Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 2 Mar 1961

Vol. 186 No. 8

Committee on Finance. - Road Traffic Bill, 1960—Second Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

Mr. Ryan

If there is one man who will have no excuse, if he is ever convicted of an offence against the Road Traffic Act, it is the Minister for Local Government. Indeed, it could be said of all Deputies that, if we were convicted of an offence, after this marathon debate, we certainly could not plead ignorance of the law, or say that we had not got the right advice, so we may sincerely hope that St. Christopher will guide us and prevent us from ever falling into error on the road.

If it happened that one of us was unfortunate enough to be caught in respect of a breach of the road traffic laws, I wonder whether he would think it an appropriate punishment for a statutory offence to find himself cast into a common prison with thieves, robbers, murderers and people who have been convicted of all types of sordid crimes—in the company of habitual criminals in a common jail.

I think, for instance, that the degree of moral turpitude in relation to a careless driving offence, or even a dangerous driving offence, is far less than the degree of moral responsibility and blame which lies with a person who deliberately sets forth from home and commits a crime against his fellow man or against society. Therefore, it is a great pity that in the preparation of the new road traffic code, serious consideration was not given to the establishment of what I might call a traffic prison to which people convicted of driving offences could be assigned.

It is not a question of wanting one law for the rich and another law for the poor, or one system of punishment for the rich and another for the poor, because, indeed, there are many people who drive mechanically-propelled vehicles or ride bicycles nowadays who can certainly be classed amongst the poor. If, for instance, a farm labourer or a factory worker, on pay day, has a few drinks too many in a public house and is foolish enough to ride home on his bicycle, under this Bill he may find one month's imprisonment imposed upon him because he was found wobbling on his bicycle.

We are all in agreement that such a man must be discouraged from doing that kind of thing, but if he is unfortunate enough to do it, are we not imposing an appalling penalty on him, if we cast him into a common jail for one month? We must consider the company he will be keeping for that month and the terrible mental torture he will have to endure in a common jail. In many cases, the man will lose his employment. One of the consequences of putting road traffic offenders in a common jail will be that our courts will bend over backwards not to convict, and people ought to be penalised for driving offences.

I respectfully suggest, therefore, that it is still not too late to reconsider this matter. It may well be that a separate Bill would be required which would have to be introduced by the Minister for Justice, but consideration should be given to this matter in toto and, if necessary, two parallel Bills should be brought in to provide a special prison for those convicted of traffic offences. If we did that, we would make people more aware of the responsibilities which rest upon them.

I understand there are countries where they have a system of week-end imprisonment in relation to traffic offences, under which a man on whom a sentence of so many days in prison is imposed may serve that sentence over a period of week-ends, and thereby continue in his lawful occupation and support his wife and children, who would not then become a burden on the State. Perhaps that is a little too liberal and would make the sentence too easy. There may be many people who would be glad to escape into the asylum of such a prison for a week-end. I am not suggesting that system, but I think it would help to administer the road traffic code if we had a separate prison to which people convicted of offences under the road traffic code could be sent.

I do not say that all persons convicted of traffic offences should go to the traffic prison. There are some offences of a very serious nature which would justify the ignominy and suffering of a common prison, but that is a matter which could be dealt with. We could specify a certain number of offences which would require confinement in the traffic prison. In that prison, a certain amount of time could be given to instructing the convicted offenders in the rules of road traffic. It would help to improve conditions on our roads if they were given lectures and demonstrations on driving, and also if some of the shocking injuries and deaths which occur because of indifference and carelessness were shown to them.

It has been said, and rightly said, as a criticism of this Bill, that it concentrates too much on mechanically-propelled vehicles. I think the Minister's argument is that mechanically-propelled vehicles do the most damage, and are also the easiest to control. If members of the public cross a railway track, I understand they can be prosecuted under the railway bye-laws. I think that has happened, but I know that at least the system is there. Much as it would be a restriction on myself as on anyone else, we shall have to become more severe with pedestrians, cyclists and drivers of horse-drawn vehicles in the interests of road traffic, because they are a potential danger on every road.

I do not believe we have convinced ourselves, or the members of the public, of the great necessity for constant care on the roads. We have had costly advertising urging people to get inoculated, vaccinated, X-rayed, and so on. That consistent advertising created a public awareness of the dangers of certain diseases. It is a pity full use has not been made of a similar advertising campaign in relation to road traffic. The advertising must be continuous if it is to be effective. One reason for our bad manners and indifference on the roads is that from time to time signs are erected and white lines are painted on the roads and an effort is made for a week or so to enforce certain rules of the road. Then everybody becomes lax and indifferent again. From time to time our roadways have beautiful white lines painted on them but they disappear or practically disappear before a man comes along to repaint them. It is essential to preserve the white lines in a visible condition all the time.

The third section gives us the interpretation of the word "owner"'. I think the reason is that any responsibility in relation to the vehicle under the Road Traffic Acts would lie on the person under whose control it is used. To avoid fraud in the sale of mechanically-propelled vehicles we should oblige the finance company interested in the vehicle to register their name as an interested party on the official tax book. The purchaser of a mechanically-propelled vehicle may not be able to establish whether or not the vehicle is partly owned by a finance company. The finance companies have a common pool of knowledge into which this information is poured but the ordinary purchaser does not realise these things.

An example of the difficulty in interpreting this Bill will also be found in the third section and I urge the Minister to consider amending it. It provides that:

"registered owner" has the meaning assigned to it by the Road Vehicles (Registration and Licensing) Regulations, 1958, but, if those regulations should be revoked, it shall have the meaning assigned to it by such regulations corresponding to those regulations as may for the time being be in force;

Why have we not assigned the meaning in this Bill itself? Other matters need tidying up, too. If a person wants to make a claim against the Minister for Finance in respect of damage by a Government-owned mechanically-propelled vehicle we are providing that he has not to apply to the Attorney General for permission to sue the Minister for Finance. However, if damage is done by an ass and cart belonging to the Office of Public Works or by a bicycle belonging to the Department of Posts and Telegraphs, the person concerned must apply to the Attorney General for permission to sue the Government before he can issue the civil bill. That situation is ludicrous.

We are providing that fines, penalties and fees imposed by this Bill, or regulations made under it, may be disposed of as the Minister for Finance thinks fit. We pay very heavy insurance premiums because there are so many road accidents. The good and careful driver is paying for the gross carelessness and misbehaviour of bad drivers. It would help to keep premiums down if all fines for road traffic offences were assigned to a fund which would subsidise the general insurance fund.

All our motor insurance companies are parties to the Motor Insurance Bureau which is an arrangement whereby companies will pay damages to people who suffer personal injury as a result of a collision with a mechanically-propelled vehicle which at the time of the accident was not insured provided there was a valid policy of some kind covering the vehicle in question. That burden is borne by the insurance companies who are parties to the Bureau and, in turn, by all policy holders. If the moneys collected in fines were assigned to support claims against the Motor Insurance Bureau, then innocent and careful drivers would be relieved to that extent of the burden they must pay at the moment by increased insurance premiums.

The Minister dealt with the regulations to be made with regard to the construction and equipment of vehicles. If a person has a defective vehicle and is convicted of driving it, then the offence should be endorsed on his licence. If that vehicle is subsequently seen moving in a dangerous manner, a Garda may signal the driver to halt. He may have no reason to suspect that the vehicle is defective. If the driver's licence is endorsed to the effect that the vehicle was defective then the Garda would realise the position immediately and cause it to be examined. If the driver was again found to be wanting in his duty in that respect, a prosecution should follow. We need to encourage people to be careful. An endorsement on the licence is one method of helping to bring that about. The endorsement of the licence has been one of the most beneficial things in making drivers careful, at least for the period of the endorsement.

In the same section, the Minister provides that it shall be a good defence to a charge of driving a defective vehicle for the owner to show that the use of the vehicle was unauthorised. That seems fair enough, by and large, but suppose the owner of the defective vehicle drives it himself to some public place, leaves it parked there with the door locked or unlocked, and some other person, perhaps committing a crime, comes along and drives that vehicle. Surely some responsibility lies on the person who had that vehicle on the highway in the first place? If any vehicle is on the public highway and found to be defective and it can be shown it was reasonable that the owner must have known it was defective, the fact that it was used at the time of an accident without the authority of the owner should not in such cases be a good defence.

One of the peculiar things about the Bill is, as I have said, the different manner in which motorists and pedestrians and pedal cyclists are treated. An example of this will be found in Section 20. Section 20, as I read it, enables a member of the Garda who observes a mechanically-propelled vehicle or combination of vehicles in a public place and suspects that there is a defect in them to inspect such vehicles and so on. That is contained in subsection (1) of Section 20. But if you turn over the page to subsection (6), you read:—

A member of the Garda Síochána may test any pedal cycle and, for the purpose of carrying out the test, may do all such things and make all such requirements in relation to the cycle as are reasonably necessary.

Apparently he cannot examine a mechanically-propelled vehicle until he suspects there is a defect in it, but he can test a pedal cycle without suspecting whether there is a defect or not. It will be very difficult for a Garda to suspect whether or not a mechanically-propelled vehicle is defective. I do not think we should have the necessity of suspicion before inspecting a mechanically-propelled vehicle. At the same time, I appreciate that what the Minister had in mind was, perhaps, the possibility of a vexatious Garda deliberately halting a man a couple of times a day, day after day, to inspect a vehicle, which he could do, but for the suspicion provision. However, I think it is asking too much. Some person might be able to thwart the inspection of a vehicle by proving to the satisfaction of the court that a Garda had no reasonable grounds for suspecting a defect, and the Garda might find himself in hot water on that account.

In the case of a bicycle, and I think in the case of a mechanically-propelled vehicle, a Garda is allowed to drive the machine himself for a reasonable time and a reasonable distance in order to test it. He may also ask that it be driven for a reasonable time and distance in such a direction as he directs. But there is nothing whatever which entitles a Garda to make a cyclist bring his bicycle to a halt. It may well be that halting may be included under the term "driving", but if a Garda asks a pedal cyclist to drive his bicycle along the road from one lamp post to another, the cyclist may do so but the Garda would not be entitled to order him to come to a halt. Surely, in relation to an inspection like this, what the Garda would want to find out in many cases is whether or not the bicycle had decent brakes. Perhaps the section might be amended in that regard.

We have provided, but in a very confused fashion, for consequential disqualification orders in relation to certain offences. Unfortunately, we have confused the matter very much by mixing it up between at least 25 sections and a Schedule. I would hope that the Minister would find some way of making this thing more easily understandable to a member of the public. A great deal can be said in favour of consequential disqualification orders, but we should also provide for a greater number of consequential endorsement orders. I think it would help to improve the manners of our motorists, if their licences bore an endorsement. They would always be afraid of being caught in the act again and of having to expose their traffic souls to a Garda if, by production of a licence with an endorsement on it, the Garda could see they had already committed some traffic sin. If we are providing, as we are, that a consequential disqualification order for some offence will not apply until a second or subsequent offence has been committed, we should in such cases provide that an endorsement will run as a consequence in relation to an offence before the second or subsequent offences.

We provide in Section 27 for ancillary disqualification orders which simply permit a judge to disqualify a driver from driving. The extraordinary thing in this is that we are just allowing a justice—we are not obliging him— to impose a disqualification order where a mechanically-propelled vehicle has been used in the commission of a crime. We are confusing ourselves in regard to our moral responsibility when we impose a mandatory disqualification for some offences, but where some person commits a crime when using a mechanically-propelled vehicle, we do not compel the courts to disqualify that person from driving.

We all know that the mechanically-propelled vehicle is a very useful weapon for any housebreaker or burglar. It is also used in connection with more sordid crimes such as rape. Surely we should oblige the courts to disqualify from driving any person who uses a mechanically-propelled vehicle for his own convenience when committing a crime, whether the vehicle is his or not? The housebreaker or burglar can remove, say, 100,000 cigarettes from a shop or factory by using a mechanically-propelled vehicle, whether it is his own or stolen.

In such cases, where a car is used for theft, burglary or assault, we should oblige the court to deprive the person of a licence for a period of not less than five years. In that way, if our burglars are going to continue their habits, they will have to walk and it will be much easier for the Garda to catch them. A man with a sack containing 10,000 cigarettes on his back, who is walking along the street at a late hour of night, would give any Garda reason for suspicion; whereas a lorry, van or motor car with 100,000 cigarettes in it is not something which a Garda might reasonably suspect of being used in the commission of a crime. Therefore, if a mechanically-propelled vehicle is used for the commission of any crime whatever, there should be a consequential disqualification order without any exceptions whatsoever.

Section 52 deals with the offence of careless driving, which is sometimes used for imposing a lesser penalty than finding a man guilty of dangerous driving. Where you have borderline cases, the courts frequently convict persons of careless driving and impose smaller fines. Careless driving is the kind of thing which leads to dangerous driving. It is something which leads to what we miscall accidents. It would help to prevent careless driving if there were provision for an endorsement on the licence on conviction of careless driving. That person would be unlikely to commit the offence again. If a man, convicted of careless driving, is fined £2, £3 or £5, the memory of the conviction is likely to pass away as soon as he has left the court room, whereas if there is an endorsement on his licence, it will arrest his attention and keep him on his toes all the time.

Many of the remarks that could be made on this Bill are more appropriate to the Committee Stage. The Minister has been extremely patient in listening to a great many detailed remarks on this Stage of the Bill. We all hold ourselves forth as experts on road traffic. That is one of the great problems we have. There are very few who are humble about road traffic or the manner in which they behave on the roads. We hope that in the future we may all be more conscious of our shortcomings on the road.

The Minister provides for tests of speed on the roadway. I am not sure what the particular section is. We are providing for speed limits in this Bill. I wonder whether speed limits would permit the Minister to make a regulation providing that on certain roads or on certain parts of a road, the speed should not fall below a fixed mileage per hour. I am thinking of traffic in another five or ten years. We will have to have traffic lanes which will permit of a speed up to 30 miles per hour in one lane and over 30 miles per hour in others.

As I mentioned at the outset of my remarks yesterday evening, one of the worst menaces on the roads at the present time is the fellow who keeps to the centre of the road travelling at 30 miles an hour when he should be well in to the left. He is the man who compels another driver to move out into the oncoming line of traffic. We will have to discourage that and if necessary, lay down that where there are four lanes of traffic, if you want to keep to 30 miles an hour, you will have to keep to the inside lane.

We are today planning for road traffic for at least a decade to come. It took us 28 years—from 1933 to 1961—to do anything. I do not believe that any member of this House expected that the problem in 1961 would be anything like it is now and we cannot forecast what it will be like in the years to come. We have not made any provision for vehicles like hovercraft which will not be in contact with the ground, although they may well move within the hedges. We have made no provision for contrivances of that nature—contrivances which our minds cannot imagine at the moment and the invention of which may not yet have dawned on the scientists and engineers. We will have to review road traffic legislation time after time. Let us hope that we will not have the same delay in the future as we have had since 1933.

It is quite obvious from the very interesting contribution of the last speaker that this is a Bill which is incapable of interpretation in the full sense of the word, except by a lawyer. It seems to me that the Bill is full of technicalities and complexities of various kinds which only a man skilled in law could really elucidate or interpret. The Bill has been anticipated for a long time and that long anticipation has evoked a certain interest in the Bill throughout the country.

The last Road Traffic Bill was in 1933—28 years ago, as the last speaker said. Since then, the pattern of traffic on the roads has changed completely and it is only natural that some effort should be made to bring traffic regulations into conformity with present-day requirements and present-day practices and customs. The public are very interested in this Bill because it was prompted by the appalling increase in serious and fatal accidents over the years.

When an accident occurs, there is always horror among the people who have the misfortune to witness it and among the relatives of those maimed, injured or killed. You always hear the caustic comment: "Why are the Government not doing something about this? Why is there no protection for people on the roads?" Therefore, the people are very interested in this Bill. The more they expect, I suppose the more they look for in the Bill. The Bill envisages certain safeguards as well as certain controls in regard to those who use mechanically-propelled vehicles on the roads. There is nothing political whatever in the Bill. All sides accept the need for such a Bill. There may be differences of opinion about some of its sections but the general framework of the Bill provides the opportunity for ensuring that we will have an Act that will stand the test of time and will provide the necessary safeguards. It will have to be very perfect, if it is to measure up to expectations and allay the fears at present entertained throughout the country.

For that reason, I think all Deputies will be co-operative. It is assumed and expected that the Minister will be equally co-operative; that any reasonable amendments will be fully discussed and that worthwhile amendments will be included in the measure which he has brought into the House. This is a most extensive Bill consisting of nine Parts, 127 sections, various subsections and innumerable subdivisions of these subsections. When I read the Bill casually, I was as wise at the end as I was at the beginning. The phrasing of the Bill is rather peculiar. The draftsmen have a certain technique of their own. Personally, I think that there is a superfluity of words and divisions. I think the Bill lacks directness of language and that it is couched in terms that are rather vague. Some of the subsections themselves are rather vague.

There is no possibility of making a general survey of the Bill. We have to wait until it goes into Committee Stage when every section will be closely analysed and, I hope, fully elucidated. We all have to agree that a good deal of litigation in our courts to-day arises from infringements of the Road Traffic Act. There is no doubt that litigation will increase as time goes on. It will increase because of the extra requirements now laid down in the Bill and all the extra controls provided in the Bill. For that reason, we must ensure that there are no loopholes in it and that the law cannot be flouted in any way.

Reference has been made frequently to fines and there appears to be a difference of opinion about them. I think fines on the spot will bring the law into disrepute and disrespect. If we adopted that system for infringements of the Road Traffic Act, people would ask: "Why not have it for other Acts?" It would create a very bad impression if visitors who are not aware of our traffic code were fined. The imposition of these fines should be reserved to the courts. I do not think it fair to ask a Guard to be judge and jury and to impose a fine on an alleged offender. If the fines are to be enforced, at least it should be left to the local superintendent of the Garda to assess the amount of the fine and he should do that only after receiving a statement from the person involved, side by side with the report from the Garda who detected the infringement of the law. Personally, I think we would be far better off to leave the fines to the courts.

In the main, the Bill deals with licences for driving, with speed, with parking and with certificates of fitness for vehicles on the road. In regard to the question of speed, we are not an easy-disciplined people and we are inclined to be reckless at times. I have seen motorists and motorcyclists drive through this city at 50 miles an hour, to the horror and amazement of onlookers. I have seen the same thing happen in Cork when the streets were crowded. My own conviction is that many accidents are traceable to excess speeds. Regulations which would be generally acceptable should be made limiting the speeds in built-up areas. The Commissioner of the Garda is empowered to make bye-laws after consultation with the local authority. I think he should make them in conjunction with the local authority and get their approval before he brings them to the Minister. That would help to diffuse responsibility for the bye-laws. Through their local representatives, people will come to understand the meaning and necessity for these bye-laws.

I do not know whether there is any provision for speed traps. On the ordinary roads in rural Ireland we sometimes see vehicles travelling at a speed which could be characterised as reckless. The Guards should be empowered to lay speed traps for these individuals who are only testing their own capabilities as drivers and the capabilities of their cars. That should not be allowed on any public road. The Guards should always be empowered to have some means of checking people who travel recklessly on the roads.

Parking has become one of the main problems in this country. Local authorities can be very helpful in this regard in towns and cities where the parking problem becomes acute. There are plenty of derelict sites which could easily be made available as parking sites with some little expenditure. It is quite obvious that extra financial burdens will be placed on the local authorities as a result of the Bill. They must provide parking places, weighbridges and perhaps other demands will be made on them also. All fines collected under this Bill, while they would go to the Exchequer, should be credited to the local authorities and be paid back to them so that they could make provision for the various requirements mentioned in this Bill.

Part II, Section 17, expenses of extraordinary traffic, seems very vague to me. I do not know how that provision will be worked or whether it will be workable at all. In the same Part, in Section 16, the statement occurs that where a police officer is suspicious of a load on a lorry he may bring the lorry to the nearest weighing station within five miles and if convenient have the load unloaded. Why should it be unloaded at all ? Surely if he is on duty, he will have some means of following the lorry and seeing it unloaded ? I think there is no necessity for this inconvenience to the public through the enforcement of these regulations.

In regard to the rules of the road for pedestrians, there is always confusion about them amongst the people, especially in rural areas. I believe pedestrians walk on the right hand side at night time so that oncoming lights are reflected on them and cars coming behind see people so outlined. That is not generally known and it is because it is not known that we have so many accidents on country roads at night time. The Safety First Association, the Automobile Association and other benevolent bodies could be very helpful in focussing attention on that. The person caught between two separate lights is in grave danger. If he face the oncoming lights he would have some chance.

This Bill while it is controversial in many sections will nevertheless do an immense amount of good. I hope by the time it has passed through all Stages we shall have security for our road users and some confidence in the future with regard to our traffic laws.

There has been some discussion about whether the Minister has been grossly at fault in bringing this Bill to the House only now. While one could make a perfectly valid charge against him in that respect, there is an even more important question to be discussed in that connection. The Bill shows clearly that when the Minister thought of bringing in a Traffic Bill he intended to bring in a comprehensive measure. The delays that the introduction of a comprehensive Bull always carries are quite obvious. The mistake the Minister made was not so much in the delay in the introduction of this comprehensive measure as in choosing to wait to take any action until he was ready to bring a full and comprehensive Bill to the House.

During the four years in which he has been considering the pros and cons of the various subsidiary details which he has now incorporated in this Bill, a great deal has happened in regard to road traffic and the position has become substantially worse. I admit frankly and freely that, so far as I am concerned, my criticism of him in that respect arises from the fact that I believe fundamentally that a vast amount of incidents arise from ignorance of what is the right thing to do. I believe that is an overwhelming cause and that the percentage of people who deliberately take risks is very, very small indeed. I think, therefore, it would have been infinitely preferable to have brought to the House early in 1957 a short measure dealing with only one point if that was all that was completely ready at that time—I shall not go into that argument—that is, the point of ensuring that there would be some type of tests for new drivers, a test of knowledge of the rules of the road.

Every day we see throughout the country instances of what is gross, bad driving, instances of what can only be described as gross discourtesy, gross rudeness. I do not accept and I do not believe that my country people are inherently rude and inherently lacking in courtesy. Yet, to look at them driving vehicles along the road, if one did not consider some other aspects, one would be forced to that conclusion.

The ordinary person, who would not dream of shouldering another person off the pavement if he were walking along, very often when he gets behind the wheel of a motor car in effect shoulders that motor car and pushes the driver of another car out of the proper lane in which he should be driving. He does it, not from discourtesy, not from rudeness, but simply because of lack of knowledge, lack of appreciation of what he should do. The first essential towards better traffic arrangements, towards avoidance of accidents, is better education of all our people about the rules of the road, about what should be done and about what should not be done.

The Minister, I am sure, in his home part of the country particularly, frequently looks at television emanating from the Six Counties. Anybody who looks at television must be struck forcibly by the manner in which it has been harnessed to improve the standard of driving and to emphasise the dangers on the road and the way in which they can be overcome. It just so happens that comparatively recently, say, in the last 12 months or so, my movements have taken me regularly through the Six Counties. I am bound to say it has been my experience on the many occasions on which I have been there in the last 12 months that the standard of driving in the Six Counties is better than the standard of driving down here. I can only assume that that must have arisen because of the earlier introduction of driving tests there and perhaps may have been accelerated and increased because of the use that is made of television to improve the standard. Let me say in passing, if it is any balm to the Minister's soul, that while it has been my experience that their standard of driving is better, I would say the standard of our roads is better than theirs.

It is an undoubted fact that more dislocation of traffic—and dislocation of traffic is one of the primary causes of accidents—arises because of drivers doing the unexpected than from anything else. Mostly, drivers do the unexpected because they do not realise that, in doing that, they are likely not just to cause inconvenience to other people but to cause positive danger to other people. It does not seem to be appreciated at all that a lane of traffic is a thing that should be adhered to and that if one intends to move out of one's lane, one should do so only after giving reasonable and courteous notice to the other users of the road. The manner in which a person drives along the middle of the road and perhaps just slightly on the left centre of the road, thinking that he is doing all that he should do and is behaving as a good driver, is quite phenomenal.

I hope the Minister will ensure, in any development of new roads particularly, that there will be laid down on those roads white lines for guiding lanes of traffic, not merely a single white line dividing the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the road. Personally, I have little use for those. The proper system in that respect is the Continental system where you have a treble white line or a double white line, as the case may be. There are white lines on many of our roads in circumstances in which, when one is going in one direction, it is criminally dangerous to cross over the line and the same line is an impediment to the proper flow of traffic from the other direction. That is inevitable as long as the single line system is used. On the Continent they use a white line which has a double edge on one side and it is a criminal offence to pass over it, but if the double edge is not on your side of the road, so to speak, then it is the equivalent of what we call the dotted white line, which is the warning line and not an absolute prohibition.

In relation to road traffic, as in everything else, the aim must be to enact a series of laws which the people will recognise, realise, understand and appreciate are necessary laws and which for that reason should be obeyed. So long as it appears in certain circumstances that a white line on a road at a particular point is useless and unnecessary then that white line will be disregarded and that will not merely affect traffic regulation at that point but will mean that there will be disregard of signals and of signs in other places where danger exists.

Let me also mention in passing in that connection one thing I have seen far too often on our roads. There is a dangerous bend sign on a road. New road works are carried out. The dangerous bend is removed but the dangerous bend sign remains. That only creates disregard for that type of sign where it is met in other places. That type of carelessness in the road authority failing to remove signs does not encourage the good driving sense that is necessary.

Various Deputies and, indeed, people outside also, have mentioned that in this Bill there are certain mandatory penalties provided for certain offences. I want to say as strongly as I can that the provision of fixed mandatory penalties in any legislation is a bad thing. The conviction of a person no matter in what walk of life he may be is the same but the penalty on a person in one walk of life may be entirely different in its severity from the same kind of penalty imposed on another in a different walk.

The easiest case to understand is the case of the lorry driver and the case of the rich person, both of whom have been convicted for traffic offences. It is possible for the rich person to pay a chauffeur but, if the lorry driver loses his licence, he cannot maintain his wife or his family. To say that the standard penalty should be the same in each case is to mean in effect that the penalty on the person driving the lorry, and who is thereby earning his livelihood, is infinitely more severe than on the person who drives merely for pleasure. Fixed statutory penalties always mean grave inequality in the imposition of a penalty. It would be far better that the extent of the penalty be left to the discretion of the Court so that the Court could determine what would be a suitable penalty to impose on the person concerned having regard to his circumstances and to the offence in question.

It is my experience that if you make a minimum penalty of great severity then you make it harder to secure a conviction. It is natural, it is human, that if there is a very severe minimum penalty for the offence in question the result is to make the judge hearing the case feel that he must be even more than normally certain before he imposes that conviction which compulsorily will carry with it a penalty of great severity. None of us under any circumstances wants to do anything that will, for example, mean that lighter penalties will be inflicted on those who have been properly convicted of being drunk in charge of a vehicle on the roads but by fixing a severe statutory penalty, as in this Bill, the Minister is running the risk that it will be harder and harder to get convictions and, in consequence, the result of including these statutory penalties will be to minimise their deterrent effect rather than to create a greater deterrent as the Minister himself intends.

That has been the experience of all practitioners in court in relation to any type of offence but particularly that must be the case where there is very much more room for the exercise of judgement and opinion, as in road traffic cases, than in other cases. It is very often purely a matter of personal judgement whether in any accident the course the defendant was adopting was the right course or not. It is a matter that it is very hard to determine. One takes a different view in the ordinary road traffic case than one does in the case where it is a question whether the accused person did or did not steal a certain article. There is, first of all, the conflict of evidence as to what actually happened; secondly there is the conflict as to what is the right thing to do in the circumstances. The imposition willy-nilly by the court of a very severe minimum penalty means that the court will lean towards acquittal more than it would in other circumstances, and the Minister may find that the effect of dealing with the matter in that way will be the reverse of what he intends.

I said earlier that I believe one of the essential things we should do was to introduce a code that would have universal support and therefore universal acceptance, thereby making it possible to keep it in effect. That is the only reason that prevents me, and I imagine has prevented the Minister from advocating compulsory dipping of lights at night. Such a law would be utterly impossible to enforce. When a person has been blinded by lights coming against him, when the other car has gone past, there is no possible way of tracing who it is and even if one did turn round and give chase, by that time it would be too late to catch him. However, that does not mean that the Minister is excused from providing that the manufacturer of motor vehicles will provide satisfactory dipping devices so that at least motorists would be encouraged in that way. In certain cars these devices are not always very comfortably placed. As far as I know, there is nothing in any statute or regulation or in this Bill—and I freely admit to the Minister he might easily catch me out in having missed something in this Bill, having regard to its length and scope—which provides that it is compulsory for a mechanically propelled vehicle to have a dimming apparatus in working order. If I am right in that, something should be included. One of the things we ought to do in relation to the type of user, which we cannot enforce because of the difficulty of enforcement, is to provide that the mechanism will be there to the hand of the driver so that it will be as easy as possible for him to utilise it and so that the encouragement to go on the right course will be there the whole time.

I have heard suggestions made that one of the things the Minister should do in this Bill in order to prevent accidents is to provide that there must be a compulsory excess of £25 on every insurance policy when there is an accident. I think there is something to be said for that. If people knew that if they had an accident, no matter whether the insurance company was going to pay for it or not, the insurance company would by law be bound to provide thereafter that the person must bear the first £25 of any accident, it would act as a certain deterrent and would, I think, have the effect of bringing down the cost of motor insurance premiums for good and careful drivers.

I know the position in regard to motor insurance premiums by reason of my avocation. I have always felt, in that respect, that the cure is to increase motor insurance and to increase very substantially the no-claim bonus and so, not merely to ensure that the charge for the careful driver keeping his car on the road would be small, but that the driver would be more careful knowing that if he had an accident, be it ever so small, it would involve his insurance company in a claim and it would mean a substantially greater premium in the future.

The extension to a much greater degree of the no-claim bonus would be extremely useful in regard to the road traffic code quite apart from the cost of insurance of a careful person. The suggestion I have heard of a compulsory excess of £25 per accident is another way of ensuring that the careful driver can get the benefit of motor insurance and that the person who is reckless carries the expense of the accidents in which he is involved.

Deputy Manley referred to Section 17, which I think is a dreadful section. First of all, it is a section that should not be included without some appeal and, secondly, some attempt should be made to define "excessive." As I understand it, it means that if the local authority decides that a particular firm is using the road too much, the authority is entitled to go to court and get a decree for the extra cost it says is involved. So far as I can make out from the phraseology it will not be a reserved function but a managerial function. We know, in the nature of things, that there would be from time to time differences of opinion between some heavy users of roads and officials of the local authority, perhaps differences actually in regard to tenders for the supply of road materials and to put a power such as is included in Section 17 in the hands of the local authority without any appeal, seems to be quite unjustifiable.

There should be an opportunity for the person or firm concerned to appeal against the damage caused by so-called excessive weight. I can visualise circumstances in which it is desirable to have a prohibition on carrying tremendous weights over parts of roads and bridges; industrial machinery or machinery for E.S.B. generation works is something that comes to mind as one occasionally meets it on the road. The section is not phrased to cover the unusual damage caused by a particular load of exceptional weight and severity. It is phrased to cover the ordinary working of a firm using heavy vehicles. I do not think that is right; I think the appropriate way of coping with a situation like that is to provide that the authority should have the right to say that a load in excess of a certain weight cannot be carried on this road because the road is not fit to take it, rather than that there should be the opportunity for personal assessment of an excess as is provided in Section 17.

Section 78 (1) (e) is carried into this Bill by Section 76 and I want to put a question of principle to the Minister in regard to that section. It seems that in the old Road Traffic Act and in this Bill now, that provision is asking an insurer to investigate criminal proceedings, to investigate circumstances in which in the opinion of the insurers there should be criminal proceedings but there are not. Surely the question of whether there have been criminal proceedings and their outcome, is a matter for the forces of the State and not for investigation by private individuals, private companies such as the insurers. It is totally undesirable that the responsibility of investigating criminal proceedings should be put upon insurers in that way.

Equally, the old Section 174 of the 1933 Road Traffic Act was a very unsatisfactory section. It dealt with the reimbursement of hospitals in connection with motor accidents. The different approaches by one insurance company and another to that section, by one local authority and another to the obligations of the section, showed how unsatisfactory the position is and has been, and I am not satisfied that Section 119 of this Bill is going to make the situation any better.

Perhaps I might also suggest that we might develop here a system of motor car insurance such as they have in Sweden, where the premium is related to the distance driven, the age of the licence holder, and the car engine output. In consequence, the person who uses his car very little does not have to pay the same insurance premium as the person who drives a great deal. I gather that the average there is taken as the person who drives between 6,000 and 15,000 miles per year. That is about the average. The person who drives less than that has to pay a smaller premium; those who drive more have to pay a surcharge. The reduction in the case of those who use cars very little can, I believe, amount to as much as 20 per cent. That is one of the things we should, I think, consider here.

There is ground for a provision in this Bill that where anybody is an accessory before the fact of another using an uninsured vehicle, he can be sued by the injured party. That is being done on the other side of the water. The person who knowingly permits and actively assists another to drive an uninsured car should bear just as much moral responsibility for any accident that occurs as the actual driver of the car, particularly in view of the fact that the injured person cannot recover against the uninsured driver. Very often, when there is an accident, there is a good deal of evasion as to who in fact was driving. If it were known that it did not matter who was driving, that anybody who had been an accessory before the fact would be equally liable to the injured party, it would help considerably.

I suppose this Bill is hardly the measure on which to discuss whether or not it is desirable to continue trial by jury in relation to civil actions. In my view, there is a great deal to be said for a change in the case of civil actions to a judge alone hearing and determining the claim. There is a great deal to be said from another point of view also, but we will have an opportunity of discussing this aspect on the next item of business to-day. I refer to the difficulty imposed by jury service on the rate paying public. I can visualise tremendous difficulty in providing any system of payment commensurate with what a juror may lose. From the point of view of the juror, therefore, the only course is to move towards determination by the specialist who is paid by the State, namely, the judge alone. I am not talking of criminal cases now. In criminal cases, a very different issue is involved. All of us will agree that it is essential to retain the jury system in such cases.

In relation to road traffic cases, there is a great deal to be considered from the point of view of whether it might not be better to adopt the other system and drop the jury system, to have liability determined by a judge alone, and damages equally determined by him. Frankly, I am not quite clear on whether that would come within the scope of this Bill. It can, however, fall within the ambit of the Bill in considering the difficulties that arise as a result of road traffic accidents. Whether my suggestion should be included in this Bill or in a separate measure is a matter upon which I am not prepared to be in any way definite. It is, however, one which we should further consider.

I saw a reference in a speech recently wherein it was implied that the vast majority of accidents which come to the courts are caused by good drivers taking unjustifiable risks. From that, an effort was made to draw the conclusion that the vast number of accidents are caused by persons who are good and skilled drivers. It is not for me to comment on whether or not the first part of that statement is correct. Personally, I do not think it is, but I am not sufficiently experienced to state definitely. I am told by others who are experienced that it is not true to say that the vast number of accidents that go to the courts are caused by good or skilled drivers taking chances. But, even if it were true, it would be nonsense to draw the conclusion that the same premise holds good for all accidents.

An enormous number of accidents arise through stupidity and bad driving. Insurance companies will tell you that those accidents are settled at once because the company concerned knows that there is not the slightest chance of defending an action and the sooner they get out of liability, the better. The only cases that go to court are those in which there is some doubt as to liability and doubt as to liability arises almost invariably because of the possibility of saying that the driving of the person involved is good and he therefore avoided the unforeseen and unforeseeably bad driving of the other party. Sometimes, of course, the evidence conflicts but it is because in three-quarters of the cases prima facie the insurance company regards the driving of the insured as being good that the case goes to court at all. Otherwise, the company admits negligence and fights only on the issue of the amount of damages.

To draw an analogy from the statement that it is the type of case in which the good driver is involved that goes to court, because the good driver was taking chances, is to draw an unreal and nonsensical analogy. I do not think we can stress often enough that accidents are caused primarily by the other person doing something unforeseen. Sometimes we may be wrong in not foreseeing. If one sees a child on the road, one should assume that the child may not behave in a rational way. There are occasions, however, on which people act without giving any indication in sufficient time as to what they intend to do. They give no warning at all to other users of the road and, in 99 cases out of 100, the person concerned is blissfully unaware that he has done anything wrong. That is the appalling part of it, the frightening part of it.

We see an amount of bad driving on the roads and the drivers concerned do not realise they are bad drivers. The frightening part of it is that it is the cause of accidents. Therefore, as I said in the beginning, it is essential to get the education of our drivers on the right lines in relation to the traffic code itself—and where people are proven to be bad drivers, they should be made take a test—and in relation to new drivers coming on the roads. Unless that is done, the problem will get worse and worse every year, and year after year, we will come up against more difficulties and problems with which we shall be unable to cope.

When we see a driver driving on the left centre of the road, or the middle of the road, and say: "That man is driving dreadfully badly," some people think you are just being fussy or that you are anxious to get on in a hurry yourself, but I wonder has the additional cost that driver is putting on the community ever struck those people? If everyone drove on the left side of the road, a great number of our roads would be quite satisfactory as they are at present, without the expenditure of more money on them. People do not drive on the left side of the road; they drive on the left centre of the road, leaving a large amount of unused road space on their left, road space which costs a substantial amount of money. If people drove on the left and gave a signal before pulling out to the left centre of the road, many of our roads would be quite satisfactory as they are, and would not require the expenditure of vast sums of money, such as are visualised as being necessary, having regard to the standard of our driving.

I do not believe our people, as a whole, are as ignorant, as irresponsible, as discouteous and as rude, as one would gather they are on seeing them behind the wheels of cars. They just do not know, and it is the job of the Minister to ensure that they are adequately educated, and that the right way to drive a vehicle is brought home to them, and to pedestrians who walk out against a traffic light, or go against the flow of traffic. Television, modern advertising, everything must be utilised towards that end. Unless they are utilised in an attempt to improve the education of those who drive, no Road Traffic Bill will provide any real solution.

I am glad to note that there has been a general welcome for the Bill, with certain qualifications, which were to be expected on a measure which is undoubtedly rather controversial. Many of the matters raised can be dealt with more readily, and will be dealt with more fully, on Committee Stage. For that reason, I shall not at this stage reply to all the points raised.

There are, however, a number of points on which some clarification might now be of some help. I hope to give an elucidation of some of the matters which I feel will be helpful, and of benefit to the members who raised them, and to members of the House in general. Before doing so, I should like to refer to the suggestions and the absurd claims from the Opposition Benches, which I had hoped would not have been made. I shall refer to them now in the hope that there will not be any more references to the matter.

It has been claimed that this Bill was long delayed, and that it was four years coming forward from the point which it is alleged to have reached under the previous Government, and that a draft Bill was there to my hand when I went to the Department. At no stage was there a draft Bill available to me. There were heads of a Bill agreed on by the previous Government, and in so far as those heads go, I want to give all credit to that Government for whatever was contained in them. Once and for all, I want to make it quite clear that it was the heads of a Bill agreed on by the Government, and not a draft Bill, which were available.

I enumerated the various changes in them in reply to a Question by Deputy McGilligan yesterday, and there is evidence of how much further detailed work and drafting had to be done before the Bill could see the light. I hope we will forget about that aspect of the matter and stop making these charges, which are not well-founded and I hope we will approach the Bill in the manner in which I feel it must be approached, if we are to have an effective Bill. There must be co-operation from all sides of the House in trying to make it a better Bill than it is now, so that it will be a better Act than Bill.

I assure the House that any and every amendment and suggestion proposed by any member will get the fullest and most complete consideration possible from my Department and myself. Full consideration will be given to every aspect. I want to make an appeal to all sides of the House to approach the Bill in that way, because without that type of contribution, I do not think we can get the job done. We cannot get the type of Bill we all desire if there are arguments about the Bill being delayed for four years, that it was prepared by the previous Government, that I had nothing to do with it and did nothing except delay it for four years. I hope at this stage that we can regard that aspect of the matter closed, because it would be better for the final form of the Bill if that were so.

A number of Deputies raised the issue of enforcement. Some urged very rigid enforcement of the proposals in this measure; others favoured a rather lax approach to some of the matters in the Bill; and there was a middle group who felt we should take a middle course and, in the general run, were in favour of neither laxity nor absolute ruthlessness. I can only say in this regard that enforcement is not a matter for my Department. I do not wish to tell other Departments or other agencies of State or other people how to do their job. We hope to lay down a framework within which they will carry out the enforcement. I shall pass on the various suggestions to the Minister for Justice for transmission to the Garda authorities. I had an assurance from the Minister for Justice during the preparation of this Bill that enforcement will properly and fully be carried out by the Garda.

Deputy Dillon spoke of employing non-police personnel for enforcement —particularly, I take it, in the city and built-up areas—in connection with somewhat minor offences. He made a very good plea on two grounds. In particular, he felt, possibly with reason, that, as our controls become more widespread, intervention by the Garda may tend to undermine the happy relations that exist between them and the public. In some cities in other countries, due to the enforcement of minor safety matters, the harmony and co-operation the police enjoyed for years with the public suffered a setback. There may be a danger inherent in this Bill that the Garda may lose the good feeling which exists between them and the public and which has been built up over the years.

On the other hand, the recruitment of non-police personnel for this type of work was not introduced for the reason Deputy Dillon suggests. The system was introduced into Britain because recruitment to the police force there had become rather difficult. Non-police personnel were introduced to complement the available police recruits. That situation does not arise to such a degree in this country. I am doubtful if we would take kindly to a new type of law enforcement group, even if they were confined to traffic and infringements of a minor nature. I do not envisage that the Garda will be so active by reason of this Bill as to become the bane of the everyday life of the people and thereby lose their respect and co-operation. I should be sorry to think that such a state of affairs would come about.

Almost every Deputy mentioned the power to make regulations. Some understood the need for it but others were critical of the general principle of making law by regulation. I mentioned this matter in my opening speech. I hoped that my comments would explain the reason for the situation. However, it has been queried. We are not taking the power to make regulations lightly or for the sake of giving power to the Minister for Local Government to make regulations and to regiment and drill the people into his way of thinking. Rather is the power being taken because of the pattern of changing circumstances. To attempt to write into the Bill what we want now might require amendment in a few years' time. On every occasion on which amendment of the Bill became necessary, the matter would have to be brought into this House and such emendation would tend still further to confuse our understanding of the law.

Deputy Corish instanced the situation in Britain where regulations in regard to traffic laws may get the prior approval of the Government. I understand that the three recent Road Traffic Acts in Britain contain many powers to make regulations and that only in respect of a very limited number is prior Parliamentary approval sought or desired. Not all the regulations are subject to prior approval.

Any and all of the regulations made under this Bill are subject to annulment by the Oireachtas. While we may not come along to get prior approval for any of these regulations, each and every one of them will be subject to annulment by the Oireachtas after they have been made. From that point of view, the powers of this House are being fully maintained so far as is practicable in the circumstances.

Deputy Barrett queried the terms of the provisions of Section 5. Those terms are exactly similar to the forms used in such provisions in other Acts.

Deputy Sheldon suggested the establishment of a joint committee of the Dáil and Seanad to consider all road traffic regulations. I am not clear what his intention was.

There is a similar committee, I think, dealing with Statutory Orders, which was set up by the Seanad.

Yes. First, let me say it seems strange that we should have a special committee to deal with the orders and regulations under this one Act. Why should we not have a special committee to deal with the regulations prescribed under all Acts? As the Leader of the Opposition has mentioned, there is in existence a Seanad Committee which does just the type of work Deputy Sheldon has referred to, and does it in relation to all the various regulations. At the moment, no clear case appears to have been made for a special joint committee to deal with the regulations under this Act, but possibly the Deputy may make such a case on other Stages of the Bill. At the same time, we have a committee doing the type of work which, I think, Deputy Sheldon intended should be done by the committee he suggested.

Deputy Dillon stated that all regulations made under the Bill should be codified at the end of each year. While this suggestion is one that would naturally appeal to all Deputies, it is not practicable in the circumstances. These regulations will deal with different subjects and are not necessarily suitable for codification as a group. This work would take a considerable time and would, therefore, divert energies from the more urgent task of implementing the Act. I would remind the Deputy and the House that a summary of the law on road traffic, including current regulations, is published from time to time in Rules of the Road. In addition, the annual report of the Department contains a description of the road traffic regulations and the bye-laws made each year. I will, however, consider the feasibility of having a full list of all current regulations published each year, with some helpful notes. For the moment, I feel the House will accept that situation and that the information available to them under the existing three heads should give them a reasonable opportunity of being fully aware of what is in the regulations at any given time.

Deputy Corish raised the issue of prior consultation with affected interests before making regulations. I can assure the House straight away that I would be very unwise if I did not take the greatest possible care to consult the interests affected by regulations in so far as it is possible and practicable to do so; but I do not think it would be possible to give the undertaking Deputy Corish asked, that there would be an absolute obligation on me to consult all those affected by the making of all regulations. It would merely cause delay and waste of time; and, perhaps, nobody would be satisfied when we were finished. In so far as is practicable, I certainly intend to consult the interests concerned, so long as that does not involve a multiplicity of interests resulting in such an expenditure of time that it would not be feasible to carry out the proposal.

Anxiety was expressed by a number of Deputies about the time that will elapse before all of this Bill is brought into operation. If they will study my introductory speech, they will see that a considerable portion of this Bill is to be brought into force straight away, that is, on the enactment of the Bill by the Oireachtas. The remainder will come into operation as quickly as the necessary preliminary steps, including the making of regulations, can be taken.

A number of points made by Deputies related to matters appropriate for consideration when regulations are being made. That is particularly true of Section 11. Their suggestions will be noted and carefully considered. As is always the case, some points related to matters appropriate to other legislation and not to this Bill.

I noted with some pleasure that Deputies in general, and for various reasons, favour the introduction of a driving test. Deputy O'Donnell asked what the scope of the test will be. The Bill itself makes it clear that the test will cover not merely competence to drive but also a knowledge of the rules of the road. I think that answers a few Deputies who raised various points on that aspect of the test. The competence test will be primarily concerned with safe driving and will take account of one's duties to other road users. That will be an important point in these tests—the regard the driver displays in the test towards other road users.

Deputy O'Higgins suggested that the test might be extended to persons convicted of certain offences, and as was indicated in the explanatory memorandum circulated with the Bill, this can be done under Section 42, and will be considered. The courts will have power to require a person disqualified from driving to undergo a test. That discretion will be theirs in all cases not specifically mentioned in the Bill. Deputy Corish asked about the machinery for testing. A final decision on this, whether it will be under the Garda or some licensing authority, has not yet been taken. If it should come to be done by the licensing authorities, the making of appointments of testers will follow the usual procedure. Qualifications and salary are to be fixed and a competition will be held. At this stage I do not want to and, in fact, I cannot commit myself as to the details which are at the moment being examined in this regard.

Deputy Corish and, I think, some other Deputies later, inquired as to the classes of vehicles to which driving tests would apply. There will, of course, be carry-over provisions for existing drivers but the intention for a new driver is that his licence will cover only the class of vehicle in respect of which he has passed a test. A new driver will be permitted to drive only the class of vehicle in respect of which he will have passed the test.

That does not mean, of course, that a separate test will be required for every type of vehicle. For instance, a test for the driving of a truck or lorry could and would cover the driving of a private car, but not necessarily, as the House will understand, the driving of a motor cycle. The same test would not clearly be suitable in such an instance.

A number of Deputies raised the question of the age limit for the driving of tractors; in other words, the age at which persons may get a licence to drive various mechanically-propelled vehicles. Some suggest that 16 years is too high, that it should be less and that they should be allowed to drive at possibly 15 years of age. There was also the suggestion in regard to tractors that the age of 16 was an undue hardship on the farming community in so far as the members of their families are concerned.

I do not think it would be in the best interests of road safety to reduce below 16 years the age at which a person may first qualify for a licence. Instances, I am sure, will be quoted, perhaps even within the knowledge of some of the members now listening to me where somebody under 16 years of age could, in fact, be said to be likely to be capable and fully capable but, after all, 16 years is quite a young age for the giving of a licence to drive a mechanically-propelled vehicle, and for accepting the responsibility which the holding of such a licence entails, not to speak of reducing it below that level. While you might, in some instances, have quite capable drivers under that age, there is no doubt that we must surely increase the possibility of having quite a number who would not be capable or would not have the sense of responsibility which would entitle them to inflict themselves and the danger of their driving on the general public.

I can only say this—I feel it must be said again and again; my belief is absolute in this matter—that there are few more dangerous vehicles in the hands of a young person than a tractor. The danger has been brought to the point at which it exists by virtue of the fact that the people in the country are inclined to look on the tractor with the same disregard as they had for the horse in its day, which horse, perhaps, had more sense in many cases than many of the people who were left to care for it. In other words, you could have the farm horse which was older than some of the children left in charge of it. In fact, as I say, in many cases the horse could take the young person home rather than the young person take the horse home. I am rather inclined to think that was carried over into the machine age of the tractor on the farm to-day. Little regard is had in many cases to the deplorable accidents we read of and to the inherent dangers in a farm tractor.

The suggestion is that a young chap may use this tractor in the fields with very great skill. He may use it to till the land and work the farm, but that in itself is not a sound argument for allowing that person, no matter how tender may be his years, on the public road. When he is on the farm, he is on his own land and if he is going to do any damage, he is likely to damage no one but himself; but that is no reason for allowing persons of a more tender age than 16 years on the public road, with possible danger to the public. In my estimation, there is very great danger in the driving of farm tractors, particularly tractors with trailers. They are dangerous machines and are not easily handled, in spite of the apparent ease with which they may be handled. They are not as easily controlled as we are led to believe.

What these young people may do on their father's farm is one thing, but to permit them to go on the public road, on the basis of a lower age qualification, is another. I do not think it would be a wise departure at this juncture and possibly it may not be wise at any point. That matter, like many others in the Bill, is one upon which further views will be expressed. While I have given my own view, I still have an open mind—a mind open to conviction, to a change if such a change can be brought about by a good argument in favour of this, but I do not think that is likely to happen.

Deputy Russell enquired as to the need for signing a driving licence and suggested it was too minor a provision to put in the Bill and thought that it might be a case to be dealt with by regulation. Again, there are many matters which some members of the House feel we should not have dealt with by regulation; that as many as we could honestly put in the Bill and not leave to regulation, we should try to put in. On balance, we felt this was one which would be more appropriately put into the Bill. That is what we intend to do. During the transition period, that is, from the coming into effect of the terms of the Bill, in relation to driving licences and testing for licences for certain categories stated, licences will require to be signed for identification of the holder. This is really the reason for this provision.

It may well be that in time to come, when we have reached the point where all will have been tested who are subject to these tests, the old licence will disappear. There will undoubtedly be a period in between during which the present type of licence, with the signature as a means of identification of the holder, will have to continue to operate. Really that is the bone of contention in this section.

A number of Deputies asked about the physical and mental conditions which will render a person disqualified from applying for a driving licence. If I may, I shall refer again to the fact that, in the explanatory memorandum, as circulated, this matter is dealt with pretty fully. Deputy Corish on the same subject asked who would be the final judge in such matters and the answer is that the final judge in these matters will be the courts. The procedure envisaged is that a person will be required to say whether he suffers from such defects. If he says "No" and has in fact these defects, he will be subject to prosecution and conviction on this issue.

Deputy Corish also referred to the fact that a member of the Garda need not hold a driving licence. This, I may say, merely puts the Garda Siochána in the same position as the Army under the Defence Acts. The Commissioner, of course, will ensure that members of the Garda Síochána who are required to drive vehicles will be properly trained, "properly trained and tested" is the procedure at the moment, I understand. It is for that reason that we do not require a Guard to hold a driving licence in the ordinary way that applies to the rest of our population.

The same Deputy referred to the onus of proof in Section 38. I would just say that the law would be unenforceable without it, in view of a fairly recent Supreme Court decision. Perhaps we can deal with this point, and I think we will deal with it much more fully, on Committee Stage. Again, the same Deputy inquired if the case for remission of driving licence disqualification would no longer be submitted to the Minister for Justice. The answer is that, in future, such remissions will be granted only by the courts.

Different views were expressed in regard to the provisions relating to consequential disqualification. I think it is generally agreed that disqualification is probably the most effective penalty for road traffic offences. Yet some Deputies, including Deputy Dillon and Deputy Lemass, were concerned about the consequences of disqualification. I must say I was impressed by their arguments but I was also convinced by other arguments long before, arguments with which the House generally agrees, that this consequential disqualification is an effective penalty. We do want effectiveness in regard to offences for which consequential disqualification is prescribed in this Bill.

The plain fact is that you just cannot have it both ways. We are going to have the effective penalty of disqualification, following on certain serious offences. We cannot have the benefit of that, while, at the same time, giving more regard to the actual effects under this provision of disqualification. We either have the effective penalty of disqualification or, if we want to depart from that, we will lose its effectiveness. That is the way I feel about it— and I think there are quite a number in the House who feel likewise—while at the same time, I accept that the arguments put by the two Deputies were convincing, if taken in isolation. However, we cannot take these matters in isolation. They are completely bound up and the matter is one which at this stage, and subject to any further convincing arguments that may be made on Committee Stage, I am prepared to let stand.

Deputy Ryan, who actually favours this consequential disqualification, even went so far as to say that we should extend it. That, of course, is the opposite view, and it is natural that we should get such a wide variation of views, regardless of which side of the House they may come from. It is the type of matter that will provoke all sorts of conflicting views. Deputy Ryan felt that we should apply this consequential disqualification not merely to the second and third offences but to first offences. I should like to remind the House that consequential disqualification would apply to the first offences only in the case of driving while under the influence of drink and in certain cases of dangerous driving, that is, dangerous driving which results in death or serious bodily harm. For other serious driving offences——

Could I interrupt the Minister to ask if his mind has been directed to the question of whether there is any difference between "grievous bodily harm" and "serious bodily harm"? That might not have been raised with him.

It was not, but I am sure we can raise it later.

An English court says there is none.

I was wondering if there was any significance in it. I think "grievous bodily harm" is used in the criminal code.

In a case in England involving a man named Smith, the House of Lords said that "serious" and "grievous" were the same.

Consequential disqualification will apply only to the second offence, and for minor offences only to the third offence committed within the same 12 months period. That should be borne in mind, because, when talking about minor offences, we are inclined to feel that minor offences should be treated as would apparently befit a minor offence. What is really of significance, however, is the habitual minor offender, one who undoubtedly needs to be corrected. If he continues to be a habitual offender in the sense of having three minor offences marked up against him within the same 12 months, then I do not think you can treat that in the context of a person committing a number of minor offences.

Taking him in that light, as a habitual offender, the sooner he is corrected of the habit of committing minor offences, the less likelihood there is that he will fall into more serious error, with dangerous or harmful consequences to some members of the public. Therefore, this provision for the third offence within 12 months is a good provision and will be of very definite use as far as the habitual, could-not-care-less type of offender is concerned, who has no regard for others in the community and who does not comprehend that his small offences may be quite an annoyance and may even be the cause of more serious happenings than he might envisage. If we can curb that type of offender, so much the better.

Deputy Kyne inquired if a booklet could be issued to every new driver setting out the rules of the road. In reply to that, every new driver does in fact get a booklet when he receives his licence. If he does not, he should, and my information is that he does. Deputy Blowick wondered if a special leaflet could be got out for tractor drivers. This matter will be given consideration by my Department and I shall tell the Deputy at a later stage the results of that consideration.

A number of points were raised about vehicle testing. Deputy Moloney, who has some considerable experience in these matters, felt that the testing should apply to vehicles irrespective of age. Deputy Carroll made a suggestion on somewhat similar lines. I want to say to the House in regard to these suggestions of these two Deputies that there is power to do this, but I feel that in the beginning, at any rate, this system will apply only to old cars as a start. We cannot envisage complete overall vehicle testing starting at a given date, but we can start by doing the obvious, that is, by starting with the older ones which are more likely to have defects. That is not denying, as has been alleged here, that there are cars which could be regarded as being in the vintage class which are in much better mechanical condition than are some that may be only a year or two old; that all depends on the care and maintenance which a car receives rather than its actual age. That is quite true and I do not disagree with it. Neither does the intention that the test will apply, in the first instance at any rate, to the older vehicles conflict with my belief that the younger cars may also require these tests, but one has to take the practical view of it and start where it is logical to start, that is, with the older cars.

Deputy Corish asked if C.I.E. vehicles would be exempt. They will be. Concerns such as C.I.E., not necessarily only C.I.E., will be exempt only if they satisfy me that their own internal arrangements for testing are satisfactory. If we find they are not, they will not be exempted any more than anyone else.

Deputy Moloney also raised the question of roadworthiness. He suggested that there should be a penalties clause in the Bill for the sale of unroadworthy vehicles. This has been considered but it was decided that it would not be possible to get a workable solution. I understand that the British provision on those lines has not proved to be very effective. The testing system that I have mentioned should, in part at any rate, deal with vehicles that are not roadworthy, which Deputy Moloney would like to see brought under the heel of the law.

Deputy Moloney also referred to the provisions of Section 114 regarding excessive periods of driving. This section replaces the 1933 Act provisions which so far as I know have not been questioned by the trade unions. I should say that this is a matter which might more appropriately be raised with the Minister for Industry and Commerce who has power to make regulations varying the periods provided trade unions and employees agree and I think it is not quite appropriate for discussion on this Bill.

Deputy Barrett referred to the provisions of Section 20, which gives the Garda power to forbid the use of a dangerously defective vehicle. He questioned the absence of appeal to the court. I am considering an amendment to the section which may cover Deputy Barrett's point.

While most Deputies welcomed the provisions in regard to speed limits, some Deputies queried the figure of 30 miles per hour. The speed limit of 30 miles per hour, which is the limit being laid down in the Bill to apply to our cities and towns, is the same figure as has been adopted in other countries and is the speed at which, according to the experts, the maximum flow is achieved in densely trafficked roads in built-up areas. It is on the basis of that information that we have come in here with a figure of 30 miles per hour rather than 20, 25, 35 or 40. That speed limit is used in a number of European countries and the evidence generally—and I say "generally" designedly—shows that it reduces accidents both as to number and severity.

As will be understood from the Bill, there is power to fix a higher level if experience shows that to be advisable. A speed limit of, say, 40 miles an hour can be fixed on approach roads under the special Section 46, so that while we have the general overall speed limit of 30 miles per hour laid down more or less as our basis, departures can be made from that under special sections in the Bill to meet special circumstances in any given case.

On this question of insurance cover, I feel some Deputies have misunderstood the position. Compulsory passenger insurance will be required for such classes of vehicles as will be specified by regulation. I have indicated that this will apply to all public service vehicles and, most likely, to all private cars including hire drive vehicles, in the first instance. I am glad that the Deputies who have spoken favoured this approach. Even having regard to the repercussions that the extension of the insurance cover may have in certain directions, nevertheless, the Deputies who mentioned the matter did come down in favour of the extension of passenger cover.

Deputy Corish suggested relating the insurance cover to the motor tax period but it is fairly clear on examination that for administrative reasons this would not be feasible. You just cannot tie in the insurance business with the motor tax business and that is, in effect, what we would be asking if we were to adopt the suggestion.

There has been a fair number of suggestions in regard to compulsory insurance. Of course, like the 1933 Act, the Bill provides for compulsory insurance, but leaves it to the vehicle owners to effect the insurance with companies operating commercially.

General complaints about the level of insurance rates have been made here. I agree with the view expressed —and believe it would be in the interests not only of the driver with the good record but would also help from the point of view of road safety —that the dice should be loaded against those who cause the damage which brings about the payment of big claims by the insurance companies and, on the other hand, that compensation by way of a greater no-claim bonus should be given to the driver with the long safe record. There is a lot to commend that approach and, for what it is worth, I wholeheartedly agree with that view. In another and more appropriate place it might be possible, if the House feels strongly on this, to give greater cognisance to it in the future than has been given to it in the past.

Deputy Cosgrave mentioned one aspect of insurance which is of prime concern, that is, the case of a person injured by a stolen vehicle. In such a case the injured person can have recourse to the Motor Insurers' Bureau which has undertaken to meet claims of that type involving personal injury where the driver is uninsured and cannot himself meet the claim. I have no doubt that it covers effectively the type of hardship case that Deputy Cosgrave mentioned.

Deputy Barrett queried Section 39, which enables the Court hearing a prosecution for non-insurance to award damages to an injured person. This provision corresponds to the provision in the 1933 Act of which there has been no complaint whatsoever although it has been in operation since 1933. I am not aware of any recent fundamental happenings or change of circumstances that would make it repugnant to the public to-day when they have had it for 28 years without complaint.

The question of fines on the spot is really a misnomer as Deputies will understand. However, this system, described as fines on the spot, has been generally accepted by the House although a number of Deputies felt quite strongly—I think this was the strongest argument against it—that it would bring in its train corruption in our police force. Those who hold that view and have expressed it very forcefully must misunderstand the situation or else, understanding the situation, they imply that if corruption can happen in the future because of this, it must be happening at the moment. I do not hold with that. Misunderstanding is far more likely in the case of these Deputies. May I say that there is no question at any time of money passing from the hand of the person found infringing the traffic laws into the hand of the Garda who has detected the infringement?

In certain specified types of infringement, the Guard fines an offending person; he does one of two things. He no longer has to wait around until that person returns to serve him with notice of intention to prosecute. He can under this Bill affix to the car a ticket indicating that the infringement, whatever it may be, has been committed and that within a given number of days the driver of that car has the option of going to the police barracks and there paying over his fine and getting a receipt for it. If the defendant as it were, feels he would not be justified in paying the fine, he does nothing at all. Court proceedings will follow and, if he can prove his contention that he was not in the wrong, the court will no doubt agree with him. Again if the Guard in the first instance decided that this type of infringement was one which was being perpetrated and was causing danger that had not been envisaged in the framing of the regulations or the Bill, he might decide there would be no option of a fine and would prosecute in this case. Again it is the court which will decide; it is only in the case where the Guard has agreed to give the option to the car owner to pay the fine that the car owner can willingly plead guilty. Then, and not until then, will the payment of money arise; that money will be paid in at a stated barracks and a receipt given for it.

The Guard will not even have been seen in many cases, let alone talked to the person. That should not give any cause for alarm that this provision will breed corruption in our police force. I think the system is well worth trying; I do not think anybody could seriously accept the suggestion that as a result corruption will be created in the force. Such a suggestion does not make sense even on a cursory examination. The House will find that out when it comes to deal with the Bill on the Committee Stage.

Deputy O'Higgins questioned the constitutionality of the provision in this regard. I can only say I have been advised that the matter in question is in order on that score.

A number of Deputies referred to the offence of driving while under the influence of drink. Deputy Dr. Browne strongly advocated blood and breath tests. I am not at all against such tests but until these tests have proved themselves more conclusively than is evident at the moment, we do not think the time has arrived for their adoption here. If, as things develop, a clear-cut test that is reliable emerges, I should imagine that whoever is Minister for Local Government will come to the House pretty quickly with an amendment to bring in such a test. Undoubtedly, if we had a reliable test, it would solve many problems in relation to the influence of drink charges that figure so largely in the courts. It would be better for the prosecution and the defence that such tests could be taken and could actually tell the truth. We are not aware that such a test has yet been developed and for that reason we have not included provision for it—not because we are against such tests but because those put forward do not seem to have proved themselves sufficiently to be adopted here as yet.

Some Deputies suggested a tightening of the defence of a driver while under the influence of drink or, as an alternative, the introduction of a lesser offence where a person's control was merely impaired—I think that was the word used. I shall consider this aspect of the matter but I doubt if anything can be achieved on these lines without some conclusive test, which, as I said, has not yet been evolved or proved to the degree that would enable me to recommend its adoption to this House.

The increased penalty for dangerous driving resulting in death or serious bodily harm received a somewhat mixed reception. In its defence, I must say it is one of the provisions most strongly recommended by all those connected with the enforcement of the law and I am satisfied that it is generally welcomed by the public. Most of these innovations are only fully and clearly understood when they come home to roost with somebody as a result of some sad occurrence. In all the circumstances, I believe this provision for the type of offence outlined is generally welcome, even though there may be some reservations about its impact on the public generally.

I was rather agreeably surprised to hear a welcome—even a modified one —for the onus of proof provision from even the lawyers in the House. I felt this was a matter to which the lawyers might tend to take exception, but even the lawyers in the House have given the provision a modified welcome and of that I am very glad. These provisions have been introduced in order to enable the law to operate, not just to "down" the defendants who may appear in court in the future. It is rather a change sought and felt to be necessary, if our laws in future are to operate effectively and in accordance with the underlying intention of the Bill.

I think the provisions of Section 119 regarding reimbursement of hospitals have been misunderstood. It is always open to a person injured in an accident to pay the hospital and then seek to recover that expense, with other damages, from the person responsible for the accident. The hospital may choose to recover directly from the insurer and in that case they may use Section 119. The limits fixed in the 1933 Act are now out of date, in view of increasing costs, and power is given to fix them by regulation as these costs and values may change again before another overall traffic Bill comes to the House.

Deputy Lemass suggested that the local authority rather than the Garda should make road bye-laws. The difficulty is that such bye-laws apply not merely to residents in the area but to users of vehicles coming into the area and so there is need for a uniform approach to these bye-laws. For that reason, we have done what is apparently regarded as slighting the competence of the local authorities by giving, in the first instance, power to the Garda Commissioner, in consultation with the local authority, to make these bye-laws, but the main fact I want to emphasise to Deputies who are undoubtedly interested in the question is that the Garda Commissioner, having made a proposal and consulted with the local authority may, if he does not agree with the local authority or if the local authority disagrees with his proposed bye-laws, submit them to my Department for approval. Anything the local authority may wish to say on them or any representations they may make disagreeing with something in them will be received by me from them and I can amend those bye-laws.

It is much better in the present way——

That is really the safeguard——

——because they have done nothing.

——that if the local authority should be overridden in the matter and if it is of consequence, they have the opportunity of redress by furnishing the Minister with their views on the matter in dispute and the Minister will be empowered, if he thinks fit in the best interests of all concerned, suitably to amend the proposed bye-laws.

Deputy Dillon mentioned the importance to shopkeepers of suitable parking space being made available for their customers. This Bill will help in that regard in two respects: first, through the use of modern methods of parking control and preserving parking space for short-term parking, and secondly—and this is very important—local authorities or private enterprise may be facilitated in the matter of offstreet car parks.

Deputy Lemass suggested that bus stops should be reconsidered and resited. The Commissioner will have power to do that under the Bill and I am sure that any proposals brought to his notice through the Minister for Justice will be given full consideration.

We have not forgotten jay-walkers who can be dealt with by bye-laws under Section 88. The enforcement of those bye-laws will be another matter because it is very easy to make bye-laws that will appear to control jay-walkers but the actual application of such laws may prove quite difficult. If we can find the way, we shall be quite happy to use it because the power is in the Bill.

Would the Minister move the adjournment of the debate?

I could finish in just a minute or two.

I do not wish to delay the Minister, but would he mind moving the adjournment of the debate because we might like to ask him a couple of questions when he concludes his observations, if that will not delay him unduly?

That would completely change the Order of Business because the Mental Treatment Bill has been ordered for this afternoon.

Then, I do not press the matter.

In conclusion, while there may be a number of matters relatively important to those who raised them to which I have not specifically replied, that is not due to any ungraciousness on my part. I feel that these matters are more appropriate for discussion on the Committee Stage and, while I have not replied to them, I have taken note of them and I shall endeavour to give fully satisfactory replies to the points raised on the Committee Stage.

I should like to put some questions to the Minister. He may prefer to leave the replies over to the Committee Stage. First, has he considered the quasi-mandatory penalties in Section 49 and the general question of the desirability of introducing that quasi-mandatory element into the statute law? Secondly, has he considered the question as to when does an accident become fatal? If the injured person dies, the whole character of the accident changes. There does not seem to be any provision in the Bill as to the period in which a fatality changes the character of an accident. Thirdly, has he considered the question of the possibility of compensation for expenses for an acquitted person? Fourthly, has he considered the question of insurance for passengers?

The penalties in Section 49 are maximum and not minimum penalties. It will be a matter for the discretion of the Court in the particular case and circumstances.

Subsection (2) is a peculiar provision.

With regard to reimbursement of expenses where witnesses are concerned, I have no intention of trying to get out of a problem, but, on examination, it appears to me this should be a matter which would apply to the general law rather than to the specific code we are now considering.

Has the Minister considered the question of when does an accident become fatal for the purpose of this statute?

Again, it is the Court which will decide.

Has the Minister considered the matter of insurance for passengers?

I dealt with that.

In regard to the maximum speed in built-up areas, in view of the suggestion that there would be a 30 m.p.h. limit and the general acceptance of that proposal by the House, plus the fact that in Dublin and other built-up areas traffic regulations are being very closely considered and revised, would the Minister think it advisable to ask now for a voluntary application by motorists of a speed limit of 30 m.p.h. in built-up areas? The acceptance of the proposal would help to emphasise the more excessive speeds of other drivers.

While I agree with the proposal, there are some Deputies who object to speed limits.

It would help those Deputies, perhaps, the Minister and the House to come to a clearer decision having had the experience of a voluntary application of such a speed limit by the majority of our motorists.

Question put and agreed to.

When is it proposed to take the Committee Stage?

I should prefer to leave that to the Opposition, because they are in the best position to know how long they will require to put in amendments.

Three weeks.

Tuesday fortnight.

That is almost three weeks.

Tuesday fortnight and, if we are in any difficulty about amendments, we can ask for a further adjournment.

Committee Stage ordered for Tuesday, 21st March, 1961.
Top
Share