The Road Traffic Bill is of particular interest to me, in that my constituency experienced one of the highest rates of road death during the summer. Some 12 people were killed in as many weeks. I express my sincere sympathy to the families of those killed and injured. Many of the victims in these cases were very young but given that the inquiries into the specifics of those cases are ongoing I do not wish to say anything more about them.
Some aspects of the Bill need to be clarified on Committee Stage. I welcome the fact that Deputy Cullen now has responsibility for this area. However, I bemoan the fact that two Departments are involved in issues relating to roads. That is not a reflection on the Minister for the Environment Heritage and Local Government, Deputy Roche, whom I also commend. The fact that two Departments deal with roads can lead to difficulties when it is not clear which Department is responsible for issues of concern. The Ministers in question need to work in close co-operation.
I welcome the prohibition of the sale of vehicles to minors. This provision has been long awaited and will be especially welcomed in my constituency where minors have been able to get failed MOT cars for virtually nothing. Young people drive these cars around and eventually set fire to them. They are a danger to the young people involved and to the communities in which they drive their cars. We have had lucky escapes in regard to the access of minors to cars and any move to tighten up this area will be very welcome.
Previously, car dealers ran a scrappage scheme whereby people got £1,000 for trading in their old cars. The Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government should look at a scheme to encourage people to properly dispose of old cars, particularly failed MOT cars. This would reduce the potential number of vehicles for sale to minors.
The question could be asked as to the reason for the Bill in the first place. I come from a constituency north of Northern Ireland. I do not believe that jurisdiction intends converting speeding signs from miles to kilometres. It is not uncommon for accidents to be caused by people from abroad who are used to driving on the other side of the road. There is potential for confusion in Border areas, given that distance is confusingly measured in both miles and kilometres, depending on which side of the Border one is on. Moreover, signs indicating speed limits as 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, or 100 could refer to either mph or kph. It may not be confusing to people who do not live near the Border, but I defy officials from the Department to identify on which side of the Border they happen to be while driving in the area. I would accept this provision if it were part of an overall strategy for an all-Ireland road traffic plan and that, when the Ministerial Council is back up and running, a similar provision was introduced in the North so that we could compare like with like in regard to speed limit signs. Otherwise, there is scope for confusion, which must have implications for road safety.
An all-Ireland traffic policy is very much needed. For example, the Dublin to Derry, N2 — A5, development is being dealt with on a two jurisdiction basis. However, without it the drive from Dublin to Donegal would be 244 miles instead of 170 miles. Moves must be made to co-ordinate and develop the N2 — A5 project and the link from Letterkenny to Lifford and from Letterkenny to Derry through Bridgend. In order to travel from Dublin to Donegal, I must travel through what is technically a different jurisdiction, which uses miles and depends on funds from that different jurisdiction. If this provision is part of an all-Ireland road policy, it would make sense that the Minister of State, Deputy Callely, co-operates with his counterpart when the Northern Ireland Executive is back up and running, which I hope it will be in the near future.
I have a problem with the proposal for all regional roads to change from a 60 mph speed limit to 50 mph. The Inishowen peninsula has fewer than ten miles of national primary or secondary roads, the remainder are regional or lower category roads. The road which links Derry, Buncrana, Carndonagh and Moville is a regional one on which I will have to change from travelling at 60 mph to 50 mph, which will have implications on my ability to get around. Although, it is stated that the point of this legislation is to make the roads safer, I can identify far more dangerous national primary and secondary roads than the regional roads in my constituency, yet I can legally drive faster on worse roads.
I appreciate that some Members will state that now that the money is spent on the signs, it cannot be wasted, but why not leave regional roads at 60 mph and only use signs where the council officials consider the roads dangerous enough to reduce the limit on them to 50 mph? The concept of the Bill is to reduce all limits to 50 mph, while giving local authorities the option to increase limits to 60 mph where they consider it safe to do so. However, should an accident occur, I would not like to be a member of a local authority which decided to increase a speed limit from 50 mph to 60 mph because I would be held culpable by people seeking compensation. However, if the speed limit was set at 60 mph and could be reduced to 50 mph, it would be a different argument.
I acknowledge that the Minister is re-examining the issue of regional roads because he understands that they are of varying standards. However, the roads to which I refer are well able to justify a 60 mph limit in the vast majority of locations and it is not right for the speed limits to be reduced to 50 mph, unless the local authorities — if it is to them that decisions will be delegated — are strongly supported when they propose increases from 50 to 60 mph
I acknowledge that there have been many deaths on our roads. I am sure the Department has the relevant statistics, but I do not believe that most accidents are caused by, drivers travelling at 65 mph in a 60 mph zone. I may be proved wrong by the statistics, but I believe the vast majority of accidents are caused by, people who were driving vastly in excess of the speed limit or had consumed alcohol or drugs. A speed limit of 60 mph is not an unreasonable one for most roads, although there is a different argument in respect of more minor roads.
One of the key issues which needs, to be addressed is the visibility of gardaí and the belief among drivers that they can be caught breaking the speed limit. The penalty points system should operate as a deterrent and people should know that if they flaunt the law significantly, they will be caught. The threat of Garda patrols and the "hairdryer" speed detection unit should affect drivers' behaviour, although ultimately drivers should be responsible and should not need that threat to comply with the law. Nevertheless, the reality is that we need Garda visibility.
Many roads throughout the country have improved greatly. Some years ago, Donegal County Council had its LIS money taken back by the then Minister of State, Bobby Molloy, on the basis that it was not spending significant amounts on any particular road but in a piecemeal manner. However, in many cases, the money is still being spent piecemeal by the Department because some major roads have been receiving small amounts of money every year, when it would be much better to grab the bull by the horns and make funds available to improve the road properly. As county councillors at the time, we felt penalised. The LIS gave discretion to the council as to which roads were repaired but it was informed that not enough was being spent. However, the Department was doing exactly the same in the way it was spending money.
More money should also be diverted into areas, which are well-known for accidents. A number of examples spring to mind — there is a 90 degree bend at Quigley's Point on the road to Carndonagh and there is a blind junction just outside Malin on the Glengad road. Such areas should be prioritised, as they have been by the council. However, because they are not national primary and secondary roads, we seem to be fighting a difficult battle in regard to the money allocated for safety measures. Why not focus on recognised accident black-spots and invest significant money in the short term since it will have a much more beneficial result?
One of the biggest gripes people have with the penalty points system is that it is often people travelling at 35 mph in a 30 mph zone or 45 mph in a 40 mph zone who are caught, while people passing them at 90 mph or 100 mph in a 60 mph zone do not seem to be touched. Why not focus on where the problems are and address them?
I do not know the Naas dual carriageway well, but I do not understand why any dual carriageway has a 40 mph limit where it has two or three lanes. Perhaps there are good reasons for it and I am not up to speed on them, if Members will pardon the pun. However, dual carriageways and motorways are of a standard that can cater for traffic travelling at relatively high speeds of 75 miles per hour. I would probably have increased the speed limit on a motorway to 80 mph but I welcome the proposed increase. If a road is suitable for speed, there should be no problem in permitting it.
I did a little research on changing speed limits. America increased the speed limit and it did not cause the anticipated problems. According to a US Department of Transportation pamphlet on speed zoning, research and experience show that effective speed limits are those at which the majority of motorists naturally drive. Raising and lowering speed limits do not substantially influence that speed. If speed limits are lowered, people will not drive slower just as people do not automatically drive faster when the speed limit is increased. These are common misconceptions, along with the mistaken belief that speed limit signs will decrease the accident rate and increase safety and that motorways with speed limits will be safer than unposted motorways.
This Bill is not a panacea. We should try to put something in place to which people will adhere. What is the point of having something wonderful on paper when we know it will not work? We should aspire to put legislation in place that is close to what reality will be. If a road can easily take traffic travelling at 60 mph and the limit is decreased to 50 mph, people will get penalty points for simply doing what the road can support when they are not a danger to anybody. In that case something has gone astray. I hope that during the passage of this Bill through the Houses, the points I have made about the miles per hour versus kilometres per hour — if that is part of an ongoing process, it is fine but if it is an end in itself, it is a problem — and the reduction of the limit from 60 mph to 50 mph are taken on board.
The prohibition on the supply of mechanically propelled vehicles to minors has been long awaited and must be implemented. I look forward to the day when there is a proper way for young people to learn to drive. When I was teaching in Coleraine, the transition year curriculum included a driving course. One could watch the transition year students driving around the car park in the school. They had little slaloms and so forth. Giving them a properly controlled facility to do something that was previously forbidden is an interesting approach, although they had to be a certain age before they participated. The difficulty at present is that they appear to have easy access to vehicles. They are driving dangerously and recklessly and this is causing a considerable problem, even death.
There are many roads in my constituency on which more money should be spent to improve their standard. The difficulty with improving the standard of roads is that people will want to drive faster on them. The effect of this Bill must be the establishment of limits that are reasonable and are enforced. I have no problem with the reduction of the limit on minor roads or the increase of the limit on good roads. However, I have taken advice from people who know more than me about engineering and they concur with me that many regional roads could cater for a higher limit than 50 mph. I hope this will be addressed.
I will make my pitch now for funds to be spent on the roads from Bridgend to Buncrana, Moville to Derry, the inner relief roads of Buncrana and Carndonagh and the Quigley's Point to Carndonagh road.