When the debate was adjourned I had just dealt with drunken drivers and I had made a very strong plea that when this Bill became law the necessary powers should be included in it to ensure that the drunken driver will be put off the the road and kept off the road. I also dealt with fatal accidents statistics and I said that it was evident that few women drivers were involved in fatal accidents. That gives the lie to the charge that women drivers are careless. The figures show that only a small number of traffic offences are committed by women drivers in comparison with the number committed by men. I was just about to point out that in the case of serious offences under the Road Traffic Act there appeared to be——
Road Traffic Bill, 1960— Second Stage (Resumed).
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
I do not like to see the Minister so lonely. May I point out that he has not a single Fianna Fáil Deputy to make a House?
Is the Deputy asking for a count?
I am.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted and 20 Members being present,
With regard to serious offences, the law is at the moment far too lenient. Probably the leniency of the law is the principal reason this legislation has been introduced. It has been suggested by a responsible organisation that moving vehicles should carry, in addition to the ordinary lights, a small green light to indicate that they are moving vehicles.
There is a very grave problem with regard to parked vehicles and it constitutes the main reason the Fine Gael Party recently endeavoured to introduce a Private Bill here. Everyone knows the number of fatal accidents which have occurred through the thoughtlessness and negligence of those who leave unlighted vehicles parked on the roadside. I hope that so soon as this measure becomes law, we shall have finished with that offence. Vehicles should not be allowed to remain overnight by the side of the public road. The general public can play an important part in this matter. Anyone who sees an unlighted lorry, tractor-trailer, or other vehicle parked on the roadside, unlighted, at night-time should notify the nearest Garda barracks and the Gardaí should take action immediately.
Deputy Esmonde referred last night to the necessity for providing lay-bys. The Minister should make available from the Road Fund sufficient moneys to enable local authorities to provide these facilities. I agree with the observation of Deputy Everett with regard to the growing tendency in his constituency—it is true of other constituencies also—of the local authority to cut away footpaths entirely, leaving no place for pedestrians to walk except on the public road. Unless drivers are very experienced, when cars endeavour to pass one another out, there is immediately some danger to pedestrians who may be using the road. In recent years, there have been many fatalities amongst school children. There was one appalling accident in Tipperary. Generous grants should be given to enable local authorities to provide proper facilities for pedestrians.
Another source of danger—it has not been referred to so far—is the habit of local authorities of leaving a number of tar barrels on the side of the road. Sometimes in winter, they are left on the road lighted. If the weather is bad, these lights are extinguished. Fatal accidents have occurred because of this hazard. In Laois, a number of people were killed as a result of crashing into tar barrels at the side of the county road. Local authorities should be prohibited from leaving these barrels at the side of the road. If that prohibition cannot be fully implemented, then the barrels should be painted with luminous paint. There are other obstructions, apart from tar barrels. Very often steam-rolling impedimenta are left at the side of the road, as is certain local authority machinery. If an end is put to this practice, there will be an appreciable drop in fatal accidents on our roads.
The provision of safety belts in new cars should be considered by the Minister. Each new car that comes off the assembly line is fitted with every manner of modern appliance. It should be possible to fit it also with a safety belt. I have no doubt that car owners will themselves be prepared to fit their not so up-to-date cars with safety belts. Certainly all new cars should have safety belts fitted in the two front seats.
With regard to the registration of bicycles, I want to say here and now that I am opposed to any tax on bicycles. Bicycles are the only means the poor man has of getting to his work. They are the only means many children have of getting to school. I fail to see why there should be a tax imposed on a household because that household uses bicycles. If the Minister wishes, there can be a registration of bicycles. I would strongly disapprove of any attempt to impose a tax on bicycles.
Where did the Deputy find this hobby-horse?
It was recommended to the Minister in the memorandum sent to him which, he stated, he had considered. I am asking him now not to consider favourably the imposition of such a tax.
An Leas-Ceann Comhairle
That would be a matter for another Minister, I take it.
The recommendation was made to the Minister for Local Government.
Might we not try taxing the tourists, as was suggested some time ago?
This memorandum states:
Registration of Vehicles: Pedal cycles shall be registered at a nominal fee of 2/6 and shall display a registration number. The registration shall last for ten years, but the owner must notify any change of ownership occurring in the period.
That is included in the memorandum furnished to the Minister. I ask the Minister not to consider that recommendation seriously. I do not agree that bicycles should be taxed. Perhaps the Minister did not read the memorandum. It is more than likely he did not.
Perhaps the Deputy would try to understand the implication. This is not for the purpose of raising money.
It says a nominal fee of 2/6. Could anything be clearer? I am asking the Minister not to implement that recommendation.
Is there anything about it in the Bill?
I am not quoting from the Bill but from the memorandum. I am telling the Minister that I am opposed to a tax on bicycles. Motor taxation, lorry taxation, tractor taxation, and other taxation have all been increased, and I hope there will be no question of taxing bicycles. There have been cases —and the Gardaí have been notified time and again—of people carrying passengers on crossbars, handle-bars or carriers of bicycles, and very serious accidents have resulted. It is most unfair to motorists and to the drivers of other vehicles for cyclists to carry passengers on the handle-bars, crossbars or the carrier. I hope that will be regarded as a serious offence and that consideration will be given by the Minister to it.
Some cyclists go "bravoing" along with their hands off the handle-bars of the bicycle. Such people are a danger on the public road, not only to themselves but to the people they meet. That should be looked upon as a very serious offence and there should be severe fines on such people. We see them in the city of Dublin also frequently. It should be considered a serious offence to cycle three abreast and I hope serious notice will be taken of such offences.
I do not know whether a driving test will improve the standard of driving because, as other Deputies have said, driving is a matter of commonsense and intelligence, and unless he has commonsense and intelligence, no test in the world will make a good driver. There is a suggestion that the driving licence should cover three years. That is a good suggestion, as it would save people from having to renew their licences every year. It is a well-known fact that people do not always get a reminder that their driving licence has expired. Local authorities send out notices that car tax or lorry tax has expired, but some local authorities do not send out notification that a driving licence has expired, and people who do not intend to break the law have been found driving without a licence. It would be very convenient for the holder of a licence if it covered a three-year period.
A very serious view should be taken of a motorist who fails to dim his lights. Everyone who travels from Dublin to Naas knows that there is a straight patch of road near Kill. A number of accidents have taken place on that road since it was straightened out. The evidence given in court with regard to those accidents showed that drivers failed to dim their lights. Every car should be tested for a dimming device, and it should be the duty of the Garda to see that there is a proper dimming device on each vehicle. People walking along the road are completely blinded by those dazzling lights, and some lorries have high-powered spot lights, which I consider should be illegal. Out of pure villainy, some drivers do not dim those high-powered spot lights when meeting another car. They should be made to realise the seriousness of that practice and that it could mean not only the loss of their own lives but the loss of a number of lives, perhaps the life of a father of a family. It is most essential, therefore, to see that all cars, lorries and other vehicles, are equipped with proper dimming devices, and trailers should be equipped with proper danger lights.
Everyone from the country realises there is a big difficulty in Dublin with regard to parking. A number of people who come to the city for shopping purposes feel they are hunted from street to street by the Garda. The Garda are very reasonable people and they have been reasonable in this regard, but they have a certain code of regulations which they must carry out under the supervision of their sergeants and inspectors. The parking facilities in Dublin certainly must be worse than in any city in Europe.
Suggestions have been made by Dublin Corporation, and it has been suggested that the Liffey could be covered over and used as a suitable car park. Special arrangements should be made to provide proper car parks in order that people will know where they can park. I have known country people who came to Dublin on a shopping expedition and drove into Grafton Street. They were hunted from there by the Garda and went to O'Connell Street, but found no place to park there. They then went down Mary Street and were hunted away, with the result that they had to park well out of the city. Parking arrangements are most unsatisfactory and Dublin Corporation have a duty to provide proper parking facilities in this, the principal city.
Local authorities should be generous with grants for the purpose of providing suitable car parks in towns. In large provincial towns, we see cars parked on both sides of a street because the local authority did not make a bye-law. They are a hindrance to the free flow of heavy traffic. I hope that when the Bill becomes law, arrangements will be made for each local authority to submit proposals to the Minister in regard to the provision of car parks, and that reasonable 50/50 grants will be made available for that purpose.
Reference has been made to animals wandering on the roads. They are a source of great danger. In many cases, cows or horses roam around the public roads, having got out of fields without the knowledge of their owners. Quite a number of the itinerant class also have horses, ponies, goats, dogs, etc., roaming on the public roads. Arrangements should be made to keep these animals off the roads. I hope and trust that when we tighten up these regulations, we will have a suitable section dealing with that problem.
I do not agree with the fines-on-the-spot proposition because I do not think the fines could be collected. If a person is guilty of a parking offence and is approached by an officer of the Garda Síochána who says: "You have now overstayed the parking limit; I am fining you 10/-", and if he has not got the money, how is the fine to be collected? He may not report to the local Garda. What is the procedure in that case? I believe the collection of fines on the spot will not work. It would cause endless trouble and inconvenience to all concerned. I know there is the option of going to court but that is equally distasteful. I would say there would be great difficulty in collecting fines on the spot.
A very serious view should be taken of failure by motorists to report accidents. All accidents should be reported to the proper authorities.
There is one other point I want to raise and I notice it is mentioned in the memorandum circulated by the Department of Local Government, Proposals for Road Traffic Legislation, 1960. At page 13 it states:
A local authority may make bye-laws to prevent the obstruction of traffic by fairs and markets.
Does that mean that an effort can be made, under the various local authority machinery, to kill fairs and markets in towns, if they so desire? That is very serious for some towns. Some towns are trying to revive and build up fairs so as to increase business and spending. The Minister for Local Government is about to authorise the making of bye-laws to prevent the obstruction of traffic by fairs and markets. The farming community will not like that. Fairs and country markets have almost disappeared. Now, some local authorities, probably at the whim of the county manager, may forthwith declare a fair or market an obstruction to traffic and decide it shall be held elsewhere. Thousands of people will object to that. The Minister will not get away with the idea of killing country fairs.
If he has in mind that local authorities should provide fair greens, I would point out that that has been tried in many country towns. A fair green established over a number of years is quite all right. In most provincial towns, the fairs are held along the main streets. That has been the pattern for generations. They have brought business to the town. To interfere with the fairs and markets will cause severe injury. This is the thin end of the wedge to give the farmer a kick in every piece of Fianna Fáil legislation.
Interference with fairs and markets for the purpose of facilitating traffic will be strenuously opposed. What will the farmers think if they will not be allowed to attend their fairs and markets in the most convenient places and where they have been held for generations? What will they think when they are told the fairs and markets cannot be held in the usual places so as to facilitate some speed ace who, on a wet day, will flash by them and splash them from head to foot and laugh at them? It is hard enough to sell a beast at the moment without introducing legislation to do away with our present pattern of fairs and markets. Is the farmer to be sent home? I trust the Minister will take a very serious view of that matter.
Special arrangement should be made to erect barriers outside national schools alongside main roads in urban areas so that the children will not be free to rush directly on to the roadway when leaving the school. That will have to be dealt with by the school manager. Local authorities say they have no function in the matter. In many cases there are no paths. The door of the school opens on to the verge of the road in some cases and there have been quite a number of fatal accidents. School teachers do their very best to warn the children. It is understandable that, in his desire to get out of school, the child will run straight into oncoming traffic. Suitable barriers should be erected, wherever necessary, outside schools. Grants should be made available to school managers to assist them to provide such barriers. In addition, more traffic wardens should be appointed for school children in urban areas.
I have seen traffic wardens outside schools at Inchicore. They are doing a very good job. They are easily seen in their white coats. They are very kind, courteous and helpful to children crossing the roads. We should have school traffic wardens in every area where large numbers of children attend a school.
There is a platform in O'Connell street on which a Garda is on traffic duty. Yesterday evening and this morning, I spent a considerable time watching the Garda operating there. I noted how much notice was taken of his signalling and of his use of the whistle. It is a good idea. It may not look the best but it is worth while continuing it. Motorists can easily catch sight of the Garda. The white batons for directing traffic are also a good idea. As a result of the traffic platform on O'Connell Bridge, there is a quicker flow of traffic in O'Connell Street. It would be well to consider the erection of similar platforms in other parts of the city. However, that is not a matter for consideration now.
The A.A., Bord Fáilte and others have done a good job in the sign-posting of roads. More safety signs should be provided. Any money spent in that way is well spent.
On the whole, this measure is long overdue. Were it not for steps taken by the Fine Gael Party in respect of this legislation, the present Government would have put it on the long finger. It has been on the long finger for four years and I am glad to see it at last.
I hope there will be a general improvement in the standard of courtesy on the roads. We desire to see a substantial reduction in, if not the total elimination of, fatal accidents. There should be greater co-operation between the motorist and the general public and between the general public, the motorist and the Garda. All that is wanted is co-operation. I trust that people charged with the responsibility of administering this law, the district justices and others, will be given a headline on fines. The fines in the Bill are not sufficiently heavy.
We shall have a lot of exchanges of views on the Committee Stage. My only fault with this Bill is that it is too lenient with regard to serious offences. There is a comeback for the drunken driver. If I had my way, he would be given no comeback but he would be kept completely off the roads.
Deputy O.J. Flanagan spoke about fines on the spot. Typically, he likes to misrepresent what is generally before him in this House. The Bill does not provide for fines on the spot. It provides for tickets to be issued. The person has the option of going to the police station and paying a fine, if he admits he is guilty of the offence, or, if he wishes to defend the case, he can go into court.
Deputy O.J. Flanagan said it is apparently the intention to put fairs off the streets in our various towns. Under this legislation, only the local authority can do this. I do not know whether I am prying into the Deputy's mind or not. He is a member of a local authority, and perhaps further to misrepresent the position under this Bill, he might intend to press that such action would be taken in the local authority area for which he is responsible.
He also said the bicycles will be taxed. Again, he misrepresented the position, as I read it. The Bill suggests that a registration fee of 2/6d. might be fixed over 10 years as a protection, particularly against theft.
Over the past few years, public opinion has been aroused by the press, by individuals and groups of individuals regarding our road traffic and the problems connected with it. Efforts have been made to speed up the traffic and efforts have been made to slow it down. We have had campaigns for additional parking space in the central city areas, and we have had campaigns to do away with parking in certain streets. We have had people expressing the view that there should be wider and better roads and bridges, and we have had other people expressing the view that in certain streets there should be one-way traffic only. We have had campaigns to have obstacles and monuments removed from the centre of thoroughfares, and other campaigns to have new ones erected. All in all, it was obvious that some type of comprehensive legislation was required.
The Minister is to be congratulated on this Bill. It certainly is a most comprehensive piece of legislation. It makes new laws or permits regulations to be made in respect of everything about which public opinion has been aroused. Although I feel some of the provisions might be altered, I would prefer to support every single provision in this Bill rather than have any delay in having this comprehensive legislation made law.
I have some criticisms. I am sure my first criticism is not the Minister's fault. In my view—I know I have not been here many years—this is a very cumbersome Bill. If there was not urgency about having comprehensive legislation brought in fairly quickly, I would have probably made an earnest appeal to the Minister to get a small committee, consisting of, say, a Parliamentary draftsman, one or two legal gentlemen, a professor of English and a chairman holding some prominent position in business, somebody like Mr. "Tod" Andrews, and say to this committee: "Here is the Bill. Rewrite it so that it may be easily understood and so that it can be reduced in size." However, to cover every conceivable aspect of this very complex problem, it has probably been found necessary to have such a lengthy Bill. Even to read it completely takes several hours.
The first confusion I came across in the Bill is in Section 1. I do not think that the heading of the Bill "Road Traffic Bill, 1960" and Section 1 are in agreement. Section 1 states "This Act may be cited as the Road Traffic Act, 1961.""1960" and "1961" might lead to confusion at a later date.
I have a few other queries in regard to the interpretations. The first is in relation to parking. The interpretation section states:
"park", in relation to a vehicle, means keep or leave stationary, and cognate words shall be construed accordingly;
When a bus stops to pick up or leave down passengers, is it considered to be parked? If not, therefore, is it legal at present for a private car to stop where parking is prohibited in order to let down passengers?
I think I have figured out another description in the Bill, that which refers to a "Pedestrian-controlled mechanically propelled vehicle." Deputies will agree, particularly Deputy Sherwin, that the description is rather cumbersome. The interpretation section states:
"pedestrian-controlled mechanically propelled vehicle" means a mechanically propelled vehicle—
(a) which is neither intended nor adapted for use for carrying the driver or a passenger, or
(b) which is intended or adapted so that there are alternative methods of driving it, namely, by a person carried on it or by a pedestrian,
except during a period during which it is driven while carrying the driver or a passenger;
That is a very complicated description. It took me some time to figure out what exactly a pedestrian-controlled mechanically propelled vehicle is. I may not even yet have arrived at the right conclusion. I take it that it is something like a mechanically propelled lawn mower. Perhaps the Minister would clarify that point for me when replying?
This is the type of thing one comes across in the Bill. I found I had to read some of the provisions twice or three times to understand what the implications were. Probably all the phraseology in the Bill is recognised Parliamentary phraseology and is perfectly correct legally, but when the man-in-the-street comes across something like that before he has got through the first dozen pages, he will say: "I shall throw it away and go down and get my solicitor to advise me if I am to be found guilty of an offence under this Act."
My main criticism of the Bill is that I believe, in order to satisfy public opinion to the maximum extent possible, a certain amount of the liberty and of the constitutional rights of the individual have been interfered with. Admittedly, the provisions satisfy to a very great extent the demand of public opinion, of mass thinking. At the same time, we must never forget the rights of the individual. It is not always possible to prescribe that the penalties provided in any Bill impose the same hardships on one person as on another.
For example, at Column 397, Volumn 186, No. 3, of the Official Report, the Minister stated:
....the fact that some accidents are unavoidable and the fact that very many are due not to any serious culpability on the part of road users but to a brief distraction or an honest error in judgment, there can be no doubt that a considerable number are without excuse.
Then, at Column 408, he said that some of these consequential disqualifications are:
(c) light, but, nevertheless, irksome disqualification in the case of certain minor offences, where the offence is repeated three times or more in a year. These offences are listed also.
Let us be very clear on one point. If a person driving a car—a person who is commonly referred to as a weekend driver—purely and solely for domestic and pleasure purposes is disqualified under the provisions relating to minor offences in this Bill, it certainly can be considered an irksome disqualification, but in the case of the lorry driver, the deliveryman, the commercial traveller and other such people, such a disqualification could mean the loss of his right to earn his livelihood in a particular trade. It could mean loss of his job and considerable hardship and suffering on that particular family. In these matters, I think justice would be better administered if the word "may" rather than the word "shall" were used in these various provisions which I will come to later on in my speech. In fact, there are provisions in the case of an appeal where the court can take certain factors into consideration as to whether an appeal to restore a licence should be upheld or not, but, again, as I said, I would still prefer to support every single provision in this Bill rather than cause any delay in having it implemented.
It is a point, I think, that merits consideration and it might be more advisable to give the courts an indication of what the State would like to have done in these cases rather than make it mandatory upon them to bring in these disqualifications.
I should like to make another observation. I think that every Fine Gael speaker who stood up here started his contribution to this House with expressions like: "It took a Fine Gael Private Members' Motion to bring this Bill before the House."
Hear, hear!
There is no doubt in the world that the Coalition had no Bill drafted when they left office.
Mr. Ryan
Yes, they had.
They only approved of the heads of a Bill, as far as I understand. I am quite certain from my own information that there was no Bill drafted when the Coalition left office and that this Bill was drafted on the instructions of the present Minister and covers a large number of points that were not public issues when the Coalition were last in office.
I should like to refer to a recommendation that came from the Dublin Corporation about a year ago. The Committee appointed by the Corporation to look after matters of this kind in the Corporation's interest made a suggestion that a permanent committee might be set up in relation to Dublin traffic problems and that this permanent committee, consisting of Garda, Corporation, C.I.E., Port and Docks and other representatives, would, in a permanent capacity, help to advise the Commissioner on all proposals for traffic regulations in the city area.
I am sorry to see that Section 6 of the Bill does not make provision for such a committee. I believe that its existence would be useful and helpful to the Commissioner, if he wished to consult them regarding any bye-laws he might intend to make. It might help the administration of traffic. I know that the Minister examined these proposals in very great detail. I am quite sure that they were turned down on the very best advice. However, the considerations that led him to his decision on this matter would be of interest to people interested in local affairs in the city.
It is a good thing that subsections (5) and (6) of Section 6 give recognition to the elected representatives in the local authority areas. They enable them to have some official say after the notice of intention to make a bye-law has been given. It is a reserved function of the local authority to make representations regarding any bye-law made by the Commissioner. I think this is an extremely good thing, because the local councillors and local representatives, generally, are very familiar with the problems in their own areas. Wherever there are danger spots, wherever traffic is too fast or wherever there are traffic jams or whatever the problems are in their own areas, the local representative is invariably approached by residents' committees, the members of his own political organisation or by individuals calling upon him at his home or at Leinster House.
In fact, at times, I would be inclined to believe that if subsection (1) were to read that "after consultation with the appropriate local authority, a bye-law may be made by the Commissioner," it might be a better thing. It certainly would be a better thing in one way, but at the same time, I realise it would cause delays in having these bye-laws carried out because the Commissioner might decide to introduce a bye-law and consult the local authority about it. Eventually, it would come up at council meetings and it might even become a major political issue at a local election as to whether a certain bye-law should be made. The Minister has done the right thing in making the Commissioner responsible and then putting the onus on the local authority to make representations regarding any bye-law made.
With regard to subsection (3) of Section 8, there is just one small point which I should like to have clarified, if possible. Is it proposed to employ additional people under this section or is it that people already being employed and paid from a different source are now to be paid from the Road Fund or is it simply a reenactment of a previous section? We might get clarification on that point later on.
With regard to Sections 9, 13, 87 and probably others, I often wonder would it be possible to indicate in the Bill itself a definite method by which moneys collected under this Bill could be disposed of? We had experience in this House, under a Coalition Government, where not only the Road Fund was raided for other purposes but that, owing to great shortage of money and the lack of responsibility to face up to the problems which that shortage created, money was collected from every available source even though that money might not originally have been placed for the purpose for which it was subsequently spent.
Mr. Ryan
On a point of order, has this anything to do with road traffic?
No; it is just part of the Deputy's usual blatherskite.
I am asking to have incorporated in the Bill a definite provision whereby it will be stated clearly where any money collected under this Bill will be spent or disposed of. I believe that that would be a protection against the unlikely possibility of another Coalition getting into office, At least it would bring such a Government into the open if they wanted to use any money collected under this Bill. If, for instance, instead of putting it into the C.I.E. Benevolent Fund, they wished to use it to bolster their own budgetary deficiencies, they would then have to come to the House with amending legislation in order to do that.
Do I understand the Deputy is alleging that moneys payable to the C.I.E. Benevolent Fund were misappropriated, because that is what he has said?
I do not understand what the Deputy said.
I said that the Bill should prevent such a possibility,
The Deputy was trying to slide it in as a dishonest attempt to make propaganda.
If the Deputy reads the Official Report, he will see what I said.
Mr. Ryan
I have no doubt it will be well doctored.
You seem to be very touchy about this.
I like the truth. Of course the Minister for Local Government does not understand what that means.
The Deputy, of course, does. You are a bit touchy about it.
Not a bit.
Deputy Lemass, on the Bill.
I would ask the Minister to consider trying up this matter as tightly as possible. When I was reading Section 11, I wondered if subsection (2) was necessary. It seems to me that subsection (1) gives all the necessary powers. It says that the Minister may make regulations in relation to the use of vehicles in public places and it goes on to specify various heads under which regulations may be made. This appears also in Section 18 (10), Section 42, subsections (2), (3), (4) and (5) and Sections 75, 82, 86, 88, 89, 90, 91 and 114. It certainly gives a very clear idea of the Minister's thoughts as to the line these regulations should take, but at the same time I hope that it does not restrict the Commissioner or any person responsible in future, in the event of new circumstances or new types of traffic coming on to the roads, which is not beyond the power of imagination, in making other regulations as they may appear to become necessary.
However, in relation to these subheads in subsection (2) of Section 11, where regulations can be made for the equipment of such driver or passengers, I understand that this probably refers to the possibility of making compulsory the use of safety belts in cars. If this is so, I urge the Minister to ensure that regulations are made as quickly as possible in that regard. In these regulations, specifications regarding the approved type should be clearly laid down. Some enterprising persons, I have been informed, in England especially, have put safety belts on the market which for all practical purposes are useless. As far as possible, there should be protection from the enterprise of unscrupulous persons who may try to cash in on any regulations that may be made under the section.
In his address, the Minister referred to the primary loss in road accidents being the wastage of human beings and the unnecessary suffering which results. That is at Column 398 of the Official Report. It is quite clear that the enforcement of regulations under this section would contribute much more to the reduction of fatalities and serious injuries on the road than any increased penalties and disqualifications might contribute.
I note too in paragraph (g), and I wonder is it a misprint, that regulations may be made for the use of loudspeakers in vehicles. I wonder if these regulations are to be in connection with a wireless in a car, or if this should have read "the use of loudspeakers on vehicles." I know there has been a lot of public agitation about and criticism of the use of loudspeakers on vehicles in public places and I wonder if that is a misprint.
Again, regulations are already in force regarding the fixing of registration plates on motor cars, but in the case of commercial vehicles, the regulations require, in some circumstances, that the name and address of the owner of the vehicles be painted on it. I often wonder if this regulation was really necessary or if it might be done away with.
Section 12 (4) says:
Where a person contravenes subsection (3) of this section, he and, if he is not the owner of the vehicle or combination of vehicles, such owner shall each be guilty of an offence.
I am not too clear about this. From the explanatory memorandum, it is clear that both the driver and the owner of the vehicle can be prosecuted and found guilty of the same offence. As I understand it, both can suffer the same penalties. I wonder if that could be phrased in a slightly different fashion, so that if the driver is not to be found, the owner could be prosecuted and in those circumstances the guilt fixed on one person or another.
In Section 13 (b), I take it that the compensation will be paid to the road authorities who are responsible for road repairs or is it intended that the compensation will go into the Road Fund from which grants are made available for the roads? These are matters about which I was curious.
In relation to weighbridges, it is provided that road authorities may, or if required by the Minister shall, provide on or adjacent to a public place, a weighbridge to such dimensions, etc., as may be approved by the Minister. In subsection (6), the road authority may contribute, on such conditions as they think fit, to the cost of the provision, maintenance or operation of an appointed weighbridge, other than a road traffic weighbridge. The inference I take from this section is that a road authority may not in certain circumstances contribute towards the cost. Again, in subsection (7) the word "may" in subsection (a) implies that a refusal can be made for its use by the Garda Síochána. I feel that the word "shall" might be better. In relation to subsections (2) and (6), there might be some contradiction and perhaps the Minister would have another look to see if they are in order.
Debate adjourned.