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.