The New Highway Code: Ignorance or Loss of Freedom?

By Nicola Salutari

Translated by Giulia Maffeis

On December 14, 2024, the new Highway Code, strongly wanted by the Minister of Infrastructure and Transport Matteo Salvini, came into effect. It was met with widespread protests from the public, politicians, and commentators. With particular reference to Article 187—the regulation concerning driving under the influence of drugs— it has been described as a direct attack on democracy. Let us attempt to shed light on the situation, starting with an overview of the new rules in general, as it is essential to understand the broader context to analyze and comprehend the errors underlying the amendment of Article 187. 

First and foremost, the changes include harsher fines for several offences, such as animal abandonment, using a mobile phone while driving, driving under the influence of alcohol, and speeding. For speeding violations, the fine has been increased from €173 to €220—an insignificant amount. Additionally, changes have been made regarding speed camera detections: if a single speed camera detects multiple speeding violations by the same driver on the same day, only one fine will be issued.

A necessary closer look at driving under the influence of alcohol: the legal alcohol limits remain unchanged, and the increased penalties apply only to repeat offenders—those caught driving with a blood alcohol level exceeding 0.5 g/l within two years of the first offence. Repeat offenders will face an absolute ban on consuming alcohol before driving for a period of two to three years, depending on the severity of the infraction. Additionally, they will be required to install an alcolock device in their vehicle, which prevents the car from starting if their blood alcohol level is above zero.

Significant attention should be given to the regulation mandating helmets for electric scooter riders. The city of Florence's 2023 experience with a similar requirement proved to be a failure. Numerous lawsuits were filed by sharing companies (due to logistical challenges in complying with the mandate), and the cases were resolved in favour of the plaintiffs. Some companies even threatened to suspend their services in Italy.

This particular regulation highlights an important deduction: the government appears to be using road accident data to justify ideological decisions that oversimplify complex issues, such as road safety.

Examining ISTAT data exposes the fallacy of the government's approach. Regarding electric scooters, 2023 saw an increase in casualties and injuries. Road accidents involving scooters rose from 2,929 in 2022 to 3,365 in 2023, with injuries increasing from 2,787 to 3,195 and deaths (within 30 days) rising from 16 to 21. While this underscores the need to amend existing regulations, the solutions proposed by the government—given the failed Florence model—are ineffective and only increase administrative legal costs.

Regarding total road accidents: in 2023, there were 3,039 deaths (-3.8% compared to the previous year), 224,634 injuries (+0.5%), and 166,525 road accidents (+0.4%). At first glance, these figures might suggest that stricter measures on road violations were necessary. However, as Nolan might put it, “Where’s the prestige?”

Among incorrect driving behaviours (excluding the residual category of unspecified causes), the most common are distraction, failure to yield, and excessive speed. These three factors account for 36.5% of cases (80,057 incidents). Therefore, a more significant and prioritized penalty increase for speeding violations would have been more appropriate.

Let's analyze the highly contested amendment to Article 187. Data on driving under the influence of alcohol (Article 186 of the Highway Code) and drugs (Article 187) show that 8.5% (alcohol) and 3.2% (drugs) of accidents recorded by the Carabinieri and Traffic Police are related to these substances. This raises several issues: alcohol-related incidents are more than double those related to drugs (raising the question of why stricter measures only apply to repeat alcohol offenders), the data does not differentiate between types of drugs with vastly different psychoactive effects, and previous enforcement focused on the driver’s altered state. The amendment eliminates this last criterion: “At Article 187: 1) in paragraph 1, the words: ‘in a state of psychophysical alteration’ are removed” (Law No. 177, November 25, 2024). As a result, if law enforcement detects the use of drugs during a test, regardless of whether the driver is impaired, financial penalties (€1,500 to €6,000), imprisonment (six months to one year), and license suspension (one to two years) may be imposed.

The issues with this regulation are essentially two and demonstrate how it has been modified purely for prohibitionist purposes, reflecting the party slogan “For me, all drugs are garbage.” These legislative changes are unlikely to have any real impact on reducing road accidents. Moreover, for evidence on the ineffectiveness of prohibitionist policies, I refer to the Stupefatti podcast, which debunks these measures with data.

The first issue is the lack of an exemption for individuals using cannabis for therapeutic purposes. Contrary to what is reported in an ANSA article, the exemption is not included in the current legislation. Instead, a political promise has been made to introduce it soon. The Ministry of Infrastructure’s website incorrectly claims that an exemption for users of cannabinoid-based medications would be outlined in a circular—a document that is not a legal source and cannot override a law.

The second issue is that the regulation, as formulated, criminalizes individuals solely for having consumed drugs, even days before driving. Regarding cannabis, saliva tests (used by law enforcement) can detect use up to three days after consumption, blood tests up to three weeks, urine tests up to one month, and hair tests up to three months.

Under Article 75 of the Consolidated Law on Drugs (TUS), personal drug use is classified as an administrative offence, not a crime. This aligns with the principle of harm, derived from Articles 25 and 27 of the Constitution, which stipulates that there can be no crime without harm to a legal interest. In this specific case, driving after drug use without being impaired would not constitute harm, opening the door to the possibility of declaring this regulation unconstitutional.

This is the objective of the Italian Radicals’ initiative. Their secretary, Filippo Blengino, has self-reported to law enforcement for driving two days after consuming cannabis, intending to initiate criminal proceedings and bring the issue before the Constitutional Court.

This cannot be concretely described as an attack on democracy because Article 75 of the TUS already provided for administrative penalties, such as license suspension. However, fines or imprisonment were not previously included. The new Highway Code indirectly criminalizes a behaviour (drug use) that had rightly been downgraded to an administrative offence. It is not an assault on democracy but rather a shrewd prohibitionist manoeuvre that is unlikely to endure.

Curated by Nicola Salutari