Skip to main content
Normal View

Dáil Éireann debate -
Thursday, 15 Feb 1968

Vol. 232 No. 8

Road Traffic Bill, 1966: Committee Stage (Resumed).

Question again proposed: "That Section 54 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan): When I reported progress, we were dealing with section 54 which replaces section 61 of the Act of 1961. Section 61 of that Act provides:

A person (other than a vehicle insurer) who intends to carry on the business of issuing approved guarantees or who desires to become an exempted person may deposit and thereafter keep deposited with the Accountant of Courts of Justice the sum of fifteen thousand pounds.

The new section in this Bill, section 54, only deals with exempted persons. Presumably section 52 has abolished the approved guarantee. Instead of providing for a deposit of £15,000 as was provided for in the Act of 1961 the Bill provides that a person seeking to become an exempted person shall lodge with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice such sum as the Minister can specify. The Minister, from what I can gather, is the Minister for Local Government. I welcome this section because I think that the sum of £15,000 written into the Act of 1961 was totally and absolutely inadequate. It must have been inadequate even in 1961. It certainly would not compensate one person very seriously injured, never mind the number of people who could be seriously injured in the same vehicle.

Section 54 gives power to the Minister to specify the sum. I regard that as a serious onus on the Minister. He may not think so at the moment because the only exempted person, as far as I know, is CIE, and I suppose the State will have to pay up if CIE have not a sufficient amount of deposit. It is a semi-State body and to date we have shouldered a responsibility for any deficiencies in that organisation. But I take it the Minister anticipates there may be other persons seeking to become exempted persons?

They would have to be a semi-State body or a statutory company.

(Cavan): Where is that provided?

In section 53. It defines exempted persons.

(Cavan) Apparently the position now is that only a company in which the majority of the shares are held by the Minister for Finance can become an exempted person?

Or a State-sponsored company.

(Cavan): Are we to take it then that the Minister for Finance will accept responsibility for injuries to person sor damage to property caused by vehicles owned by these State-Sponsored or semi-State bodies?

Not necessarily, but the Minister has to be of opinion that the body concerned will be capable of meeting any liabilities. In general that will be the position. They are practically the same as the State.

(Cavan): In view, therefore, of what the Minister says the sum specified in section 61 (1) is not very material one way or the other?

No, we do not think so.

(Cavan): I understand the position now and I will have another look at it before Report Stage. If the State accepts responsibility then everything is all right, but if the State does not accept responsibility a very large sum, indeed, should be specified.

While Deputy Fitzpatrick agrees with the Minister's explanation that it does not appear to matter very much what the figure is, since the matter is referred to at all there must be some reason for it. If £15,000 was considered adequate in 1961 it could not be considered adequate in 1968. A bus turned over in Dublin last week but luckily no one was seriously injured. If the passengers had been seriously injured the amount available for compensation would not be sufficient for even one bus. In the circumstances the Minister might explain further what exactly is the guarantee so that semi-State bodies or even the State itself would be in a position to meet claims. It is not unusual for compensation amounting to as much as £60,000 or £70,000 to be awarded in serious accident cases. So far as the State itself is concerned, the Minister may say that it is exempt, and therefore does not come under this at all, but I am sure he knows of instances where such vehicles were involved in accidents and extreme difficulty was found in getting compensation. The Minister knows, I am quite sure, of one particular case, of a small boy who was knocked off a bicycle by an Army lorry and it was found impossible to get anything at all for that boy, even though he is still receiving treatment. This happened several years ago. This is too loosely dealt with in the House. When a Bill like this is going through, the occasion should be availed of to try to ensure that the State, the semi-State bodies or anybody else, is not put in a privileged position vis-à-vis the ordinary citizen with regard to insurance or ability to pay a compensation or responsibility to pay compensation.

They will not be in any privileged position because the individual will have the same rights against them as he has against everybody else.

It does not appear so.

It is assumed that the question of a deposit will, in general, be unimportant in these cases because of the ultimate liability of the State, but it is felt that it is desirable to retain it in case there may be some cases arising in the future where the Minister would be of the opinion that a deposit should be required. Generally speaking, the question of a deposit should be unimportant in view of the fact that they would all be semi-State bodies.

They are awfully difficult to get money from in the case of an accident, of course.

If they are it would be just as difficult in the circumstances to get it from a private body because they have no more rights and no more protection than any private company would have in similar circumstances.

Surely an insurance company which wants to hold on to business will not deal with things in the same way as the State or semi-State body who want to protect themselves solely?

If there is a considerable amount involved, the insurance companies will generally, if there is any possibility of not having to pay, take every possible step in that direction.

They are entitled to do that if it is a considerable amount, but if it is a small amount, a few thousand pounds, they are easier to deal with than the State. The State or semi-State bodies will give nothing at all.

There may be something there but it cannot be dealt with under this Bill.

(Cavan): The Minister is undertaking obligations under this section to the public who may be injured and he is also undertaking or accepting a responsibility to the State because in subsection (2) of the new section 60 it is stated that:

The Minister shall not issue a certificate under this section unless he is of the opinion (having, in a case where a deposit under section 61 of this Act has been made and maintained, taken such deposit into account) that the board, other body or company is, and will be, capable of meeting any liability arising out of the negligent use of a mechanically propelled vehicle in respect of which, if such board, other body or company were not an exempted person or a vehicle insurer, an approved policy of insurance would be required to be in force at the material time.

Notwithstanding the fact that we are dealing with semi-State bodies, the Minister should see to it that a large sum is deposited in the High Court, reasonably sufficient to meet any claims against that company. I say that because if the deposit is not large enough, the Exchequer will have to pay.

Not necessarily.

(Cavan): Well, in all decency, it will have to pay.

No, the company might still be able to pay.

(Cavan): I agree, but supposing the deposit was not sufficient and that the company was not able to pay, then the State in all decency would have to pay up. In order for that to happen, legislation would have to go through this House but while this legislation was going through the House, the people who were injured and awarded compensation would be many a long day and many a year maybe out of their compensation. It is a fact that people who were insured with the Equitable Insurance Company which went into liquidation a few years ago have not been paid yet. I know they will be paid—the State undertook to pay them—but some of them may be dead before they are paid. Therefore, I say that the Minister should see to it that these exempted companies do deposit with the Accountant of the Courts of Justice a sum sufficient, as far as can be reasonably foreseen, to meet their liabilities.

Where it is appropriate.

(Cavan): Exactly, and they will not be at any loss because they are paid the income from the Department.

That is why it is made more or less flexible here, so that in appropriate cases this can still be required.

(Cavan): Of course there was a flexible provision dealing with insurance companies but somebody overlooked it.

Here the ultimate responsibility or the ultimate moral liability is on the State.

(Cavan): I know, but you could have—

Where there appears to be a reasonable danger, the deposit can be required.

Question put and agreed to.
NEW SECTION.

(Cavan): I move amendment No. 21:

Before section 55, but in Part VI, to insert the following new section:—

"() Section 56 (1) of the Principal Act is hereby amended by the insertion before ‘at' where it first appears in subsection (1), of ‘or any passenger therein'."

Deputy Tully has stated that when a Bill like this is going through the House, an opportunity should be taken to improve the law or to cure any defects in the existing law. As we know, motor insurance is compulsory. A person cannot tax a motor car or legally take it on the road, unless he is insured against his liability to third parties for damage to person or property. In the 1961 Act, that was extended to include injury to passengers in the car. The position at the moment is that the owner of a car is liable to third parties for personal injuries or loss or damage suffered by them and he is obliged to insure against that loss. The sort of case I have in mind which is not dealt with is the negligence not of the owner of the car or the driver of the car but of a passenger in the car.

If a motor owner is driving along a road and is asked to give a lift to some person, he pulls up and gives a lift and later on when he reaches the hitch-hiker's or thumber's destination he stops the car and his passenger opens the door without any notice to anybody. A cyclist coming along at a fairly fast speed collides with the open door. He has not an opportunity of claiming damages but he sustains serious injuries. The law as it stands at the moment is that the injured person has no right of action against the owner of the car and he must follow the passenger who negligently opened the door. Very often that passenger can be a man of straw, who cannot be got.

If, instead of the case I took, the passenger were somebody who requested a lift, but happened to be the young teenage son or daughter of the owner of the car, again the owner of the car is not liable unless, perhaps, the child were a very young child. However, we will not go into the niceties of such a legal situation where the person might be expected to look after the child. If it were a teenage son or daughter of 14 or 15 years of age who opened the door, the owner of the car is not liable. All the person who was injured would be able to do would be claim against the teenager which of course, would mean that he could not get anything.

This is not an academic point. I am bringing it up because it is a very real one. I raised this matter in the House on some occasion or other within the last couple of years as a result of a personal experience I had and I received a letter from a man with an address in this city, whom I never saw before or since, but who was very interested in the point I raised. He had good reason to be interested because he had been injured under the circumstances I have outlined. He did not recover any compensation. His claim was confined to the passenger.

It is only right to say that some insurance companies will honour such claims when in strict law they need not do so. Other insurance companies will not honour those claims. The best legal opinion I can get on the matter at the moment is that the owner is not liable. He might be liable if he had his young child of four or five years of age sitting on the front seat beside him and he negligently let the child open the door. It might be said that he should have taken due care with regard to the child but it is totally different if the passenger is a grown-up person or even a teenager.

My amendment proposes to amend section 56 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, subsection (1) which reads:

A person (in this subsection referred to as the user) shall not use in a public place a mechanically propelled vehicle unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor or an exempted person would be liable for injury caused by the negligent use of the vehicle by him.

That is the way the section reads at the moment. I propose to amend this by adding "or any passenger therein" at that time unless either a vehicle insurer, a vehicle guarantor and all the rest of it. This is a proposal which merits serious consideration by the Minister at this stage. I can tell the Minister that there are quite a number of people who have had to do without compensation because the law is as it stands at present.

I raised this matter, I think, with the Minister on Second Reading. I do not know exactly what he said but I think, speaking from memory, and it is a long time ago now, that he said there would be difficulty with insurance companies or something like that. I believe the additional premium here would be relatively small. The opening of the door is one way where injury could be caused. It is the classic example of the negligence of a passenger. There could be other ways which do not occur to me straight away.

You could put a stick out through a window.

(Cavan): Yes, you could put a stick out through the window, as Deputy Dillon says, or do something really foolish in regard to driving a car. At any rate, I strongly commend this amendment to the Minister. It is a non-controversial one. It does not run contrary to any other proposal he has in the Bill. I simply avail of the passing of this Bill to add this new subsection to the appropriate part of the Bill. Although it may not be welcomed by people in general because I suppose most people do not look forward to being injured, I know a number of people who will certainly say that it is a great pity that this was not in the law five or six years ago.

As Deputy Fitzpatrick said, this matter was raised on the Second Stage of the Bill and I pointed out at that time that the major difficulty here would be that this would involve insurers becoming liable for the actions of a wide variety of people who were completely outside their control and selection. You cannot very well specify who the passengers will be the same as you would specify who may drive the vehicle. This might involve a substantial increase in premiums.

Of course, any car owner who wishes to obtain this extended cover is at liberty to do so at present. I do not know what increased premiums insurance companies look for in those cases but it is not true to say that a driver is never liable for the negligent actions of passengers at present. Indeed, most insurers will accept claims where the passenger is the driver's responsibility. The law on this subject was considered by the Supreme Court in 1965 in the case of a claim for damages resulting in the opening of a rear door of the person's car by one of his children. On that occasion the Chief Justice stated:

In my judgment a person in charge of a motor car must take reasonable precautions for the safety of others, and this will include the duty to take reasonable care to prevent conduct on the part of passengers which is negligent. In the present case that duty is, it seems to me, reinforced by the relationship of parent and child; and a parent while not liable for the torts of his child may be liable if negligent in failing to exercise his control to prevent his child injuring others.

Mr. Justice Walsh on that occasion stated:

In my view the defendant, as the owner and driver of the motor car in question, owed a duty to other persons using the highway not merely not to use or drive the car negligently but to take reasonable precautions to ensure that the car, while under his control and supervision, was not used in a negligent fashion. It would indeed be a startling proposition that a person in charge of a motor vehicle on a public highway should not owe any duty to third parties save in respect of his own negligent act in the case of the vehicle, or in respect of omissions relating to his own use of the vehicle, and that he should not be liable in negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the negligent use of a motor car by a passenger therein, while it is under his control and supervision when such negligent use is actually known to or ought to be foreseen by him. In the streets of a town the opening and closing of doors on the traffic side of a stationary motor car is so notoriously fraught with danger that a person in control of a motor car who permits this to be done in his motor car without first ascertaining that it is safe to do so or without taking reasonable steps to ensure that it is done without danger, is in my view failing in the duty which he, as the person in control and supervision of the motor car, owes to other users of the highway.

Therefore, if in a particular case the driver was negligent and failed to take reasonable precautions to see that the doors were not opened, the ordinary insurance appears to cover his liability.

(Cavan): What was the age of the person who opened the door there and what was the decision of the court?

I do not know: it was a child. I do not know what the age was. However, in the passage I have quoted, Mr. Justice Walsh was referring to any passenger: he was not referring to a child.

Is there any case of an adult passenger, who is not related, being involved?

I do not know of any. The decision seems to make it clear that it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure that the doors are not opened negligently. That being so, if it can be established that the opening of the door was something that he should have appreciated would be dangerous, he would not be covered by his ordinary insurance because it would be held to be negligence on the part of the driver.

We may take it, in the case referred to by the Minister, that the plaintiff succeeded? These are not minority judgments?

No. It does not seem to be necessary, in my opinion.

(Cavan): The Minister may take it—and I respectfully agree—that the Supreme Court is endeavouring to come around to imposing on the owner of a car the type of liability of which I speak but the Minister may also take it that, in that particular case, the passenger was a child.

Yes, but the judgment refers to passengers. All the judge said was that it was reinforced because of the relationship.

(Cavan): I do not want to hold myself out as a Solomon but the Minister may take it from me that, at the very best, the law is quite uncertain at the moment, and that, even if the law is as the Minister says it is, the driver or owner of a car is only supposed to take reasonable precautions. If he has an adult passenger sitting in the car beside him, he is entitled, I think, to assume that that adult passenger will behave in a reasonably responsible and rational way. If that adult passenger suddenly opens the door, unknown to the driver of the car, what can the driver do about it? It takes only a fraction of a second to do it. It is different in the case of a child—and I dealt with that in my earlier remarks. Obviously, when a person brings a young child into a car it is his business to see to it that the child does not do anything foolish.

It is his business to see to it also that the adult does not do anything foolish.

(Cavan): I respectfully disagree with the Minister there. If it is something he has no hope of preventing, he is not liable. Assuming that what the Minister has just said is correct, it defeats his earlier argument. He said the difficulty in implementing my proposal was that it would place an unascertained obligation on insurance companies and would put up the premium. The Minister cannot have it both ways. He is arguing that if he accepted my request, it would impose an unascertained liability on insurance companies and, as a result, premiums would go up by an unascertained amount. Then he reads out a Supreme Court decision which he says means that this unascertained liability is already on insurance companies. Would the Minister be good enough to clarify the position?

I am afraid that, by clarifying the position, I may be accused of providing the opportunity of increasing the premiums unnecessarily.

(Cavan): I had reason, some short time ago, to investigate this. I agree with the Minister that the trend in the Supreme Court is to try, in so far as it can, to make the owner liable for the negligent acts of a passenger. The Supreme Court is only trying to do there what we should do here and put beyond doubt. The Minister may take it that there have been cases in which people of humble means, riding along the streets on bicycles, have been injured and have gone without compensation. We should take this opportunity of rectifying that.

I do not like saying this but the Minister had 18 months to sound insurance companies to see what their approach to it would be. I do not want to mention insurance companies because I might be taken as being unfair to certain insurance companies which could be identified, but I do know that certain insurance companies will accept a claim like this and pay it as a matter of principle. Other insurance companies will not: they will stand rigidly on the law and say they are not responsible and will not pay it. I appeal to the Minister to investigate this further, to talk to his Attorney General about it, to take the advice of his legal advisers and to see if there is not a lot in what I am saying.

The Minister produced a decision of the court which referred to a child, the action of a child in opening the door. What we are talking about is a commonplace thing. Unfortunately, it happens every day of the week in this city and throughout the country. Why was the Minister not able to get a ruling, or a number of rulings, affecting adults, particularly adults who are not relatives of the owner of the car?

This ruling obviously referred to passengers.

Unfortunately, I could not take the same interpretation of the ruling as that which the Minister has given. It appears that it could be interpreted that the passenger who opened the door was incapable of being responsible for his or her action, or something like that—and this is something which might come up.

Deputy Fitzpatrick made a very good point at the end of his speech. He said that, if we are to take the ruling to which the Minister referred as being correct, then insurance companies are already offering that cover or are supposed to be offering that cover and therefore his argument that to copperfasten it would in fact raise premiums would not be correct. He could not have it both ways. I am not trying to be awkward about this but I feel the Minister might have another look at it. I am quite sure there are numerous decisions which would give a far clearer picture to the House than the one the Minister has given here this afternoon.

I do not mind having another look at this but, in my opinion, the judgment I have quoted makes it quite clear that it applies to passengers generally and that it is the duty of the driver to ensure that his passengers do not use the car negligently.

(Cavan): I think the Minister said “to take reasonable precautions”.

Yes. The only reference in it to a child was that the justice said that, in the present case, that duty is reinforced by the relationship of the parent.

But he thereby gave the position that there would be exceptions to it.

Exceptions, if it was held that it was not reasonable to expect them—

When is it not reasonable?

Mr. Justice Walsh in his speech stated:

It would indeed be a startling proposition that a person in charge of a motor vehicle on a public highway should not owe any duty to third parties save in respect of his own negligent act in the case of the vehicle, or in respect of omissions relating to his own use of the vehicle, and that he should not be liable in negligence for failing to take reasonable steps to prevent the negligent use of a motor car by a passenger therein, while it is under his control and supervision when such negligent use is actually known to or ought to be foreseen by him. In the streets of a town the opening and closing of doors on the traffic side of a stationary motor car is so notoriously fraught with danger that a person in control of a motor car who permits this to be done in his motor car without first ascertaining that it is safe to do so or without taking reasonable steps to ensure that it is done without danger, is in my view failing in the duty which he. as the person in control and supervision of the motor car, owes to other users of the highway.

That makes it clear that it is. in the opinion of Mr. Justice Walsh, as expressed in this case. the duty of the driver to ensure that his passenger, whether it is an adult, a child or a personal relation of the driver, does not do something which, as the Deputy said, can be done in a fraction of a second, open the door when it is dangerous to do so. I think that does establish that in that type of case, at any rate, the person is covered by the ordinary insurance of the driver. At the same time, I am afraid that there is not much doubt that if we extend compulsory insurance to cover the negligent actions of passengers as a whole it will be availed of to bring about an increase in premiums. At the same time, I would not mind looking into it again.

(Cavan): The Minister for Industry and Commerce can come in to ensure that there is no unnecessary increase.

I remember an enactment some time ago and it was practically assured that there would be no increase as a result and there was.

Is the amendment being withdrawn?

(Cavan): I am withdrawing it on the Minister's assurance that he will look into it. He will find that the law is just not as clear as he thinks. I am sorry Deputy de Valera was not here, there could have been an interesting legal discussion.

It is not definite. Obviously insurance companies do not consider themselves liable to the same extent as they would if this amendment went through.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 21(a):

Before section 55, but in Part VI, to insert a new section as follows:

"A person travelling as a passenger on a pillion of any mechanically propelled bicycle or tricycle shall be covered by insurance against injury or death."

I raised this matter by way of Parliamentary question some time ago. As a result of personal experience I found it was practically impossible for anybody who had an autocycle to get insurance to cover a pillion passenger.

It seems to me that young people especially who travel on the pillions of these scooters or autocycles are in a very dangerous position, especially if they are not wearing crash helmets, and a promising young fellow could suffer permanent injury to himself or might be killed, and it is unlikely that the parents of a youngster who was driving the scooter would be in a position to pay any great amount of compensation in the event of injury. There are one or two things that could be done. One is to make it absolutely against the law to carry a pillion passenger and another would be to write into this Bill a clause which would compel insurance companies to offer cover for these people. The position is that not one insurance company will offer cover for pillion passengers. I checked this through various brokers and various companies. I tried to get insurance even from abroad and from inquiries made by Lloyds I learned that they were unable to get such cover.

Whether the Minister likes the amendment as it is at the moment is not important, but what I consider important is: does the Minister agree that something should be done about this position and if so will he make some suggestion about how we might protect these people, protect them against themselves, if you like? We, as an authority, should take some action to prevent the tragic consequences that could follow an accident in which a pillion passenger is involved.

As the Deputy knows, I appreciate that this is a problem. As he said no insurance company will insure pillion passengers except at a prohibitive price. I am hopeful of finding some way of dealing with this problem. The same situation exists in England. What I have in mind can be done by regulation and it will not be necessary to amend legislation. Obviously insurance companies consider the risks taken by pillion passengers as being something they could not undertake to cover for a normal premium. It seems to me the most likely solution is to prohibit the carrying of pillion passengers entirely. It is not along those lines I am thinking but if it was decided to do that it will be possible to do it by regulation.

Do I take it from what the Minister says and from what Deputy Lemass has said that no insurance company at all will cover pillion passengers?

None. Not at any price, either here or in England as far as I know.

I do not know whether or not we are on the same wavelength because, as we know, there are literally thousands of people using motor cycles for driving to and from work who carry pillion passengers. A number of such people told me that they had pillion insurance.

Not for the passenger.

(Cavan): They are permitted to carry them.

Third party insurance only.

The Minister made the point that the proper thing might be to prevent them carrying passengers at all. I would ask him to be very careful about that because it would have very serious effects on the employment of literally thousands of people who would be unable to drive to work if such a decision was taken. I know that the Minister appreciates this and I would ask him to be very careful before doing anything like that.

On the other hand, if I make the covering of passengers compulsory, it will stop the driver using the machine because the premium will be prohibitive.

I know, but I would ask the Minister to be careful about doing one or the other.

That is one of the snags.

The Minister may not know and certainly Deputy Lemass would not know that when arterial schemes are being carried out it is usual to recruit a big number of workers at the start who have to travel to work and most of them use motor cycles as being the only way that they can get into the fields where the work is carried out and almost all of them carry pillion passengers to work.

(Cavan): And half of them do not carry insurance.

I would not agree. That is a statement which it is not fair to make. As far as I know, they are covered. I would ask the Minister to be careful about doing something in connection with which the cure might be worse than the disease.

I would ask the Minister, when considering whether to bring in this regulation or not, certainly to make it compulsory for pillion passengers to wear helmets. The greatest injury in motor cycle accidents occurs to the head. I do not know whether it is compulsory at the moment for pillion passengers to wear helmets. I see dozens of motor cycles going through the city every day the pillion passengers on which are not wearing helmets.

That also can be done by regulation and I think it should be done.

I agree with Deputy Briscoe. We who drive cars should not be inclined to look down on the motor cyclist.

(Cavan): I am inclined to agree with Deputy Lemass on this point. Far from looking down on people who ride motor bicycles, as Deputy Tully has suggested, I am asking to protect them—

Making them walk.

(Cavan): Very many of these pillion passengers are young people who need protection, from themselves sometimes. The position regarding motorcycle insurance at the moment is, as has been stated here, that pillion passengers are not insured. Insurance companies will not insure them. Many insurance companies issue a policy of insurance which says that it affects even the motor cyclist's third party policy if a pillion passenger is carried. It is legal to carry a pillion passenger, provided the insurance policy permits it.

Provided it permits it. If it does not permit it—

(Cavan): If it does not permit it, then the insurance is not effective and the person is breaking the law because he is using the motorcycle without Road Traffic Act insurance. I know that this was raised here before and I think I joined with Deputy Lemass in talking about it when he raised it before. I am glad to hear that the Minister is at least looking into it. I hope he will be able to arrange for insurance to cover pillion passengers for a reasonable figure. The premium that is at present being charged is not very high. I think it is only £4 or £5 a year.

Less, sometimes.

(Cavan): This is something small and even if a percentage were added on to that to cover pillion passengers it would still be reasonably small and it would be in the interest of the pillion passenger to see that it was done.

I gladly withdraw the amendment because I realise that the Minister is sympathetic to the problem that exists and I am satisfied that he will deal with it as best he can by regulation but I would like to assure the Dáil that I have no "down" on the man who can afford only a motorcycle or scooter. This matter came to my attention when I attempted to get insurance for my son. I went to great lengths. Definitely, one cannot insure a pillion passenger at any price in this country. I checked through Lloyds to see if my son could get cover in England. It was not possible to get it. I am concerned about this because the pillion passenger is in danger and the parent of that child, in the event of an accident, could find himself having to sell his house, his property and everything in order to try to meet the compensation that might be awarded. Serious difficulty could be caused to two families, not just one. The reason I put down the amendment in this way was that I thought it might be better to get insurance so that people could get motor bicycles and go to work on them and carry pillion passengers rather than suggest the banning of pillion passengers. As the Minister says that he has the matter under consideration, I will, with your permission, withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

I move amendment No. 22:

In page 30, after line 6, to insert the following subsection:

"(2) Whenever a member of the Garda Síochána has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed an offence under this section the member may demand of such person his name and address and may, if such person refuses or fails to give his name and address or gives a name or address which the member has reasonable grounds for believing to be false or misleading, arrest such person without warrant."

Section 55 of the Bill makes it an offence wilfully or maliciously to commit any damage to a public service vehicle and provides that on conviction of such offence a person can, in addition to the ordinary penalty, be ordered to pay compensation. Although the power of arrest is at present available under the Malicious Damages Act, 1861, it is considered desirable that specific power of arrest should be available for offences under this section. The amendment provides for such power limited, however, to cases where the alleged offender refuses to give his name and address or gives a name and address which is believed to be false or misleading.

Most of the damage done to public vehicles in this city is caused by school children. We do not want to have school children arrested very often. The seats of buses are very often slashed, even by the use of a pencil, and there are all kinds of writings on the buses, particularly upstairs. Would the Minister consider an approach to the schools in regard to this matter or in some other way make it publicly known that this type of damage must cease? There is an indelible crayon on sale in the city and if this is used on the buses the expense of removing it must be considerable. Very few adults deliberately damage public service vehicles but children do damage to them. This is quite a difficult problem for the Minister. We cannot arrest a lot of school going youngsters. If the Minister were to approach the school authorities in the city, an improvement in the situation might be brought about. I might mention also that it is generally children attending the so-called better type of school who do the damage.

I wish to disagree with my colleague Deputy Moore. I think this legislative provision is long overdue. By far the greater part of the damage is caused by the rowdyism of youths. The amendment is necessary and I would wholeheartedly support it.

(Cavan): I agree with the amendment which seeks to confer power of arrest without warrant on the Garda Síochána because it is proposed to confer this power in reasonable circumstances. If a person does damage to public property, refuses to give his name or gives a name which the garda has reasonable grounds to believe is incorrect, I would be all in favour of the proposal to confer on the garda the right to arrest that man without warrant but there is a vast difference between that sort of thing and what we were talking about this morning, or, indeed, what appears in the next section of this Bill.

I should point out that it is not only buses we are thinking of. This happens in the case of taxis as well and, as Deputy Fitzpatrick says, it is only in the case of people who refuse to give their names and addresses or who give what is believed to be false information in regard to their name and address.

May I ask the Minister what is the position in relation to a private motor car where damage is done, say by a screwdriver scraping the car? Has this any relevance here?

It would hardly come under the Road Traffic Act. It would possibly come under malicious damage or be covered by insurance.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 55, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 56.
Question proposed: "That section 56 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan): I should like to raise the point about the power of arrest without warrant. Here we are conferring on a member of the Garda Síochána the right to arrest without warrant a person who is pointed out to him as having omitted to pay his fare. We should have the same proviso here as we had to the amendment just moved by the Minister; by that I mean that the power of arrest without warrant should apply only if the person refused to give his name and address or gave a name and address which the garda had reason to believe were incorrect. It is difficult to see the difference being drawn between the amendment to section 55 moved by the Minister and accepted by the House and the provisions of this section.

This power was there until regulations were made in 1963 under the Road Traffic Act of 1961. Since then, there has been a considerable number of representations by taxi drivers to have this power restored. They found that they had considerable extra difficulty in being paid for their services since this power was withdrawn, and it is mainly because of experience that it is believed necessary to provide this power once again. The operators of public service vehicles consider this to be an essential safeguard for them, as they have experienced considerable difficulty since the power that was always there lapsed in 1963. It is in response to their representations that this has been restored now. It was no more than a re-enactment of what was there.

(Cavan): I appreciate that it was there before, was suspended and is now being reintroduced. I am not as apprehensive about this provision as the provision which we discussed this morning about arrest without warrant for dangerous parking. I think a better case can be made for this, although I am still not entirely happy about it. I fully concede that the type of person who refuses to pay a taxi fare, who hires a taxi and does not pay for it, is likely to be a slippery individual who would be hard to catch up with. I just want to be consistent about this objection I have to arrest without warrant. This is probably a borderline case, but I am satisfied that the Minister has established a case.

I shall see if it is possible to write that condition about refusing to give a name and address into it.

(Cavan): I should like the Minister to do that.

I would certainly support the Minister on this section. In this city of ours, bus conductors and taxi drivers are very vulnerable, even to attacks by certain hooligans, and it has become very common for these people to refuse to pay the bus conductor or the taxi driver and even to assault him. Taxi drivers tell me it happens fairly often that they are booked by three or four fellows, told to drive to the suburbs, and then these fellows refuse to pay. The fact that this section is in the Bill will give the bus conductor and the taxi driver added protection. These people will realise that they can be apprehended more easily, and this provision will act as a great deterrent and make them behave as responsible people. I am sure taxi drivers and bus conductors, particularly in Dublin, will welcome this very much and will be glad of the Minister's approach to the matter.

While I agree that this provision or something similar to it might be necessary, it does appear that those who have spoken so far are lucky people who never found themselves in a public service vehicle after changing their clothes in a hurry and having left their wallets behind them. This provision gives authority to arrest somebody who has not paid his fare, no matter what the reason is. Again, I am not objecting to it, except that I do feel it may be a little bit harsh if somebody is not prepared to be reasonable about the administration of it. I wonder if the wording of it might be altered slightly so as to ensure that only those who deliberately refuse to pay a fare will be dealt with and that it will not apply to those in the circumstances to which I have referred, who if they can give particulars to the conductor or whoever is in charge will be willing to pay the fare later. While most public service drivers and conductors and most gardaí are reasonable people, you will get the odd one who could cause extreme embarrassment to some people who would be entirely innocent.

If they are reasonable, they will take your name.

Yes, because that is all they can do, but if they have this authority, they can get people arrested, which is a different thing.

They have had this power up to 1963.

The Minister is aware of the things that happened when they had it.

I am not aware of anything.

He is well aware of it.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 57.
Question proposed: "That section 57 stand part of the Bill."

(Cavan): I do not clearly follow the new subsection (5). It seems to me to impose a rather harsh onus on a lot of people. Section 86 of the 1961 Act suggests a long list of things about which regulations may be made—parking of vehicles and all the rest of it. Then this new provision seems to make the owner of the vehicle guilty of an offence if the driver of the vehicle 60 or 70 miles away from him does something that is prohibited by the section. If that is the meaning of the section, I think it is a bit unreasonable. For example, if a man lends his car to someone for a day and that person drives it 60 or 70 miles and then parks it in a wrong place, it would be a bit harsh if the owner of the vehicle, who took no part in the commission of the offence, were to be responsible. If that is the correct interpretation, I think it is going too far, but I should like to hear the Minister's views.

This substitutes for subsection (5) of section 86 of the 1961 Act. Subsection (5) was designed to facilitate the enforcement of bye-laws prohibiting vehicles other than buses from stopping at or being parked in the vicinity of bus stops.

That is the only relevancy it has?

That is all.

Why does it not say that?

In the absence of the subsection, the Garda would be obliged to find out in every case of a contravention of a bye-law—and there could be many hundreds in Dublin alone in one day—the name of the person actually responsible for stopping or parking the vehicle at the bus stop.

(Cavan): They could get that from the list of registered owners.

It would place an unreasonable strain on the resources of the Garda who are already hard-pressed to secure effective enforcement of the road traffic code. The solution adopted in 1961 was to make all the persons who might have stopped or parked the vehicle guilty of an offence subject to defences. The formula used has certain technical faults. For instance, the registered owner is guilty as registered owner only if he was not the user of the vehicle on the occasion in question and if, therefore, a person was charged as the registered owner of an illegally parked vehicle, he might make the case that he was not guilty as registered owner because he was, in fact, also the user on the occasion in question.

(Cavan): That would be a great help to him.

Apparently it would.

(Cavan): I do not think it would.

Apparently it has been said if someone uses a car which is not his own, does this apply? Let me give a personal experience. I sold a car to a registered owner and not as the user, apparently he could plead that he should have been charged as the user. It is to eliminate these difficulties that the new section is suggested. It is really only a drafting amendment.

Can the Minister say if some one uses a car which is not his own, does this apply? Let me give a personal experience. I sold a car to a garage and the owner of the garage, without transferring the car to his own name, allowed it to be used by another person who parked it illegally.

That was the Deputy's fault.

It was not my fault that the car was parked illegally. The garda found it parked illegally and I was fined £1, and if I had not paid it, I would have been prosecuted, which seems to be a rather stupid way of doing it. Does this section obviate these things happening? Before the Minister answers, does it mean that if someone in charge of a car commits an offence, the registered owner can be prosecuted?

Yes, the Garda can prosecute him.

He is not the person responsible.

They might think the registered owner was a better mark. There are defences available to the registered owner.

Not if it is an on-the-spot fine.

A person can opt out and defend it.

That happened in Galway and it would have cost more in petrol to defend it.

(Cavan): It goes further than that. I think it is not reasonable that a person should be guilty of an offence unless he does something tangible or omits to do something tangible.

He lends his car to someone who does not observe the law.

(Cavan): What about a firm which owns 50 self-drive cars which are out each day? The owner is on the register. If he does not keep a register of all the cars that are out, he is in trouble. But this operator is responsible to ensure that each person to whom he hires a car does not park it near a bus stop under this section. I think that is unreasonable.

Apparently that is the law.

(Cavan): If Deputy Tully lends his car to someone out of the goodness of his heart, he is responsible in law.

The Deputy should look at (5) (b).

(Cavan):“If the vehicle is the subject of a hire-drive agreement.”

And (c).

(Cavan):“If the person using the vehicle on the occasion in question is not the registered owner or the hirer under a hire-drive agreement, the person so using the vehicle.”

If the registered owner gives the name of the person using the vehicle, then that person will be prosecuted.

(Cavan): Is that a defence?

All the registered owner has to do is to give the name of the person who parked the car.

(Cavan): Why can the section not say that?

Paragraph (d) provides: "if a person using the vehicle on the occasion in question is not the registered owner or the hirer under a hire-drive agreement, a person so using the vehicle."

My argument is: why does it not say the person who parks a mechanically-propelled vehicle?

(Cavan): Who is the hirer?

The hirer is the person who hires.

(Cavan): The person who drives it away, not the man who owns it. That is not as bad as I thought it was.

In other words, it is to catch the man who parks the car. The Garda cannot wait for the driver to come back.

Are they not all liable?

(Cavan): I was against the registered owner being liable if he did not commit the offence, provided he informed the Garda who did commit the offence.

That is the position.

(Cavan): Then I am satisfied.

Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 58.

I move amendment No. 23:

In subsection (2), page 31, line 3, to delete "under section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872" and substitute "under section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1836, section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, section 25 of the Licensing (Ireland) Act, 1874, or section 9 of the Summary Jurisdiction Act, 1908".

Section 58 of the Bill deals with a person in a public place while under the influence of drink or drugs. Subsection (2) provides that a person charged under section 58 shall not in respect of the same facts, be charged under section 12 of the Licensing Act, 1872, which also deals with persons who are under the influence of drink. There are, however, three other statutes under which a person in such a state is liable to be charged and this amendment is necessary so as to ensure that a person may not be charged under any of these statutes in respect of the facts on which a charge under section 58 is based. This is to ensure that he will not be charged more than once for the same offence.

(Cavan): Up to some time ago a person might be charged under the old Act with being in charge of a donkey and cart. This is now aimed at more serious offences, and it will ensure that he will not be prosecuted for a more serious offence and also for a minor offence.

I wonder would the Minister enlighten me? The section reads:

A person who is found in a public place in such condition, because he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug...

I cannot understand why that is not "and/or a drug." Suppose the amount of liquor, in itself, or the quantity of a drug, in itself, is not sufficient to cause the condition by itself, how does one get over that difficulty?

The "or" means "and" there.

I think it does. If a person were in that condition, I do not really think it would be possible for anyone to say whether the liquor or the drug was responsible for his condition. That case would be fully covered. One would know he was a serious danger to traffic, or to himself, due to the consumption of liquor or the taking of a drug. I do not think anyone could say what proportion of his incapacity would be attributable to either.

Could a person commit under section 58 the new offence described in section 28?

Is there any intention of using breathaliser tests, blood tests or urine tests on pedestrians?

I am not just being frivolous in this. The information available is most unreliable because there is no real statistical information available at all. More pedestrians than motorists are involved in accidents when under the influence of intoxicating drink and, very often, the person driving a car has no protection in the case of such drunken pedestrians. Why is the drunken pedestrian being treated in a different way?

A person does not need the same amount of skill to manipulate himself as he does to manipulate a motor vehicle.

Shall we say that, if there were fewer drunken motorists, there would be fewer drunken pedestrians?

Yes. This applies only to the person in such a condition as to constitute a source of danger to traffic or to himself.

He is the person who is drunk and incapable. Why is it necessary to put it in?

The idea is to make it a more serious offence than it has been heretofore.

Amendment agreed to.

I move amendment No. 24:

In page 31, after line 3, to insert the following subsection:

"(3) Where a member of the Garda Síochána is of opinion that a person is committing an offence under this section he may arrest the person without warrant."

As I have said, section 58 provides:

A person who is found in a public place in such condition, because he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug as to be a source of danger to traffic or himself shall be guilty of an offence.

A person found in the circumstances envisaged by section 58 would, in almost all cases, have to be arrested, if only for his own safety. Although powers of arrest are available under a number of earlier statutes it is considered desirable to include a specific power in section 58. The only way in which a case like this could be dealt with is, I think, by arresting the person for his own safety.

Amendment agreed to.
Section 58, as amended, agreed to.
SECTION 59.

I move amendment No. 25:

In subsection (5), page 32, line 21, after "section" to insert "and shall be capable of being amended or revoked accordingly".

This is a drafting amendment. Section 59 repeals section 88 of the 1961 Act, which empowers the Commissioner to make general bye-laws, and enables instead the Minister for Local Government to make regulations for the general regulation and control of traffic and pedestrians. Despite section 59 (5) of the Bill, it may not be perfectly clear that regulations under the section may amend, or revoke, bye-laws under section 88 of the 1961 Act and it is desirable to put this beyond doubt. The bye-laws made under section 88 are substantial and may be retained for some time, subject to minor revision. That is why there is need for this amendment.

In view of the fact that we have moved so far out of the hand-signal era, would this not be the appropriate time to try to regularise the position and substitute mechanical signalling for the out-moded hand signalling?

Mechanical signals can go out of order.

It is an offence not to have certain items of equipment on a car and the Minister can very easily now, if he so desires, ensure that this is done. There are a number of things which are wrong. In the mini-cars, for instance, it is impossible to give hand signals. Very few people use hand signals. The only time they are used is when there is a test for a driving licence; it is like the Irish language in the Civil Service—once in, you do not have to use it any more. It is time a decision was taken in this matter of signals. I asked the Minister if his driver used hand signals and the answer was "No." He relies on mechanical signals and the Minister is never afraid they are out of order because he knows the vehicle is properly serviced. We have an opportunity now to bring signals up-to-date. Do not wait until Britain does it.

It is compulsory to have mechanical signals but, at the same time, they can go out of order and they might be out of order for some days before the owner discovers they are out of order.

How could they be?

A bulb could be gone in the back, for instance.

It is quite obvious the Minister has not driven recently because——

I drive regularly.

There is a signal in front of his eyes which tells him if a signal is in operation or not and, if it is not, it does not light up and he knows it is out of order.

The signal in front of my eyes could operate but a bulb at the rear might be gone.

That is not possible because of the fact that there is a short circuit as soon as one goes out of order. This is one of the pigheaded things that is being held on to.

Whereas there is a regulation requiring traffic to give warning of approach, there is nothing in the reverse direction. In most European countries, the blowing of horns is now forbidden, in the interests, I believe, of greater safety, because, if a driver cannot blow his horn, he will drive more carefully at intersections. He will be more liable to slow down. But there are drivers who rely on the horn to get them over intersections. I think the Minister should prohibit the use of horns in particular places at particular times.

That can be done by regulation.

I would be in favour of retaining hand signals because anything that helps towards better driving is to be supported.

Does the Deputy know the correct signal for slowing up?

The Deputy did not believe me when I said I was a member of a union.

(Cavan): I hope that is on the record.

I am in favour of this. It is generally accepted that if everyone observes the rules of the road, there will never be an accident. The hand signals as well as mechanical signals should be encouraged. There should be audible warning of approach. That is particularly important when driving on a country road and overtaking so that the fellow in front knows he is being overtaken. Nothing is as bad as driving with the windows closed and having a car whizzing past. I know one should keep one's eye on the mirror but nevertheless I suggest there should be audible signs of approach from the rear. I am aware that there is a tendency to resent the sounding of a horn by the driver of an overtaking car. It seems to suggest a loss of prestige on the part of the driver being overtaken. Generally, I am in favour of sounding the horn, though I know it is an offence to sound it at a certain time if it is unnecessary.

I should like to see Deputy Briscoe giving a hand signal when he is turning left on one of the new carriageways.

The mechanical signals can go wrong halfway through a journey.

Amendment agreed to.
Question proposed: "That section 59, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

This section means that the Minister is taking over the making of regulations from the Commissioner. Heretofore, the Commissioner was responsible for the enforcement of the regulations as well as the making of them. A difficulty which I adverted to yesterday is that we have a number of traffic laws which are not being enforced, with the result that the whole code is coming into disrepute. There are problems of road discipline generally. The Minister says he is not responsible for enforcing the law in this respect and that therefore it is not relevant for me to go into police policy.

However, I wish to emphasise now that it is not the fault of the Garda. They have not got the resources in manpower or otherwise. Therefore, there are certain facts relevant to the situation to which the legislating authority should have regard. In the making of the law, the Department, whichever it may be, should have regard to the practical question of enforcing that law. It is a very relevant question for all legislators, be it Oireachtas Éireann or any delegated authority empowered by us to legislate. It is important that they should ask the question whether the law can be enforced. There is the collective responsibility of the Executive.

What is the position in regard to our traffic laws in this city at the moment? We have blanket speed-limits. I have studied one stretch of road—I have made a personal study of it—the stretch between Irishtown and Merrion Gates. In my personal study of that stretch during the past number of months, its history has been first, a 30 mile per hour limit, then 40 miles and then back again to 30 miles. Before it was 40 miles, nobody observed the limit. When it was 40 miles the traffic was about geared to it. On the average, then, the traffic was in line with regulations.

About a year ago the speed was reduced again to 30 miles per hour. I frequently have come in at either end, driving steadily with 30 miles per hour on my needle. Invariably a number of cars not only have passed me but have roared past. Some law-abiding citizens will queue up behind you and then you cause a jam of cars. On top of that, somebody in the rear comes blasting out through the entire street and the person who is observing the law is really in the position of being a public nuisance. That is not my experience during one or two days, daylight or evening. I have given the summarised result of controlled experiments I have carried out during a period of at least 18 months on that stretch.

It is not the fault of the Garda. I remember that once there were some gardaí on the stretch and the speed came down. I am not asking for 100 per cent enforcement—you cannot have that—but you must have a certain minimum of policing when you have regulations of this nature, to ensure that road discipline is maintained. I emphasise it now to bring home to the Minister the futility, in the first place, and the danger to public morale as well as the physical danger that can be inherent in legislation which may seem fine—perhaps I was a little hard yesterday when I called it window-dressing legislation—but which is not good unless we are in a position to enforce it. If we are not, it should not be made.

I mentioned parking lights. We have legislation in that respect and I invite Deputies, gardaí, anybody, even the people who draft these things in the Department, to walk around the town at night and to see how much the regulations about parking lights are observed. Quite apart from the difficulties the gardaí have, are we any better off than we would be if we had not these regulations? When we come to this stage, we are in danger of bringing the whole question of law, order and discipline among citizens into disrepute. I have given examples.

I may be a bit hard in suggesting that this is a blameworthy situation. It may have arisen from the best intentions. These regulations are made undoubtedly with the best intentions but do they achieve their object? I was amused, last night, to notice that a certain traffic light in Ailesbury Road, which for a couple of weeks has been out of order, was working again. I do not want this to be taken as blaming the people who are responsible for these things but I do wish to emphasise that we can be too ambitious in our legislation, that we can legislate beyond our capacity to secure compliance with that legislation, and I strongly urge everybody responsible for this very complex and difficult problem of road discipline, which is basic to the whole question of road safety as well as order in the community, to approach the whole question of road discipine from the point of view of getting effect, not merely from the point of view of getting it into the statutory rule of order. The job is not done when this is made a rule of order. It is only done when the law is made a reality. I have memtioned a few places where this thing can be checked. I do not make an argument; I make statements and all I ask is that everybody concerned will check the statements I have made and see whether I am right or wrong.

I know of another avenue which is a short-cut for motorists. It is a 30 mile an hour avenue and there are schools on it. I observed cars doing more than 30 miles an hour. A child was knocked down and some time after that there was a police trap there. There was discipline for approximately a week but now it is as bad as ever. I am saying these things to the Minister, and in connection with this debate particularly, because an authority who will not be responsible for enforcement is now being charged with responsibility for making the law. My plea is, and it is only a plea, that the feasibility and the practicability of enforcement must be more than ever carefully looked at by the people who are making the law.

My second point—although it is not relevant to this debate—is that in all fairness the fault is not that of the Gardaí. I am amazed that the morale of the Gardaí stands up to the load of responsibility for enforcement that is thrown on them because of their numbers. There are not sufficient gardaí nor have they the resources but that is not the responsibility of this Minister. However, he should take it into account when framing these regulations.

I say these things in a helpful way. I do not mean to be critical of the law-makers, those responsible for enforcing the law, or even the citizens who are breaking the law because, as Deputy Tully, who I think will agree with me, remarked many people exceed the 30 mile limit in certain circumstances. We have all done it through inadvertence or because of the fact that a road is open, or that a car in front is doing it and one is liable to exceed it by five miles or so. There is a good deal of that. That brings home the importance of being a realist with regard to specifying the speed regulations. The people responsible must not just bow to every bit of pressure. One should assess the situation as it is. It is easy to say that there was an accident on that stretch and we should bang on some limit.

I am interested to know the situation on the Naas stretch but this can be ascertained through Parliamentary question later and it is not a matter for this debate. I should like not only the Minister but also the Government to have regard to that point. In making a plea to the Government with regard to putting load after load of responsibility on the Garda it is true that enforcement or discipline in such a Department as this in the last analysis is the responsibility of the police authorities. Are we being fair to them? Are they in a position to carry the increasing loads that have been put on and on and on? Surely these considerations should be borne in mind when making this legislation.

There is one other question which out of curiosity I should like to ask. Frankly, the Minister may have answered it and it may have slipped my memory. If that is so, I am sorry. I am curious to know why it is better to transfer the jurisdiction to the Minister without leaving it to the Commissioner. During the passage of the 1961 Act it was assumed that the Commissioner, when it was enforced, would be the best person to make a balance. This change is something that must make the balance more specific and it must be adverted to. It would be interesting if the Minister would now say why it was thought desirable to do this.

Does the Minister propose to make regulations which will govern a convoy of lorries plying in and out on the main roads of the city? The Minister knows that you can have anything up to six, eight or ten lorries in convoy, making it impossible for cars to pass those lorries carrying heavy loads which compel them to go slowly. Has the Minister authority to do something at the present time about another matter which has become very pressing? I refer to the diesel fumes from heavy lorries and other vehicles as well. If one gets tied up behind vehicles which are belching forth these fumes all the time, as Deputy Lemass says, you could finish up with blood pressure which would be much higher than is governed by the regulations under this Bill. Would the Minister say if, in fact, he has any authority to do something about this? I do not know the regulations under which he can do this.

While I have already referred in this House to the motorist behind the wheel as a monster, many of the regulations the Minister is bringing in would be very easily enforceable if the motorists generally in the city were better mannered. There is no question that the manners of motorists leave much to be desired. The man who whilst driving within the law quite rightly is also very often trying to dictate to motorists who are not. In other words, a man driving at 30 miles an hour stays in the middle of the road instead of over to the left and resents very much anyone breaking the law by overtaking him.

I have not yet put down a question as to how many persons have been summoned for breaking the law at pedestrian crossings. This happens all the time at the General Post Office, at Dawson Street and at Grafton Street. It has greatly built up over the past few years—motorists ignoring the lights when they are against them. Pedestrians show little regard for these lights and I wonder how many people have been prosecuted for jay-walking.

I think firms who have heavy lorries should try to avoid having these lorries on the road at rush hours. If a lorry instead of leaving a depot at 5.30 p.m. left at 6.30 p.m., it would reach its destination in sufficient time.

Progress reported; Committee to sit again.
The Dáil adjourned at 5 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Tuesday, 20th February, 1968.
Top
Share