Dáil Éireann debate -
Tuesday, 21 Feb 1984

Vol. 348 No. 2

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1983: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Mr. Briscoe

In deference to the note-taker perhaps the Chair would allow time for the Chamber to clear before I commence. Nor would I like it to be thought that I had driven everyone from the Chamber.

I welcome this Bill — for the benefit of the people in the gallery, the Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill, 1983 — which came before this House last week. From time to time there have been many references to the need for a speedier bringing to court of the perpetrators of road traffic offences. To that end I have suggested frequently that night courts be established to deal specifically with motor offences. I understand the average time it takes for a case to come before the courts is in the region of two years and sometimes it can be longer.

Perhaps the Government would give consideration to the inclusion of a provision in this Bill for the compulsory fixing of rear seat belts in cars, say, two or three years hence. There has been reference to this matter recently in the United Kingdom also when it was brought to people's attention that many people had been killed — this is an amusing but nevertheless true way — by "flying grannies," meaning that a grandmother in the back seat of a car hit from behind in a collision was flung over on top of front seat passengers, in turn killing them and/or herself. Perhaps the Minister of State present would give some consideration to this suggestion in the interests of the safety of not only elderly people but also of children who may travel in the back seats of cars who are not strapped in.

I welcome the increased fines for uninsured drivers. I know this provision has been widely welcomed by the general public in addition to the general motoring public, people who may find themselves some day hit by a vehicle whose owner is uninsured. I believe this will have quite an impact on people insuring themselves. I understand that at present the maximum fine for driving an uninsured vehicle is £100 which is now to be increased to £1,000, which is commendable. Also commendable are the many other changes in the levels of fines, particularly those relating to overloaded vehicles, heavy lorries carrying many tons in excess of the maximum amounts permissible in law. This is particularly laudable when one remembers the havoc many of these lorries wreak on our roads and the cost of repairs to our roads which must be borne by the taxpayer. I appreciate the fact that every person who owns a fleet of trucks is anxious to make as much money as possible on every load he delivers. However there is a price to be paid in respect of road repairs occasioned by such traffic and the taxpayer must take up the tab for the amount of damage done, particularly on small, narrow little roads throughout the country which were not constructed to withstand such heavy traffic.

I might refer also to parking fines. Different types of fines should be imposed for different types of parking offences, for example, to give just two instances, that of parking on a clearway and, on the other hand, parking on a single yellow line where one may not necessarily cause much obstruction. But where cars are parked within, say, 25 feet of traffic lights, reducing traffic lanes to a single row, fines should be heavier. Also I believe that anybody who has to have his vehicle towed away should be made to pay heavily for having parked his car in a way that caused considerable obstruction. Usually such cars are removed from the corners of little side roads, or where they have been double parked so as to reduce traffic flows to a single lane.

Another provision I should like to have seen included was one effecting some control over the noise of motor bicycles. I know there is at present a decibel limit but I am not aware that anybody has been charged in the last few years. Were I to put down a parliamentary question I should probably get confirmation of this. It should be an offence to drive a motor bicycle creating noise far in excess of the noise levels allowed by law. The Minister should consider this aspect because there is nothing more annoying, particularly late at night but also at other times during the day, than to hear these motor bicycles revving up making excessive noise. There should be some control over that.

Our gardaí are already overworked, which leads to the general feeling that traffic regulations are not enforced as vigorously as perhaps they should be. Heavier fines would help by reducing the number of breaches of the law. An increase in the number of prosecutions every so often would have beneficial results.

It is a good idea to have an insurance disc visible on cars. I am amazed at the number driving uninsured and untaxed cars. Many, but not all, itinerants drive unlicensed and untaxed cars and it is difficult for the Garda to prosecute successfully in these cases, because many are of no fixed abode. The powers of the Garda should be strengthened in dealing instantly with people who have no permanent address. Some thought should be given to that matter. There is a large enough number of people in this category committing such offences for it to be of grave concern.

I would welcome the imposition of larger fines against those who damage unoccupied parked cars and drive away. I am sure that there is not a Member of this House who has not found dents, and quite severe damage at times, done to his or her car in this manner. People who witness these occurrences should be encouraged to report the matter, as they are very prevalent. With the increase of fines and with good citizenship on the part of onlookers, the position would improve.

A much more heinous offence is that of the hit-and-run driver who injures or kills a pedestrian, cyclists or any other road user. It should be mandatory that such people lose their driving licences for the rest of their lives. This is one of the lowest forms of crime against another human being, particularly when the victim's life might well have been saved had an ambulance been called immediately — had the offender even had the decency to ring anonymously for medical help. These offenders are usually drunk at the time and, unfortunately, many lives are unnecessarily lost through their complete lack of consideration. This is a form of murder, as far as I am concerned. Not only should such an offender never be allowed to drive a car again, but the State should allow insurance companies to refuse to insure this class of person again.

Reference has been made to the variety of severity in the penalties laid down by courts. Deputy Ray Burke gave an example last week in this House of grave public disquiet with regard to sentencing. The son of a friend of mine was killed in a hit-and-run accident and the young men who had stolen the car which killed the boy were given 18 months' imprisonment. That sentence did not give the bereaved father a feeling that justice had been administered. Unless there is a deterrent by way of heavy sentencing, these crimes will continue to be committed.

I welcome the increased penalties for stealing cars. Up to now all that a person in this category could be charged with was stealing the actual petrol and driving an uninsured car, but this has changed, which is an improvement. The person who steals a car and damages it or sets it alight should be made to pay the full amount of damages. Insurance companies have to pay out of their pool for uninsured cars and the offenders should be made to pay not only the fine levied in court, but for the damage done. Deductions should be taken from their wages, salary or source of income at 10 per cent, but the word should go out that if a car, or motor bicycle — many of which are stolen and dumped in canals — is stolen and damaged, the full penalty will be exacted.

Eye tests for drivers should be introduced. It is very important that this form part of the Department of the Environment driving test. I do not know if this operates at present. Most traffic accidents happen through selfishness and a bullying attitude on the part of many motorists. 75 per cent of all accidents are absolutely unnecessary. The position would improve if there were more motorcycle gardaí monitoring the traffic and getting the rush hour traffic to form into two lanes where possible, when the rush of traffic is going only in one direction. This might help to speed up the flow of traffic.

Drivers of those cars which give out excessive diesel or petrol fumes should be dealt with severely. Nothing is more dangerous than a car trying to overtake another vehicle which is blowing out clouds of black smoke and reducing the visibility ahead. If the penalties imposed in the courts were sufficiently high to make the costs of repairing the fault in the car economical by comparison, a lot of this pollution would vanish. If people know that they will be fined from £50 to £200 for causing such pollution, they will have the faults in their cars seen to pretty quickly. As far as I am aware, we on this side of the House welcome this Bill. I certainly welcome all its provisions and hope that it will have a speedy passage through the House.

Mr. L.T. Cosgrave

I welcome the Bill and I hope it is only the first part of new legislation dealing with road traffic and general behaviour on our roads. It is a very serious problem at the moment. All of us know of people who have been involved in accidents, whether it be car damage, serious injuries to the person or even death. We are all aware of the grief and hardship caused to relatives and friends of those killed in road accidents. There are many aspects that must be considered, including uninsured driving, drunken and careless driving and speeding and parking offences. There are varying degrees of culpability in relation to the offences. In some instances there can be absolutely no excuse but in others one might look at them in not quite so serious a light.

The Bill is to be welcomed because it has updated some matters that have to be considered. I refer in particular to the situation that exists nowadays where some people consider it not worth insuring their car because the fine imposed is less than the cost of insurance. Apart from the risk of having one's licence withdrawn a person is probably better off in monetary terms not to have car insurance. This is a disgraceful situation. I hope the Minister will look at the whole question of insurance. Insurance companies have a duty to quote realistic premiums. I am not condoning anyone who drives a car that is not insured but many young people under the ages of 25 or 30 years are unfairly loaded. Many of them find it very difficult to get a quotation for insuring their car or motor cycle. Insurance companies have a duty to offer insurance at a competitive rate. If all motorists insured their cars the premium for each driver would decrease considerably.

The previous speaker spoke in favour of a disc system in respect of car insurance. It would be easy to operate a system such as that applied to car tax. Traffic wardens and the Garda could check on the disc and motorists could be asked to produce their certificate of insurance within a certain number of days. If people got tickets such as those issued in respect of parking offences there would be a reduction in the number of uninsured drivers. I hope the Minister of State will pass on the suggestion to the relevant Minister. Legislation on these lines is long overdue. The majority of motorists go to the trouble and expense of insuring their cars and if the steps I have outlined were taken it might result in a reduction in the insurance premiums. I hope the relevant legislation will be brought before the House without much delay. The report on this matter was issued some time age and I am sure it has been with the Minister for some time.

There are many types of parking offences, some obviously more serious than others. There is parking on clearways, on double yellow lines and parking at meters without paying the charge. A person who parks on a clearway or in a place where he is likely to cause traffic chaos should be penalised to the full extent but a person who parks on a single yellow line or who parks at a meter without inserting sufficient money should not be penalised quite so heavily.

Motorists who bring their cars into the city are worried about getting adequate and safe parking. Some people may resort to public transport but this brings up the whole question of the efficiency and reliability of public transport. We must question whether we are providing motorists with the necessary parking facilities and at a reasonable rate. Motorists have to drive around the city looking for empty parking spaces and this causes annoyance and unnecessary expense. People who are trying to carry on their business in a proper way are affected adversely by the lack of adequate parking facilities.

The Department of the Environment must consider traffic problems when future office blocks are being built and when there are major new developments in this city and in cities and towns throughout the country. It is quite clear that there is a lack of adequate parking facilities. I agree that people should be penalised fully for parking on clearways and causing obstructions and possible traffic chaos which can make it difficult for emergency traffic trying to get through. In other areas motorists should not be penalised so harshly. In other cities motorists can rely on metro services or undergrounds and efficient public transport systems. Here many people would not make so much use of their cars if they could depend on an efficient public transport service. Therefore we must try to improve our public transport system because many people would allow CIE or some other undertaking, if such should arrive, to do the driving for them.

There are varying aspects to careless and dangerous driving. Some are very serious. I suppose most of us have exceeded the speed limit at times. In a 55-mile zone people sometimes drive at 60 miles per hour. On the other hand there is the serious matter of people speeding through housing estates where there is always the danger of children playing on roads. There have been suggestions that car ramps should be laid down to stop tear-away drivers or to slow the traffic down. There has been a suggestion that legislation should provide for such ramps, and when we are reviewing various aspects of road traffic legislation we should consider providing such ramps in certain areas, places where people are using certain roads as short-cuts to get quickly from one place to another, though they know such roads are not through-ways. In this respect we have a duty towards children in estates who should be able to go about and play in safety.

I read an article in a newspaper yesterday in relation to local authorities' responsibility under the Civil Liability Act of 1961. They have certain duties in relation to roads and conditions adjacent to them. Local authorities should see what improvements can be made. Apart from road surfaces, other problems could be cleared up without too much cost. Twice in as many months we have had accidents because of falling trees. High winds could cause any tree to fall, but roadside trees should be looked at carefully from the point of view of age and general appearance. Local authorities should consider having certain trees cut down. I am not saying this would avert accidents, but greater vigilance is needed.

People are often penalised for failure to display their tax discs. This can be due to the fact that they have not received their discs from motor taxation offices. I and Deputy David Andrews have advocated the opening of sub-offices in Dublin for the issue of tax discs, and naturally we have advocated one for Dún Laoghaire. The situation around River House at present is chaotic. People have to get away from work possibly for up to half a day to go down there and queue to try to get their tax dealt with quickly. A simpler way would be to allow people to renew their registration without travelling all the way into town at expense and inconvenience. The parking facilities near the Four Courts are as bad as anywhere else. The opening of sub-offices would facilitate people who would not normally go to town. It would be interesting to count the number of work hours lost by people having to travel to get their tax renewed. If they sent their tax applications by post they might not get a reply for months and one has to tell the garda when stopped that the disc is on the way, that the cheque has been sent off. It would be interesting to count the number of man hours lost by the duty to renew tax. I suggest it would run into thousands now that there are so many extra cars in the city.

I hope this debate will have some influence on people so that they will wear seat belts at all times. The Minister said that about 80 per cent of people killed in car crashes were not wearing their seat belts. The Department of the Environment should run a campaign to show people that not wearing seat belts can contribute to injuries and death in car accidents. The rate of fatalities has dropped, but it is still too high. I read in an article recently that in the big snow in 1982 there were very few car accidents because people could not drive their cars. The more cars there are on the roads the more accidents there will be.

We should try to make it attractive for people to have their cars repaired and in good working order. A spot check system should be in operation to ensure that cars on the roads are not defective. The reduction in the VAT rate makes it less costly to get your car checked and repaired. We also have the problem of the non-insurance of cars. For offences like this it might be possible to have the cars impounded. If people lost their licence for a short time this might contribute to a reduction in road traffic offences.

The increase in the monetary penalties in the Bill is a start. There are other aspects to be dealt with as soon as possible. This Bill is part of the Government's proposals to bring about an improvement on our roads. This will not be done over-night, but we have to make a start. The offence of uninsured driving must be tackled. People have been very badly affected by this. While the Motor Insurers' Bureau have helped them out to a certain extent, in the long term people have been left very badly off because of uninsured driving. We have a duty to ensure that all drivers have their cars insured. We hope there will be a better detection rate following the introduction of discs.

I welcome the Bill and I hope it will help to reduce the carnage on our roads. All drivers should have an awareness of other road users. While the number of people killed has been reduced, the carnage is still too high. We all know people who have been injured or killed in road accidents. We have a duty to enact this Bill and we hope further legislation will be introduced without too much delay.

Mr. D. Andrews

I welcome the spirit of the Bill. It increases a number of penalties for various road traffic offences. There is one aspect of the Bill which must be of concern not only to me and my colleagues in Opposition but also to Members of the Government parties, that is, the outrageous proposal to increase fines from £20 to £150 for a first offence and from £50 to £350 for certain second and subsequent offences, in respect of, for example, parking violations. I could understand a reasonable fine for dangerous parking but in the built-up areas of the city and county of Dublin the prospect of parking is nil. But for the fact that some of the traffic wardens have yellow bands around their caps I suspect that the tops of their heads would be parked on because of the lack of parking space.

I protest in the strongest possible fashion that minor parking violations are to be subjected to a fine of this nature. Until we can provide proper facilities for motorists we should not consider introducing fines of this nature. The whole infrastructure in the city and county of Dublin is a scandal and a black mark on the planning authorities over the years. We are only now coming to grips with the Donnybrook to Bray road via Stillorgan. That should have been done 20 years ago. We are only now coming to grips with the road to one of our main airports. There is the other blight from the back of the Park, through Castleknock, through Clonee, to Navan. That is another example of the type of hardship motorists have to put up with over the years. When that problem is solved and when proper parking facilities are provided, fines such as those proposed in this Bill should be considered.

The other problem is enforcement. Who will enforce the traffic laws? Those of us who travel a great deal are passed by cars travelling far in excess of the speed limit. Who enforces the law there? The traffic wardens in Dublin do their best. They are not an unreasonable group of people. They are courteous and they will give you five or ten minutes if they see you have a problem. That is how the law should be enforced. We should temper justice with courtesy.

As far as other aspects are concerned such as dangerous driving and speeding, there should be a special corps set up within the Garda Síochána. I will not engage in the current sport of Garda bashing. I am a strong supporter of the Garda and very supportive of them, although I will be critical when necessary. The Government have an obligation to set up a traffic corps within the Garda to ensure the enforcement of the rules of the road. This is essential.

I now turn to the matter of road traffic deaths. As a member of this House I have always asked about the number of road deaths per year. Since 1969 an average of 500 people per year have died which means that 6,500 people have died in the Republic since that date. We talk about the on-going tragedy of the North but "only" 2,300 people have died in the troubles there while this part of the country is suffering from a massive haemorrhage. It must not go unnoticed. People are being killed on a daily basis but particularly at weekends when we seem to go on a frolic. We have become blasé about road traffic deaths and injuries. It is a sad commentary on this part of the island that we accept almost without demur the number of road traffic deaths since 1969 while at the same time we properly lift our hands in horror when we hear of violent deaths in the Six Counties. Road traffic deaths seen to be acceptable to the citizens of the Republic. On the other hand, deaths through violence caused by the bomb and the bullet by the merchants of terror seem to affect us in a different way.

I call on the Minister of State who is in charge of this part of the Department to hold an inquiry into the whole problem of road traffic deaths. It is of no concern to me whether it is a public inquiry or an inter-departmental inquiry as long as it is conducted as a matter of urgency. We cannot be allowed to go on killing one another on the roads. Certainly the Road Traffic Association have done their best and they make fine proclamations about the number of road traffic deaths reducing by, perhaps, 20 on the previous year. We are talking about a reduction from, say, 600 to 580 and we are meant to give three cheers for the new figures. I do not want to under-rate the work being done by the Road Traffic Association. But for their work the number of deaths and injuries would be far more significant. At least they continue to emphasise the need to prevent us from killing and injuring one another. On and on the ritual goes. It must be stopped. It seems we are becoming an uncaring society.

There will be newspaper headlines if somebody opens his or her mouth about divorce or contraception but the deaths of two or three young people in a car crash will merit only a small paragraph in a newspaper. I am not being critical of the media. They reflect their readership who, perhaps, may not want to know about the number of people dying every day on the roads.

There is one contributor to the letters page of the Irish Times who writes weekly about road traffic deaths and injuries caused by drunken driving. If the Minister intends holding some form of inquiry into the problem of road deaths he might examine the connection with drinking. Let us call a drunk a drunk. He might consider the proposition that we should abandon the use of the breathalyser because anybody who drinks should not drive. Anybody found doing so should automatically have his or her licence suspended. I think this is the first time this has been said by an Irish politician. So be it. It will not make me very popular in certain quarters but that is a matter of total indifference to me. If my contribution or those of other Deputies can reduce the number of road traffic deaths we will have done our job well. I am asking the Minister as a matter of public urgency to have a look at the possibility of setting up some form of inquiry into the cause of road traffic deaths and injuries. He should look at the reality of the relationship between road traffic deaths and injuries and drinking, as well as the infrastructure of our roads. There are twisting, pot-holed roads in rural areas and elsewhere.

This Bill will be useless unless the law is enforced by a special Garda corps and an inquiry is set up as a matter of urgency and action taken on their report within 12 months. That may be too much to hope for. There are so many reports on the shelf that I wonder if we will ever have a solution to any problem.

My constituency colleague mentioned that I had raised by way of parliamentary question the matter of the Motor Taxation Office at River House. I happen to be near River House from time to time in my professional capacity and I have seen long queues in bad weather outside that establishment. I am in no way critical of the staff of that office who are an extremely courteous and overworked group of people. Why do we not issue motor tax discs through the Post Office? I cannot understand why that is not done. The Minister should not come back with some half-baked excuse or some half-baked bureaucratic explanation because that would be unworthy of him. He knows that what I am speaking about is the right solution to the problem. If car tax discs were issued through post offices this would be of great convenience to the public. If those tax discs are not issued through every post office they could be issued through a post office in each particular area. It beats me why we should have to burden the people in River House for tax discs for the city and county of Dublin.

I agree with Deputy Cosgrave that in the event of the Minister not agreeing to the issuing of car tax discs through post offices he might consider setting up a taxation office on the south side of the river. He could set one up in Dún Laoghaire or if it is not set up there a tax disc office should at least be set up some place in the south side of Dublin to cover the south side of the city. This would be of great convenience to the public generally. There might be more jobs for the people who are issuing tax discs. I do not want to deprive the people in River House of what they consider to be their particular jobs or that they should feel their jobs are in jeopardy. I see those people working very hard and they are also very courteous. I also see the other side of the problem with queues stretching out into the street often in very bad weather.

Uninsured cars are another problem. There are quite a number of people who do not insure their cars. Some of them will not insure their cars because they feel they should not do so. They take a chance. We are a great nation at taking chances. It should be spelt out to those people that they are taking chances with other people's lives. The Motor Insurers' Bureau deals with uninsured car collisions. I welcome the increase in the fines for uninsured motor vehicles. The fines could not be high enough as far as I am concerned. Where does the money for those fines go? Should it not go into the pool administered by the Motor Insurers' Bureau? Does it go into the Exchequer? Would the Minister insure that this money goes into the fund administered to take care of the victims of uninsured drivers?

I would like to refer to the wearing of seat belts. There are some people who protest that their liberty is infringed in some way by an obligation to wear seat belts. It has been proved without any doubt that seat belts have saved so many lives and also saved so many people being projected though the front window of cars that the compulsory wearing of seat belts is a good law. While the fines may be excessive in relation to other road traffic offences the fine in relation to the wearing of seat belts is correct. I welcome that. Some people have to be protected from themselves and their bad judgment. It is bad judgment on the part of people who get into motor cars and do not wear seat belts. It is absolutely essential that people driving cars and their passengers should wear seat belts.

There is an outrageous proposal in the Bill to vastly increase the fines in relation to traffic parking violations in certain circumstances. I hope the Minister will publicly urge our District Courts to exercise discretion in relation to the cases which come before them, to adjudicate each case on its merits. If a person continually violates the parking regulations the maximum fine should be imposed on him.

There is another matter which affects my constituency and I am sure it affects the Minister's constituency as well as other constituencies throughout the country. I refer to people taking short cuts through housing estates and built-up areas. If there is traffic jamming on the main roads people turn off into built-up areas. This includes many areas where young children are playing and are at great risk. I have been putting forward this proposition over the years. Sometimes your propositions proposed over the years become a reality. You continue plugging away until you see what you consider to be the correct solution implemented. The correct solution which has been used in the United States for many years to great effect is rumble strips to slow down speeding motorists. If some of the people who travel through housing estates found that other motorists left the main roads and travelled through the estates where they live they would object but it seems to be a different matter when they do it through other housing estates. I am sure the problem we have in Dún Laoghaire in relation to motorists taking short cuts through housing estates is a problem in other parts of Dublin, other cities throughout the country and many of our large towns.

The car has become a necessity, particularly in Dublin city and county, where public transport has almost broken down. In some instances people have to wait in the most appalling weather for buses running late and two and three buses for the same destination pulling up behind one another at bus stops. That is one of the reasons why cars are no longer regarded as a luxury. If people living near the city and throughout the county of Dublin tried to get to work on public transport half of them would be late every day of the week. The other tragic result of the breakdown in public transport throughout the city and county of Dublin is that when one has to go to work between 8.30 and 9.30 in the morning there are huge queues of traffic no matter from what part of the city or county one comes.

Effectively to get from the main street in Dún Laoghaire to the main street in Dublin city takes an hour. Would the Minister consider the prospect of opening up a third lane on the road between Blackrock and, say, Ballsbridge? Four traffic lanes are in operation there, two going into Dublin and two coming out of it. Would the Minister consider opening up the second lane on the way out from the city to Blackrock between the hours of 8.30 a.m. and 9.30 a.m., in other words making a three-lane thoroughfare between Dún Laoghaire and Ballsbridge and leaving one lane only for traffic coming out from Dublin to Dún Laoghaire? The bus lanes appear to be working relatively well. Could this not be an extension of the bus lane? Let us open an outgoing lane as an ingoing lane at the height of the traffic in the morning and vice versa in the evening. There is no reason why that should not be done. I have never heard it being proposed before now. I am proposing it now and the Minister during the course of his reply to this very necessary debate might respond to that problem. Utilisation of the road traffic lanes in the direction opposite to which they are normally used might well speed up traffic. The idea of taking an hour to go from Dún Laoghaire to O'Connell Bridge at the height of traffic is an appalling loss in terms of the economy. Inevitably you will have cars with only one person in each. I am not blaming the Minister in this regard but I am pointing out the reality. That is part of democracy; you can have whom you like as a passenger and if you want to go in your car on your own, so be it.

I welcome the spirit and intention of the Bill. I have put my marker down in relation to a number of matters and I urge on the Minister the possibility of opening a public or inter-departmental inquiry or an inquiry within the Department of the Environment, its deliberations to be published, in relation to road traffic deaths and road traffic deaths related to drink and driving. Those who drink and drive should be penalised. The sooner the better that we face up to the reality that as a matter of social justice, if not to ourselves to others, we should not be allowed even one drink and then drive. I ask the Minister to examine this. I am not guiltless. I am not doing a Persil operation on Deputy David Andrews but I have accumulated enough experience in this House over the last 20 years to respond to what I see as some of the problems confronting the community. I will leave it at that and I thank the Minister for his attention during the course of my short contribution.

Mr. Enright

This Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill before the House is important legislation. I want to touch on a couple of small items before dealing with the Bill itself. I recommend to the Minister and his Department something that is not contained in this Bill or in any Road Traffic Acts that I have seen. Side by side with every road tax disc displayed the owner or driver of a vehicle should be obliged to display an insurance disc. We have heard figures for the amounts of money paid out through the Motor Insurers' Bureau because of uninsured driving. If every owner or driver of a car could be compelled to display his motor insurance disc that would be of tremendous assistance to the Garda in detecting uninsured driving. In court after court, day after day, week after week, people are charged for driving without insurance and the Garda have no possible way of knowing whether a vehicle is insured. The simple device that I have mentioned would involve no problem in enforcement. If I am the owner of a car then it is my duty to see that the insurance disc is displayed beside the tax disc. If I give my car to Mr. X to drive it is my duty and obligation to ensure that Mr. X is authorised to drive and to know and to ensure that he knows the limitations and difficulties regarding the use of my car. This simple remedy brought into our legislation would be of tremendous assistance to everybody and would reduce the incidence of people driving motor cars while uninsured and injuring and killing people. This method is very simple and probably that is why we are not following it. Common sense cries out for a look into this matter.

A young boy or girl gets a motor cycle, puts on a crash helmet and gear and drives away on the motor cycle, and is covered by insurance. My son or daughter may be a pillion passenger on the back seat of that motor cycle. God forbid the occurrence of an accident, but if the motor cycle hits a stone wall the likelihood is that the pillion passenger is not covered by insurance, about 90 per cent of pillion passengers are not covered by insurance.

In the last few years I have met five young people not even in the prime of life who were physically maimed after being pillion passengers on motor cycles which met with accidents. I have met a lovely girl of 18 years of age badly disfigured after being a pillion passenger on a motor cycle which hit a stone wall. You would have to meet her to realise how badly she is affected. She is unfit to work. She is permanently physically injured and will be handicapped for the rest of her life. She cannot get employment anywhere. That young girl has no come-back against anybody. The best she will get in this life from the State or anybody else is roughly £25 per week from the health board.

I would like to clarify that if the Ceann Comhairle will permit me. If the driver of a motorcycle is involved in an accident with an oncoming vehicle it is likely that the other person would be held to be negligent to some extent. If the other driver is held to be even 1 per cent negligent a motorcycle pillion passenger will be able to sue the driver of the other vehicle and recover some damages. However, if the driver of a motorcycle hits a stone wall and his pillion passenger is seriously injured the latter does not have redress against any person. I have had to deal with many such cases. It is frightening to realise that on any bank holiday weekend nine out of ten motorcycle pillion passengers who are injured will not have redress against anybody. That indicates that there is a glaring loophole in the law. It is an example of ineptitude on the part of those concerned with the enforcement of our road traffic laws. That glaring injustice must be remedied very soon.

Through the efforts of the Departments of the Environment and Justice there has been a big reduction in the number of accidents since the introduction of the breathalyser. It has proved worth while. For the old section 49 cases it was necessary to have carried out many tests such as blood pressure and whether an accused could walk a straight line or not; but, luckily enough, they are gone and have been replaced by the breathalyser. Department officials, and the courts, ensure that breaches of this law are dealt with. If the amount of the fines for driving while drunk are increased substantially I have no doubt that the message will get home to people that they are not entitled to drive while under the influence of drink. That should help to reduce the number of accidents also.

I notice that the fines for failure to wear safety belts have been increased substantially and I do not see anything wrong with that. Many people are careless about seat belts and they should be made aware of the danger of driving without them. There is no doubt that if more drivers and front seat passengers wore seat belts there would be a big reduction in the number of people seriously injured in accidents. Two out of every three people injured in accidents would not have been had they worn seat belts, according to statistics, and that is why it is important to stress the necessity for wearing seat belts. In fact, I suggest that the Department prepare a plan to compel back seat passengers to wear seat belts. Lives could be saved and the extent of serious injury reduced if people wore seat belts. I accept that the accidents will occur but the wearing of seat belts will reduce the extent of personal injury.

With regard to the increase in the fines for illegal parking I should like to point out that the manner of parking often results in accidents. People park cars carelessly at dangerous junctions and on narrow roads. They park on double yellow lines and in areas where they are bound to cause a traffic hazard. We must make an effort to get people to be more careful when parking. In a ten-year period 170 people were killed and 4,000 injured in accidents involving parked cars and lorries. That is one reason why we must make every effort to get people to be careful in regard to the parking of vehicles. We should have a national policy on car parking. However, in many instances people are forced to park their vehicles illegally because of the lack of adequate car parking facilities. Parking is so restricted in cities like Dublin that it is difficult for out of town drivers to find a proper place. City planners and local authorities should provide proper car parking facilities so that people are not forced to park cars in dangerous areas.

The Minister and the Department should try to find proper parking space for lorries. Many truck drivers are obliged to leave their heavily loaded vehicles, which in most cases are badly marked, on the sides of streets. In most cases they represent a serious hazard for other road users. A secure car parking area should be provided for such vehicles. If we do not produce a national policy on vehicle parking we will continue to have careless and haphazard parking. The authority are not placing sufficient emphasis on car parking with the result that drivers are not taking this matter as seriously as they should.

People in towns and villages, particularly pedestrians and the elderly, should be encouraged to wear brighter clothes and reflective belts. Many people walk along our roads at night without any reflective clothing and this causes accidents because the motorist when driving along these dark roads in driving rain cannot see them. A campaign encouraging people to wear this clothing would help reduce the number of accidents and this would benefit all. The Minister should encourage the Department to start up such a campaign.

From reading An Foras Forbartha reports one realises that many accidents occur in the vicinity of schools, churches and large shopping centres. The Department should be encouraged to provide well marked pedestrian crossings in these areas. There should be no problem arranging with the local authorities to provide these facilities. If railings were provided near crossings, people would be encouraged to stay on the footpath until they reached the crossings. This too would help reduce the number of accidents at known black spots. It is easy to identify such places. This matter should be looked into and greater emphasis should be placed on identifying these areas and providing these crossings.

People should be made more aware of the dangers on our roads and they should be encouraged to adopt a more responsible attitude to using the roads. The fines and increased penalties proposed here are part and parcel of a very important effort by the Department. This is an on-going policy but it is very essential. I recommend that the Minister continue his efforts with this very important work.

Mr. N. Treacy

I too welcome this Bill and am pleased to see the updating of the legislation and that the new levels are keeping in line with inflation. These figures are extremely high. Uninsured drivers are the greatest risk on our roads, and there are many of them. The maximum penalty for this and other offences has been increased to £1,000. It is coincidental that this is the car insurance figure now being paid by many of our under 25-year-old drivers. This is completely beyond their paying ability and that is why many young drivers do not have insurance and are taking the risk of driving without insurance. As a result of this terrible loading, allied to the astronomically high figures being awarded by juries to victims of accident cases, the amount for insurance cover for these young people is prohibitive.

As public representatives we have a duty to provide realistic legislation to deal with crimes. On the other hand, we have a duty to ensure that the necessary insurance cover is available to all drivers, including young drivers who cannot get cover, or if they can, cannot pay for it. On the basis of age and experience it is discrimination to deprive or impede one group from what they require — to avail of the right to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle. I realise this does not fall within the brief of the Minister of State but I appeal to him to request co-ordination on the problem of insurance with his colleague, the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism.

I welcome this Bill but I believe there is a major vacuum in it particularly with regard to drunken and dangerous driving penalties. While I could not condone drunken driving, I believe the operation of the laws in this area are far too extreme at the minor end; by this I mean just plain drunken driving. I am not here to speak for drunken drivers. Because I do not participate in the consumption of those much desired beverages, I believe what I have to say might get more credence. There is a necessity for strict legislation and stricter penalties to be introduced in certain cases of drunken driving. After this Bill is passed the person who drinks three pints of alcohol, leaves a tavern, is breathalysed half-a-mile down the road, fails the test, is summoned and taken to court, will be fined £1,000. Contrast this with the situation where a person filled with alcohol, as loaded as an oil tanker, gets into his car, starts to drive and after a short time crosses to the other side of the road hitting an oncoming car: there is a very bad smash; both drivers are injured and the sober driver is dead. Another driver summons the priest, doctor, the Garda and the ambulance and after a few minutes several people have congregated to give assistance.

What a horrendous scene. Both people are admitted to hospital in the same ambulance — the sober driver who dies and the drunken driver who was injured. After one night in hospital the drunken driver is discharged. The Garda investigate the situation and draw up a report. A court case ensues. The drunken driver is summoned to court and the Garda report establishes that the car had no rear white light, had a bald tyre, and the drunken driver admits he was not wearing a safety belt. He is fined £5 on all charges. One might well contrast this with the situation in which if this man had been driving down the road and failed a breathalyser test he would be fined £1,000. As a result of the court case the family of the victim of the accident, the dead driver — the breadwinner of a family, perhaps the owner of a car on hire purchase — have no recourse whatever to justice.

Surely there is a major vacuum in the law here. This Bill has avoided tackling that situation. I appeal to the Minister to ensure that this omission is rectified, so there will be the necessary recourse to justice and the appropriate penalties for the offence of drunken driving where it is the cause of killing or maiming people on the road and so that the perpetrators of such drunken-driving would be brought to justice.

I agree with other Deputies in their pleas for the expedition of payment of road taxes and the ease with which these can be paid. They should all be payable through any post office just as are television, dog and other licences. There is no reason that the payment of road tax could not be rendered easier for Seán Citizen. Payment in this manner would result in less city and urban traffic adjacent to motor taxation offices and more money becoming available to the Department of the Environment through speedier payment at post offices.

I consider the proposed fines for parking in public places fairly extreme. Indeed, the State has failed over the years to provide proper parking facilities outside public offices. We are all aware that people must go to public offices for various reasons.

Debate adjourned.