present in Parliament these new proposals that, in his assessment,
"are good for the country".
He also
promised that he will "always have an attitude of great
responsibility" and will present a legislative proposal that corresponds
to his perspective of how to "respond to the needs that the country has
for immigrant labor", ensuring the integration of immigrants "with
all the safety and with all the guarantees for those who come".
"Yesterday I was with the CAP (Confederation of Farmers of Portugal) and I
was told that 50% of employees in agriculture are workers from other
places," he said. The deputy did not give dates for the delivery of this
proposal.
On the
other hand, the socialist leader also ruled out that there is any doubt about
the constitutionality of the text and that he does not claim to refer it to the
Constitutional Court (TC). "For us, questions of unconstitutionality were
not raised, nor will we raise this question. We now leave the matter in the
hands of the President of the Republic," he said. Livre has a different
position. Deputy Paulo Muacho, in statements after the end of the vote,
defended that the President send the text to the Ratton Palace so that there
are no doubts about the text being in accordance with the Constitution.
The other
parties did not react after the end of the vote. However, the positions were
clear in the votes and debates, especially the words of Chega. With André
Ventura absent, deputies Cristina Rodrigues and Rita Matias were the party's
spokespersons in the plenary, both defending in their speeches the mass
deportation of immigrants, the so-called remigration - and blaming immigrants
for the country's problems, such as health, education and other issues.
"There
are no vacancies in daycare centers, there is no housing, there is no security
and there is organized crime. The Portuguese are being left behind because of
the invasion we are experiencing," said Rita Matias. At the end of the
vote, Minister António Leitão Amaro preferred not to speak to the press.
Social
Democrat deputy Hugo Soares was the one who evaluated the victory "of the
Portuguese men and women" with the approval of the law. "Portugal is
no longer a country with open doors, to be a country with open doors, but with
rules. And we will be able to receive those who come to us to contribute to our
country, to our economy, in a regulated way, but at the same time in a
humanistic way, so that we can integrate those who come to us with our rules,
and in a way that everyone, today, knows what the criteria are so that they can
access our country", Highlighted.
"The
PSD and the CDS Parliamentary Group did what they had committed to the
Portuguese men and women", in a reference to the issue of immigration
having marked the agenda of the last legislative elections and the Government's
dedication to the subject. It is recalled that the first Council of Ministers
was dedicated to approving these changes, which are not yet in force because of
the lead of the Constitutional Court in August. On the occasion, the judges
rejected five points of the law, related to family reunification and access to
the courts to guarantee rights that are being denied administratively, such as
family reunification itself.
Next
steps
The
diploma now approved will be sent as soon as possible to President Marcelo
Rebelo de Sousa, who has eight days for consideration. In statements last week,
Marcelo has already signaled that he would sanction the legislation,
reinforcing that "he does not remember having vetoed or sent it a second
time to the Constitutional Court". For it to really become valid in
practice, then the document must be published in the Official Gazette (DRE),
where it will appear when it comes into force. One of the possibilities is that
it will be the day after the date of publication and the Government points out
the rush to see the law in practice.
amanda.lima@dn.pt
Política
PS perde
acordo com o PSD e Chega ajuda a aprovar lei que reduz entrada de imigrantes
Foi mesmo
à última da hora, mas confirmou-se que o Chega é o aliado do Governo na
política migratória. Mesmo com posições como a defesa da remigração no
plenário, PSD rejeitou posições do PS - que queria um ano em vez de dois para o
reagrupamento familiar e ainda a extensão do visto de procura de trabalho para
trabalhadores “essenciais”.
Amanda
Lima
Publicado
a:
30 Set
2025, 19:30
No final
de um debate em que o Chega normalizou a remigração - deportação em massa de
imigrantes - e defendeu “a família portuguesa”, o partido de André Ventura
proporcionou ao Governo a aprovação da nova Lei dos Estrangeiros. A legislação
possui várias alterações, mas todas com o mesmo objetivo: reduzir a entrada de
imigrantes em Portugal. Este objetivo está traduzido, por exemplo, em tornar os
vistos de procura de trabalho somente para profissionais “com elevadas
qualificações” e restringir o direito ao reagrupamento familiar.
Além do
Chega, o executivo de Luís Montenegro contou com votos da Iniciativa Liberal
(IL) e do Juntos pelo Povo (JPP). Até a última da hora - das 10h30 e até pouco
depois das 12h00, o Partido Socialista (PS) esteve reunido com o Governo no
Parlamento, mas não chegaram a acordo. Segundo explicou aos jornalistas José
Luís Carneiro, líder dos socialistas, “o Governo não esteve disponível para
aceitar estas propostas e, portanto, o Partido Socialista não tinha condições
para acompanhar estas propostas, que agora foram fechadas com o acordo entre o
Governo e o Chega no Parlamento”.
Entre as
propostas que o PS sugeriu estava o de alargar o visto de procura de trabalho
para “setores essenciais”, além dos altamente qualificados, como consta no
texto do PSD, e reduzir de dois para um ano o período necessário para solicitar
o reagrupamento familiar. Ao mesmo tempo, José Luís Carneiro garantiu que vai
apresentar no Parlamento estas novas propostas que, em sua avaliação, “são boas
para o país”.
Ainda
prometeu que terá “sempre uma atitude de grande responsabilidade” e apresentará
uma proposta legislativa que corresponde à sua perspetiva de como se deve
“responder às necessidades que o país tem de mão de obra imigrante” assegurando
a integração dos imigrantes “com toda a segurança e com todas as garantias para
quem vem”. “Eu ontem estive com a CAP (Confederação dos Agricultores de
Portugal) e foi-me dito que 50% dos assalariados na agricultura são
trabalhadores vindos de outras paragens”, referiu. O deputado não deu datas
sobre a entrega desta proposta.
Por outro
lado, o líder socialista também afastou que exista alguma dúvida sobre a
constitucionalidade do texto e que não reivindica o reenvio ao Tribunal
Constitucional (TC). “Para nós, não se colocaram questões de
inconstitucionalidade, nem colocaremos essa questão. Deixamos agora o assunto
nas mãos do senhor Presidente da República”, disse. Posição diferente tem o
Livre. O deputado Paulo Muacho, em declarações após o fim da votação, defendeu
que o Presidente envie o texto ao Palácio Ratton para que não restem dúvidas
sobre o texto estar de acordo com a Constituição.
Os outros
partidos não reagiram após o fim da votação. No entanto, as posições ficaram
claras nos votos e nos debates, em especial as palavras do Chega. Com André
Ventura ausente, as deputadas Cristina Rodrigues e Rita Matias foram as
porta-vozes do partido no plenário, ambas a defender nos discursos a deportação
em massa de imigrantes, a chamada remigração - e a culpar os imigrantes por
problemas do país, como saúde, educação e outras questões.
“Não há
vagas nas creches, não há habitação, não há segurança e há crime organizado. Os
portugueses estão a ficar para trás por causa da invasão que vivemos”, disse
Rita Matias. No final da votação, o ministro António Leitão Amaro preferiu não
falar com a imprensa.
O
deputado social-democrata Hugo Soares foi quem avaliou a vitória “dos
portugueses e das portuguesas” com a aprovação da lei. “Portugal deixou de ser,
hoje, um país de portas escancaradas, para ser um país de portas abertas, mas
com regras. E nós vamos poder receber quem nos procura para contribuir para o
nosso país, para a nossa economia, de forma regulada, mas ao mesmo tempo de uma
forma humanista, para podermos integrar quem nos procura com as nossas regras,
e de uma forma que toda a gente, hoje, sabe quais são os critérios para que
possam aceder ao nosso país”, destacou.
“O PSD e
o Grupo Parlamentar do CDS fez aquilo com que se tinha comprometido com as
portuguesas e os portugueses”, numa referência ao tema da imigração ter marcado
a agenda das últimas eleições legislativas e a dedicação do Governo ao tema.
Recorda-se que o primeiro Conselho de Ministros foi dedicado a aprovar estas
alterações, que só ainda não estão em vigor por causa do chumbo do Tribunal
Constitucional em agosto. Na ocasião, os juízes chumbaram cinco pontos da lei,
relacionados com o reagrupamento familiar e com o acesso aos tribunais para
garantia dos direitos que estão a ser negados de forma administrativa, como o
próprio reagrupamento familiar.
Próximos
passos
O diploma
agora aprovado será enviado com a maior brevidade ao Presidente Marcelo Rebelo
de Sousa, que tem oito dias para apreciação. Em declarações na semana passada,
Marcelo já sinalizou que sancionaria a legislação, reforçando que “não se
lembra de ter vetado ou mandado uma segunda vez para o Tribunal
Constitucional”. Para que realmente passe a valer na prática, depois é preciso
que o documento seja publicado em Diário da República (DRE), onde constará
quando entra em vigor. Uma das possibilidades é que seja já no dia seguinte à
data da publicação e o Governo assinala a pressa em ver a lei na prática.
amanda.lima@dn.pt
What was in Trump and Hegseth's astonishing speeches to US top military brass?
From 28m
ago
11.55 EDT
What was
in Trump and Hegseth's astonishing speeches to US top military brass?
Here’s a
roundup of what was in those astonishing speeches we just heard delivered to a
mostly silent audience of top US military leaders by defense secretary Pete
Hegseth and Donald Trump.
Hegseth
announced that the military will require combatants to meet the “highest male
standard” in physical fitness tests. He acknowledged that this may exclude some
women from serving. “Standards must be uniform, gender neutral, and high,” he
said, and if that meant some women didn’t qualify, “it is what it is.”
He
ordered officers to focus on physical appearance and fitness, attacking what he
called the “tiring” sight of “fat troops” and “fat generals and admirals”.
“It’s a bad look,” he said, adding that he was upping physical fitness testing
to twice a year.
He also
said this was an end to the “era of unprofessional appearances” and announced
that officers could no longer have beards.
Hegseth
vowed an end to diversity efforts and wanting to usher in a change to the
“politically correct” culture of the military – which had made the DOD “the
woke department” – and have a greater focus on “warrior ethos”. “We’re ending
the war on warriors,” he said.
Rallying
against “woke”, he said they were “fixing decades of decay” by doing away with
DEI programs, and ending the promotion of a “risk-averse” officer corps. He
said troops had been distracted by political correctness, racial quotas,
climate change, “gender delusions”, “woke garbage” and fears of being labeled
as “toxic” leaders.
He said
the department would review its definitions of “toxic”, “bullying” and “hazing”
“to empower leaders to enforce standards without fear of retribution or second
guessing”. “The era of politically correct, overly sensitive,
don’t-hurt-anyone’s-feelings leadership ends right now,” the defense secretary
said.
He
announced wider departmental changes including ending anonymous complaints
procedures. He said the DOD’s Inspector General’s Office (which is
investigating him over Signalgate) would be “overhauled” as it had created a
culture of “walking on eggshells” and had been “weaponized, putting
complainers, ideologues and poor performers in the driver’s seat”. “No more
frivolous complaints, no more anonymous complaints, no more repeat complaints,
no more smearing reputations, no more endless waiting, no more legal limbo, no
more sidetracking careers, no more walking on eggshells,” he said.
He
justified his previous firing of senior commanders, saying that he went with
“his gut” and got rid of those he believed wouldn’t shift away from policies
set in previous administrations. He ominously added that he was certain more
leadership changes would be made.
He told
leadership that if the new standards he has unveiled makes their “hearts sink”
then they should “do the honorable thing and resign”.
In an at
times free-wheeling speech, Donald Trump commented on the remarkable silence in
the room before picking up on a number of these points, saying: “We went
through political correct where you had to have people who were totally unfit
to be doing what you’re doing,” he said. “Now it’s all based on merit.”
Trump
told his top military leadership that the US faced “a war from within”.
Repeating his criticisms of Democrat-led US cities, claiming “they’re very
unsafe places and we’re going to straighten them out one by one”, he added that
“this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room”.
He said
so-called “dangerous cities” should be used as “training grounds” for military
troops and the national guard. He suggested they were “going into Chicago very
soon” and said Portland, Oregon “looks like a war zone” [residents have said
this is “entirely divorced from reality”].
He said
that Hegseth will soon announce “major reforms to streamline military
acquisitions and expedite foreign military sales”, as many countries want to
buy US military equipment but it needs to be made faster.
Trump
also said he’s contemplating making the military “larger” and his
administration plans to make “more historic announcements” in the coming months
to “fully embrace the identity of the Department of War”.
Americans’ Support for Israel Dramatically Declines, Times/Siena Poll Finds
Americans’
Support for Israel Dramatically Declines, Times/Siena Poll Finds
A
majority of American voters now oppose sending additional economic and military
aid to Israel, a stunning reversal in public opinion since the Oct. 7, 2023,
attacks.
By Lisa
Lerer and Ruth Igielnik
Sept. 29,
2025
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/09/29/polls/israel-gaza-war-us-poll.html
Nearly
two years into the war in Gaza, American support for Israel has undergone a
seismic reversal, with large shares of voters expressing starkly negative views
about the Israeli government’s management of the conflict, a new poll from The
New York Times and Siena University found.
Disapproval
of the war appears to have prompted a striking reassessment by American voters
of their broader sympathies in the decades-old conflict in the region, with
slightly more voters siding with Palestinians over Israelis for the first time
since The Times began asking voters about their sympathies in 1998.
In the
aftermath of the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, American voters
broadly sympathized with Israelis over Palestinians, with 47 percent siding
with Israel and 20 percent with Palestinians. In the new poll, 34 percent said
they sided with Israel and 35 percent with Palestinians. Thirty-one percent
said they were unsure or backed both equally.
A
majority of American voters now oppose sending additional economic and military
aid to Israel, a stunning reversal in public opinion since the Oct. 7 attacks.
About six out of 10 voters said that Israel should end its military campaign,
even if the remaining Israeli hostages were not released or Hamas was not
eliminated. And 40 percent of voters said Israel was intentionally killing
civilians in Gaza, nearly double the number of voters who agreed with that
statement in the 2023 poll.
Taken
together, the findings in the Times/Siena survey show a major deterioration in
support for a staunch American ally that has enjoyed decades of bipartisan
backing. The drop is an unusually large shift in public opinion in this
hyper-polarized era, when public opinion has tended to move incrementally over
long periods unless affected by cataclysmic events such as war.
Austin
Mugleston, a Democrat from Blackfoot, Idaho, said his views on U.S. support for
Israel had weakened as the conflict dragged on.
“I
actually was pretty pro-Israel the last few years, especially hearing about the
devastating terrorist night of Oct. 7,” said Mr. Mugleston, 33, who works in
communications. “Nobody should go through that. But for how long it’s taking
and from how much worse Israel is doing to Palestinians, it just doesn’t feel
like a level playing field anymore.”
The
survey also hints at challenges for the U.S.-Israel alliance in the future.
Israel has been the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign aid since its
founding in 1948, receiving hundreds of billions of dollars in support.
Want to
stay updated on what’s happening in Israel and the West Bank and Gaza Strip?
Sign up for Your Places: Global Update, and we’ll send our latest coverage to
your inbox.
Younger
voters, regardless of party, were less likely to back continuing that support.
Nearly seven in 10 voters under 30 said they opposed additional economic or
military aid.
Much of
the shift in views on Israel has been driven by a sharp decline in support by
Democratic voters. Republicans largely continue to support Israel, though there
has been a modest decline.
Nearly
two years ago, Democrats were evenly divided, with 34 percent sympathizing with
Israel and 31 percent with Palestinians. Now, rank-and-file Democrats across
the country overwhelmingly side with Palestinians — 54 percent said they
sympathized more with Palestinians, while only 13 percent expressed greater
empathy for Israel.
More than
eight in 10 Democrats said Israel should stop the war even if the country had
not achieved its goals, a notable increase from the roughly 60 percent who said
the same two years ago.
Nearly
six in 10 Democrats believe Israel is intentionally killing civilians, double
the share who said the same in 2023.
Shannon
Carey, 39, a Democrat from a suburb of Hartford, Conn., said the Israeli
government’s response to the initial Oct. 7 attacks had become “unreasonable.”
She said she would like the United States to stop supplying Israel with
military and financial support because it was funding a “humanitarian crisis.”
“As a
mother, seeing those children is horrifying,” Ms. Carey, a physician assistant,
said. “This isn’t a war. It’s a genocide.”
The
biggest movement within the Democratic Party has come from an unexpected place:
White, college-educated, older Democrats who have become the backbone of the
party in recent elections. Younger Democrats and Democrats without a college
education were already much more sympathetic to Palestinians when the conflict
began nearly two years ago.
In 2023,
Democratic voters ages 45 and up sympathized with Israel over Palestinians
2-to-1. That is now reversed, with 42 percent saying they sympathize more with
Palestinians, compared with 17 percent who feel more sympathetic toward Israel.
Patti
West, 67, a retiree from Central Florida, said she had long considered herself
a strong supporter of U.S. involvement in the region. She struggled with the
idea of stopping aid, but came to believe it wasn’t helping end the conflict.
“Why do
we keep funding this?” Ms. West, a Democrat, said. “This has been going since I
was kid, and it’s still going on.” She added, “They are going to hate each
other forever.”
Diminished
backing for Israel among white Democrats was also more pronounced than shifts
among nonwhite Democrats. Nonwhite Democrats were already more sympathetic to
Palestinians when the conflict began.
Former
President Joseph R. Biden Jr. faced fierce criticism of his support for Israel
during his term, including disruptive protests that continued even as he
increasingly took a harder stance with Israel’s government.
Republican
voters, by contrast, largely back President Trump.
As
multiple Western countries have moved to recognize a Palestinian state, Mr.
Trump has placed little separation between himself and Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu.
Seven in
10 Republicans said they supported providing additional aid to Israel. A
majority of Republicans said Israel should continue the military campaign until
all hostages were released, even if it meant civilian casualties. And 47
percent said that the Israeli military was taking enough precautions to prevent
civilian deaths.
“The
Israelis can pretty much fend for themselves and take care of it, but we have
to make sure no one comes up on them,” said Edward Johnson, 51, a
self-described conservative from Minneapolis who voted for Mr. Trump.
Yet even
Republican support has fallen, albeit by significantly less.
Republicans
still sympathize with Israel more than Palestinians, 64 percent to 9 percent.
But those numbers indicate a drop in support of 12 percentage points since
2023, when 76 percent sided with Israel.
About a
third of Republicans said Israel’s military was not taking enough action to
prevent civilian deaths.
Mason
Northrup, 29, a Trump supporter from St. Louis, said he supported the Israeli
military but would like to see the president decrease American involvement in
the conflict.
“He needs
to back off a little bit because the Israelis are capable of pulling off some
pretty crazy stuff,” Mr. Northrup said of Mr. Trump. “We should let them fight
their own war.”
This poll
was conducted in English and Spanish, by telephone using live interviewers and
by text message. Overall, 99 percent of respondents were contacted on their
cellphone. You can see the exact questions that were asked and the order in
which they were asked here.
Voters
are selected for the survey from a list of registered voters. The list contains
information on the demographic characteristics of every registered voter,
allowing us to make sure we reach the right number of voters of each party,
race and region. For this poll, interviewers placed more than 152,000 calls or
texts to more than 56,000 voters.
To
further ensure that the results reflect the entire voting population, not just
those willing to take a poll, we give more weight to respondents from
demographic groups that are underrepresented among survey respondents, like
people without a college degree. You can see more information about the
characteristics of respondents and the weighted sample at the bottom of the
results and methodology page, under “Composition of the Sample.”
The
margin of sampling error among the electorate that is likely to vote in
November is about plus or minus 3.2 percentage points. In theory, this means
that the results should reflect the views of the overall population most of the
time, though many other challenges create additional sources of error.
You can
see full results and a detailed methodology here. If you want to read more
about how and why the Times/Siena Poll is conducted, you can see answers to
frequently asked questions and submit your own questions here.
Lisa
Lerer is a national political reporter for The Times, based in New York. She
has covered American politics for nearly two decades.
Ruth
Igielnik is a Times polling editor who conducts polls and analyzes and reports
on the results.
The growing popularity of fat bikes, especially among young people, leads to serious road safety concerns due to their high speeds and the risk of "ramping up".
The
growing popularity of fat bikes, especially among young people, leads to
serious road safety concerns due to their high speeds and the risk of
"ramping up". Many fat bikes are illegally modified to ride faster,
leading to dangerous situations, more emergency room accidents, and legal
problems, because the bike is then an illegal motor vehicle and is not covered
by insurance. There is broad support for stricter regulations, such as a
minimum age and helmet requirement, and municipalities and police are taking a
stricter approach to souped-up fat bikes.
Why are
there concerns?
High
Speed:
Fat bikes
can reach high speeds due to their heavy build and electric assistance, which
can be dangerous on bike paths.
Act:
Many fat
bikes are illegally boosted by removing a speed limiter or adding a throttle,
allowing them to reach speeds of 40 km/h or more without pedaling.
Insecurity:
The
components of a fat bike, such as the frame and brakes, are not always suitable
for the higher speeds of souped-up bikes.
Consequences
for road safety:
More
accidents:
VeiligheidNL
sees an increase in the number of treatments in the Emergency Room after
traffic accidents with fat bikes, especially among young people.
Serious
injury:
Accidents
with fat bikes can have serious consequences, partly because there is no helmet
requirement, as is the case with scooters.
Legal and
insurance issues:
Illegal
vehicle:
A
souped-up fat bike is an illegal motor vehicle and is not allowed on the road.
No
insurance:
In the
event of an accident with a souped-up fat bike, the owner is not insured, which
means that this person is held liable for all damage, including personal
injury.
Possible
criminal consequences:
Souped-up
fat bikes can be confiscated and fines can lead to a criminal record entry.
Measures
and regulations:
Strong
support for regulation:
Broad
support from society and experts for the introduction of stricter rules.
Clear
rules:
The
Ministry of Infrastructure and Water Management has announced a ban on
souped-up fat bikes.
Police
checkpoints:
The
police are announcing stricter controls and are considering an age limit for
the use of fat bikes.
Discussion
about helmet requirement:
Although
there is no helmet requirement for fat bikes yet, this is being discussed as a
possible measure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
De
groeiende populariteit van fatbikes, vooral onder jongeren, leidt tot ernstige
verkeersveiligheidszorgen vanwege hun hoge snelheden en het risico op
"opvoeren". Veel fatbikes worden illegaal aangepast om harder te
kunnen rijden, wat leidt tot gevaarlijke situaties, meer ongevallen op de
spoedeisende hulp en juridische problemen, omdat de fiets dan een illegaal
motorvoertuig is en niet gedekt is door een verzekering. Er is brede steun voor
strengere regelgeving, zoals een minimumleeftijd en helmplicht, en gemeenten en
politie pakken opgevoerde fatbikes strenger aan.
Waarom
zijn er zorgen?
Hoge
snelheid:
Fatbikes
kunnen door hun zware bouw en elektrische ondersteuning hoge snelheden
bereiken, wat gevaarlijk kan zijn op fietspaden.
Opvoeren:
Veel
fatbikes worden illegaal opgevoerd door een snelheidsbegrenzer te verwijderen
of een gashendel toe te voegen, waardoor ze zonder te trappen snelheden van 40
km/u of meer halen.
Onveiligheid:
De
onderdelen van een fatbike, zoals het frame en de remmen, zijn niet altijd
geschikt voor de hogere snelheden van opgevoerde fietsen.
Gevolgen
voor verkeersveiligheid:
Meer
ongevallen:
VeiligheidNL
ziet een toename van het aantal behandelingen op de Spoedeisende Hulp na
verkeersongevallen met fatbikes, met name onder jongeren.
Ernstig
letsel:
Ongelukken
met fatbikes kunnen ernstige gevolgen hebben, mede omdat er geen helmplicht is,
zoals bij scooters wel het geval is.
Juridische
en verzekeringsproblemen:
Illegaal
voertuig:
Een
opgevoerde fatbike is een illegaal motorvoertuig en mag de weg niet op.
Geen
verzekering:
Bij een
ongeluk met een opgevoerde fatbike is de eigenaar niet verzekerd, waardoor deze
persoon aansprakelijk wordt gesteld voor alle schade, inclusief letselschade.
Mogelijk
strafrechtelijke gevolgen:
Opgevoerde
fatbikes kunnen in beslag worden genomen en boetes kunnen leiden tot een
aantekening op het strafblad.
Maatregelen
en regelgeving:
Grote
steun voor regelgeving:
Brede
steun vanuit de maatschappij en experts voor het invoeren van strengere regels.
Duidelijke
regels:
Het
ministerie van Infrastructuur en Waterstaat heeft een verbod op opgevoerde
fatbikes aangekondigd.
Politiecontroles:
De
politie kondigt strengere controles aan en overweegt een leeftijdsgrens voor
het gebruik van fatbikes.
Discussie
over helmplicht:
Hoewel er
nog geen helmplicht is voor fatbikes, wordt dit wel besproken als mogelijke
maatregel.
Fat bikes aren't the problem – it's the bad kids who ride them / Fatbikes zijn niet het probleem – het zijn de rotjochies die erop rijden
Fat bikes
aren't the problem – it's the bad kids who ride them
Inland
•
12 Jul ,
9:00
The
Netherlands is desperately looking for ways to tackle the nuisance caused by
souped-up fat bikes. Municipalities such as Enschede, Almelo and Nijkerk are
looking at bans, speed limits or even technical requirements. But all that
twisting and tinkering in the regulations avoids the core of the problem: it's
not the bikes, it's the users.
And that
is what the debate should be about. Not about tire thickness or saddle shape.
But about the behavior of an ever-growing group of young people – mostly pearls
of opportunity, but certainly not alone – who behave on fat bikes like little
dictators of the street.
Street
terror on two wheels
What you
hear in every neighborhood – from Amsterdam to Almelo, from Enschede to
Emmeloord – is that the behavior of these young people is deliberately
intimidating. They race through parks, tear through shopping streets, don't
give an inch to the elderly or small children, and use their fat bike as an
extension of their ego.
In
Amsterdam, a woman with child was driven off the path by two teenagers on a
souped-up fat bike. In Harderwijk, Almelo and Enschede, the same stories can be
heard: name-calling, threats and harsh antisocial behavior. And no one dares to
say anything, because before you know it you get a slap or a knife.
But no,
according to policymakers, the problem lies in "Chinese junk bikes"
and "the legal definition of an e-bike".
Wake up.
The problem is behavior. Not technique.
Of
course, there are technical flaws. Many fat bikes have been tuned up illegally,
reach 40 km/h, and fall apart after a few months of misery. But that doesn't
say anything about the fat bike itself – it says everything about the posture
of the user.
The same
young people who don't care about rules are just as likely to ride a scooter, a
souped-up e-bike or – if they could – a stolen car. The means of transport is
symptom. The behavior is a clinical picture.
So you
can ban fat bikes until you weigh an ounce. But then the problems just move to
the next toy. The problem is social. Cultural. Educational. And yes, also
politically.
What is
The Hague doing in the meantime? Nothing. A year after the introduction of the
helmet requirement for mopeds, there are still no clear regulations for fat
bikes. Municipalities are left to their own devices, and are then told that
their local approach is "legally untenable".
Amsterdam
tried it in parks. Failed. Enschede is now trying to do it in the center.
Success is doubted. Because a fat bike is technically just a bicycle, and
therefore unprohibitable.
But do
you know what is possible? Tackling behavior. Stepping up supervision. Punish
street terror. And not only when there are casualties, but preventively.
Dare to
have the real debate
As long
as we continue to pretend that it is the fault of the bicycle, we will continue
to mop the floor with the tap open. It is time for the media, politicians and
administrators to stop circumventing the truth. The problem is no frame, no
'imaging', and certainly no technology.
The
problem is behavior. And anyone who justifies or trivializes that behavior is
partly responsible.
So yes,
close supervision of fat bikes is fine. But that doesn't solve anything if you
don't dare to address the underlying problem. And that is: young people, often
already derailed, who don't care about authority and decency – and who
terrorize our neighborhoods with fat bikes and middle fingers.
Fatbikes
zijn niet het probleem – het zijn de rotjochies die erop rijden
Binnenland
•
12 jul ,
9:00
Nederland
zoekt wanhopig naar manieren om de overlast van opgevoerde fatbikes aan te
pakken. Gemeenten als Enschede, Almelo en Nijkerk kijken naar verboden,
snelheidslimieten of zelfs technische eisen. Maar al dat gedraai en geknutsel
in de regelgeving mijdt de kern van het probleem: het zijn niet de fietsen, het
zijn de gebruikers.
En daar
moet het debat over gaan. Niet over banddikte of zadelvorm. Maar over het
gedrag van een steeds grotere groep jongeren – veelal kansenparels, maar zeker
niet alleen – die zich op fatbikes gedragen als kleine dictators van de straat.
Straatterreur
op twee wielen
Wat je in
élke wijk hoort – van Amsterdam tot Almelo, van Enschede tot Emmeloord – is dat
het gedrag van deze jongeren bewust intimiderend is. Ze racen door parken,
scheuren door winkelstraten, wijken geen centimeter voor ouderen of kleine
kinderen, en gebruiken hun fatbike als verlengstuk van hun ego.
In
Amsterdam werd een vrouw met kind van het pad gereden door twee pubers op een
opgevoerde fatbike. In Harderwijk, Almelo en Enschede klinken dezelfde
verhalen: scheldpartijen, bedreigingen en keiharde asociaal gedrag. En niemand
durft iets te zeggen, want voor je het weet krijg je een klap of een mes.
Maar nee,
volgens beleidsmakers ligt het probleem in “Chinese broddelbikes” en “de
juridische definitie van een e-bike”.
Wake up.
Het probleem is gedrag. Niet techniek.
Natuurlijk
zijn er technische gebreken. Veel fatbikes zijn illegaal opgevoerd, halen 40
km/u, en vallen na een paar maanden van ellende uit elkaar. Maar dat zegt nog
niets over de fatbike zelf – dat zegt alles over de houding van de gebruiker.
Dezelfde
jongeren die lak hebben aan regels, rijden net zo goed op een scooter, een
opgevoerde e-bike of – als ze konden – een gestolen auto. Het vervoersmiddel is
symptoom. Het gedrag is ziektebeeld.
Je kunt
dus fatbikes verbieden tot je een ons weegt. Maar dan verplaatsen de problemen
zich gewoon naar het volgende speeltje. Het probleem is sociaal. Cultureel.
Opvoedkundig. En ja, ook politiek.
Wat doet
Den Haag ondertussen? Helemaal niets. Een jaar na de invoering van de
helmplicht voor brommers is er nog steeds géén duidelijke regelgeving voor
fatbikes. Gemeenten worden aan hun lot overgelaten, en krijgen dan te horen dat
hun lokale aanpak “juridisch onhoudbaar” is.
Amsterdam
probeerde het in parken. Mislukt. Enschede probeert het nu in het centrum.
Succes wordt betwijfeld. Want een fatbike is technisch gewoon een fiets, en dus
onverbiedbaar.
Maar weet
u wat wél kan? Gedrag aanpakken. Toezicht opvoeren. Straatterreur bestraffen.
En niet pas als er slachtoffers vallen, maar preventief.
Durf het
échte debat te voeren
Zolang we
blijven doen alsof het aan de fiets ligt, blijven we dweilen met de kraan open.
Het is tijd dat media, politiek en bestuurders ophouden met het omzeilen van de
waarheid. Het probleem is geen frame, geen 'beeldvorming', en al helemaal geen
technologie.
Het
probleem is gedrag. En wie dat gedrag goedpraat of bagatelliseert, is
medeverantwoordelijk.
Dus ja,
scherp toezicht op fatbikes is prima. Maar dat lost niets op als je het
achterliggende probleem niet durft aan te kaarten. En dat is: jonge mensen,
vaak al ontspoord, die lak hebben aan gezag en fatsoen – en die met fatbike en
middelvinger onze wijken terroriseren.
Growing concerns about fat bikes / Groeiende zorgen over fatbikes
Growing
concerns about fat bikes
Kees
Bakker
Published
on:July 18, 2024
https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/groeiende-zorgen-over-fatbikes/
The fat
bike is extremely popular. Since you are required to wear a helmet on a moped
(from January 1, 2023), many people buy a fat bike as an alternative. But not
only scooter riders choose this, the fat bike also has an attraction for
children. This creates life-threatening situations.
VeiligheidNL
sees that more and more children are involved in accidents with fat bikes.
Recent figures show that more than half of the victims of fat bike accidents
are children between the ages of 10 and 14. This is often because fat bikes go
way too fast.
A fat
bike can easily be boosted (for example via an app) and thus rides faster than
the permitted 25 kilometers per hour. RTL News shows in this video how easy it
is to boost a popular Chinese fat bike. You just have to adjust the settings to
increase the speed to over 40 kilometers per hour. Driving faster causes more
accidents and makes cycling less safe. Souped-up fat bikes are dangerous for
the drivers themselves, but also for passengers on the back and other road
users.
5
questions for Kees Bakker
What is
the problem with the fat bike? Is the fat bike suitable for children? Kees
Bakker, consumer information officer of the Fietsersbond, answers 5 questions
about fat bikes.
Kees
Bakker, also known as TestKees
What is
the problem with the fat bike?
"A
fat bike is often just a 'cheating scooter'. If a fat bike complies with the
rules for electric bicycles, there is basically nothing wrong. Unfortunately,
this is often not the case. Many fat bikes are boosted by removing the speed
limiter or by putting a throttle on it, eliminating the need for pedaling
altogether.
A
souped-up fat bike is an illegal motor vehicle and is not allowed on the road.
Not even with a helmet and driver's license. In addition, many fat bikes have a
more powerful motor than the permitted 250 watts, often as much as 750 watts,
which makes them even more dangerous when the limit is removed."
Electric
bicycle or motor vehicle?
An
electric bike must meet three characteristics:
The motor
only works when you pedal along
The motor
delivers a maximum of 250 watts
The
support stops at 25 km per hour
If an
electric bicycle does not meet these characteristics, it is an illegal motor
vehicle and the bicycle is not allowed on the road.
This is
often the case with fat bikes:
Some fat
bikes have a throttle, so you don't have to pedal to move forward
Fat bikes
often have more powerful motors than 250 watts, allowing you to accelerate
quickly
If the
limit is removed, the fat bike can go much faster than 25 km per hour
What
happens if you hit the road with a souped-up fat bike?
"If
you take to the road with a souped-up fat bike, you risk a fine of € 310. The
next time you are arrested, you will not get off with a fine, but the police
can confiscate the fat bike. In addition, you can also be fined for driving
around uninsured on a motor vehicle: €495 in 2024. If you don't have a driver's
license, another €430 can be added. It is also an offence for which a penalty
order is issued. Paying the penalty order will result in a note on your
criminal record if you are over 11 years old.
If you
cause an accident with a souped-up fat bike, you are not insured. Your
liability insurance does not cover the damage. You risk being held personally
liable for all damages, including personal injury and property damage. This
often results in long and far-reaching legal proceedings. Parents can also be
held liable for damage caused by their children up to the age of 15.
Awareness
among parents is therefore very important; Don't let your child ride a
souped-up fat bike."
Fat bikes
are popular with a young target group. Does the Fietsersbond think a fat bike
is suitable for children?
"Fat
bikes allow you to ride very fast, which is dangerous for young children who
have not yet developed the necessary skills and judgment to ride safely. They
are insufficiently able to properly assess risks. Also, fat bikes are usually
larger and heavier than regular bikes, which makes them difficult for children
to handle. In addition, children are often distracted by each other when they
are on a fat bike together.
The
Fietsersbond is therefore not in favor of fat bikes for children. Distances of
up to 10 kilometers can be covered on a bike without assistance. Parents should
think carefully before letting their children ride a fat bike. Isn't it much
safer, healthier and more fun to just pedal yourself?"
Is
setting a minimum age a good idea?
"Setting
a minimum age is a difficult issue. A fat bike is an electric bicycle. A
minimum age for a fat bike therefore also applies to all electric bicycles. For
young people in rural areas who have to cycle more than 10 kilometers to
secondary school, an electric bicycle is often a solution. These children are
the victims of a minimum age and we don't want that. We support a study into
setting a minimum age of 12 for electric bicycles. After all, children of
primary school age do not have to cycle that far to school.
The
Fietsersbond believes it is important that the sale of easy-to-boost e-bikes is
banned. And that stricter action is taken against the ramping up of electric
bicycles, such as the fat bike. Finally, we call on parents to take their
responsibility: don't let your child ride a souped-up fat bike!"
How do
you see the future of the fat bike?
"It
can go either way. The electric bike, in all its forms, is here to stay. Now
the fat bike is in the spotlight, but in a while it may be a different model.
The fat bike must now meet the same characteristics as an electric bicycle,
while the motor has different characteristics. This needs to be investigated.
If the fat bike ends up in a different category of vehicles, different
requirements may be set. It is now up to the House of Representatives and the
minister.
The
Cyclists' Union is committed to strong enforcement of souped-up fat bikes on
the road to increase road safety. We argue for serious research into the
question of whether the fat bike can become a different category of vehicle. At
the same time, we argue for stricter control of fat bikes imported to the
Netherlands and better regulation of sales. This way you ensure that fat bikes
offered in webshops and stores at least meet the characteristics of electric
bicycles.
Above
all, the Cyclists' Union argues for an information campaign about the dangers
of (souped-up) fat bikes, aimed at both parents and children."
What does
the Fietsersbond think of the fat bike?
The
Cyclists' Union is concerned about fat bikes. Fat bikes are legally ordinary
electric bikes, but are often modified to go faster. For example, many fat
bikes are boosted by removing the speed limit or by putting a throttle on it.
This leads to dangerous situations and accidents for both the (often young)
driver, the person sitting on the back and other road users.
A
souped-up fat bike is an illegal motor vehicle and is not allowed on the road.
Liability insurance does not cover damage caused: the driver is not insured.
Groeiende
zorgen over fatbikes
Kees
Bakker
Gepubliceerd
op:18 juli 2024
https://www.fietsersbond.nl/nieuws/groeiende-zorgen-over-fatbikes/
De
fatbike is razend populair. Sinds je op een snorscooter verplicht een helm moet
dragen (vanaf 1 januari 2023), kopen veel mensen een fatbike als alternatief.
Maar niet alleen scooterrijders kiezen hiervoor, ook op kinderen heeft de
fatbike aantrekkingskracht. Dit zorgt voor levensgevaarlijke situaties.
VeiligheidNL
ziet dat steeds meer kinderen betrokken zijn bij ongelukken met fatbikes.
Recente cijfers laten zien dat meer dan de helft van de slachtoffers van
fatbike-ongelukken kinderen tussen de 10 en 14 jaar zijn. Dit komt vaak omdat
fatbikes veel te hard gaan.
Een
fatbike kan gemakkelijk worden opgevoerd (bijvoorbeeld via een app) en rijdt zo
sneller dan de toegestane 25 kilometer per uur. RTL Nieuws laat in deze video
zien hoe eenvoudig het is om een populaire Chinese fatbike op te voeren. Je
hoeft alleen maar de instellingen aan te passen om de snelheid te verhogen naar
dik 40 kilometer per uur. Harder rijden zorgt voor meer ongelukken en maakt
fietsen minder veilig. Opgevoerde fatbikes zijn gevaarlijk voor de bestuurders
zelf, maar ook voor passagiers achterop en andere verkeersdeelnemers.
5 vragen
aan Kees Bakker
Wat is
het probleem met de fatbike? Is de fatbike geschikt voor kinderen? Kees Bakker,
consumentenvoorlichter van de Fietsersbond, geeft antwoord op 5 vragen over
fatbikes.
Kees
Bakker, ook wel bekend als TestKees
Wat is
het probleem met de fatbike?
“Een
fatbike is vaak gewoon een ‘sjoemelscooter’. Als een fatbike voldoet aan de
regels voor elektrische fietsen is er in principe niets mis. Helaas is dit
regelmatig niet het geval. Veel fatbikes worden opgevoerd door de
snelheidsbegrenzing te verwijderen of door er een gashendel op te zetten,
waardoor trappen helemaal niet meer nodig is.
Een
opgevoerde fatbike is een illegaal motorvoertuig en mag de weg niet op. Zelfs
niet met helm en rijbewijs. Daarnaast hebben veel fatbikes een krachtigere
motor dan de toegestane 250 watt, vaak wel 750 watt, wat ze, als de begrenzing
eraf is, nog gevaarlijker maakt.”
Elektrische
fiets of motorvoertuig?
Een
elektrische fiets moet aan drie kenmerken voldoen:
De motor
werkt alleen als je mee trapt
De motor
levert maximaal 250 watt
De
ondersteuning stopt bij 25 km per uur
Voldoet
een elektrische fiets niet aan deze kenmerken, dan is het een illegaal
motorvoertuig en mag de fiets de weg niet op.
Dit is
vaak het geval bij fatbikes:
Sommige
fatbikes hebben een gashendel, zodat je niet hoeft mee te trappen om vooruit te
komen
Fatbikes
hebben vaak krachtigere motoren dan 250 watt, waardoor je snel kunt optrekken
Als de
begrenzing eraf is gehaald, kan de fatbike veel harder dan 25 km per uur
Wat
gebeurt er als je met een opgevoerde fatbike de weg op gaat?
“Als je
met een opgevoerde fatbike de weg op gaat, riskeer je een boete van € 310. Bij
een volgende aanhouding kom je er niet meer met een boete vanaf, maar kan de
politie de fatbike in beslag nemen. Daarnaast kun je ook nog een boete krijgen
omdat je onverzekerd rondrijdt op een motorvoertuig: € 495 in 2024. Als je geen
rijbewijs hebt, kan daar nog eens € 430 bijkomen. Het is ook een overtreding
waarvoor een strafbeschikking wordt uitgevaardigd. Het betalen van de
strafbeschikking levert een aantekening op je strafblad op als je ouder dan 11
jaar bent.
Als je
met een opgevoerde fatbike een ongeluk veroorzaakt, ben je niet verzekerd. Je
aansprakelijkheidsverzekering dekt de schade niet. Je loopt het risico
persoonlijk aansprakelijk te worden gesteld voor alle schade, inclusief
letselschade en materiële schade. Dit heeft vaak lange en ingrijpende
juridische procedures tot gevolg. Ouders kunnen ook aansprakelijk worden
gesteld voor schade veroorzaakt door hun kinderen tot 15 jaar.
Bewustwording
bij ouders is daarom heel belangrijk; laat je kind niet op een opgevoerde
fatbike rijden.”
Fatbikes
zijn populair bij een jonge doelgroep. Vindt de Fietsersbond een fatbike
geschikt voor kinderen?
“Met
fatbikes kun je heel hard rijden, wat gevaarlijk is voor jonge kinderen die nog
niet de nodige vaardigheden en het beoordelingsvermogen hebben ontwikkeld om
veilig te fietsen. Ze zijn onvoldoende in staat om risico’s goed in te
schatten. Ook zijn fatbikes meestal groter en zwaarder dan gewone fietsen, wat
ze moeilijk te hanteren maakt voor kinderen. Daarnaast worden kinderen vaak
afgeleid door elkaar wanneer ze samen op een fatbike zitten.
De
Fietsersbond is daarom geen voorstander van fatbikes voor kinderen. Afstanden
tot 10 kilometer kun je prima op een fiets zonder ondersteuning afleggen.
Ouders moeten goed nadenken voordat ze hun kinderen op een fatbike laten
rijden. Is het niet veel veiliger, gezonder en leuker om gewoon lekker zelf te
trappen?”
Is een
minimumleeftijd instellen een goed idee?
“Het
instellen van een minimumleeftijd is een lastige kwestie. Een fatbike is een
elektrische fiets. Een minimumleeftijd voor een fatbike geldt dus ook voor alle
elektrische fietsen. Voor jongeren in buitengebieden die meer dan 10 kilometer
naar de middelbare school moeten fietsen, is een elektrische fiets vaak een
uitkomst. Deze kinderen worden de dupe van een minimumleeftijd en dat willen we
niet. We steunen een onderzoek naar het instellen van een minimumleeftijd voor
12 jaar voor elektrische fietsen. Kinderen in de lagere schoolleeftijd hoeven
immers niet zo ver naar school te fietsen.
De
Fietsersbond vindt het belangrijk dat de verkoop van makkelijk op te voeren
e-bikes verboden wordt. En dat er strenger wordt opgetreden tegen het opvoeren
van elektrische fietsen, zoals de fatbike. Tot slot roepen we ouders op hun
verantwoordelijkheid te nemen: laat je kind niet op een opgevoerde fatbike
rijden!”
Hoe zie
jij de toekomst van de fatbike?
“Het kan
alle kanten opgaan. De elektrische fiets, in al zijn vormen, is een blijvertje.
Nu staat de fatbike in de spotlight, maar over een tijdje is het misschien weer
een ander model. De fatbike moet nu aan dezelfde kenmerken voldoen als een
elektrische fiets, terwijl de motor andere eigenschappen heeft. Daar moet
onderzoek naar gedaan worden. Als de fatbike in een andere categorie voertuigen
terecht komt, kunnen er andere eisen gesteld worden. De Tweede Kamer en de
minister zijn nu aan zet.
De
Fietsersbond maakt zich hard voor stevige handhaving van opgevoerde fatbikes op
de weg om de verkeersveiligheid te vergroten. We pleiten voor serieus onderzoek
naar de vraag of de fatbike een andere categorie voertuig kan worden. Tegelijk
pleiten wij voor strengere controle van fatbikes die naar Nederland
geïmporteerd worden en het beter reguleren van de verkoop. Zo zorg je er
namelijk voor dat aangeboden fatbikes in webshops en winkels in elk geval aan
de kenmerken van elektrische fietsen voldoen.
Bovenal
pleit de Fietsersbond voor een voorlichtingscampagne over de gevaren van
(opgevoerde) fatbikes, zowel gericht op ouders als op kinderen.”
Wat vindt
de Fietsersbond van de fatbike?
De
Fietsersbond maakt zich zorgen over fatbikes. Fatbikes zijn wettelijk gezien
gewone elektrische fietsen, maar worden vaak aangepast om harder te gaan. Zo
worden veel fatbikes opgevoerd door de snelheidsbegrenzing te verwijderen of
door er een gashendel op te zetten. Dit leidt tot gevaarlijke situaties en
ongelukken voor zowel de (vaak jonge) bestuurder, degene die achterop zit en
andere verkeersdeelnemers.
Een
opgevoerde fatbike is een illegaal motorvoertuig en mag de weg niet op. Een
aansprakelijkheidsverzekering dekt veroorzaakte schade niet: de bestuurder is
niet verzekerd.
Subscrever:
Comentários (Atom)
