Dáil Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 28 Nov 2001

Vol. 545 No. 2

Road Traffic Bill, 2001: Second Stage (Resumed).

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

Ms O. Mitchell

I highlighted the fundamental flaw in the legislation arising from the automatic assumption of culpability on the part of the registered owner of a vehicle even though he may not have been driving it at the time. I am probably not the first to point this out to the Minister but we have an obligation to deal with this problem because we should not pass legislation we know will not survive a court challenge. I suspect that this one will not.

The immediate practical problem is that this will put enormous additional pressures on the courts, as registered owners have no option and are automatically referred to the courts if they refuse to accept the fine or penalty points.

The Bill extends the grounds on which a driver may be requested to undergo a breath test and stops just short of random breath testing. I welcome this. However, the Minister is aware of the problem with the evidential breath testing boxes. There are 37 of them in use around the country. If their use is to become more widespread, and I assume that is one of the reasons for the Bill, the presumption of their accuracy will not be an adequate defence when it is challenged as it has been already. The Minister will have to go further if this method for testing for alcohol is to be regarded as cast-iron evidence in any court case. At the very least, existing problems need to be resolved.

I am highlighting these problems to ensure there are not any loopholes in the Bill and that the legislation has a genuine impact on driver behaviour rather than merely increasing the number of court offences we are facing.

I welcome the bilateral co-operation with other EU member states in applying driver disqualification. This is particularly relevant to us because of our border with Northern Ireland. I am sure I am not the only public representative who has received complaints about the apparent immunity of Northern Ireland drivers in the South. I am sure that feeling is reciprocated north of the border. I hope there will be active North-South co-operation in notifying each other of driver disqualification. I wish it was something that could go further and that penalty points applied here would be reciprocated in the North. Perhaps that is an area for further future co-operation.

I welcome the transfer of control of taxi stands and the power to determine the location of bus stops from the Garda Commissioner to the local authorities. This is vital to the functioning of the current system. I do not know if the Minister is aware that his colleague Deputy O'Rourke is presiding over a gross abuse of the monopoly of Dublin Bus which is refusing to allow private bus operators use existing bus stops and is forcing duplication of the entire network when private operators get licences, few as they are.

For more than a year, Dublin Bus has had an injunction against Dublin Corporation providing multi-user shelters. It is dog in the manger stuff. Dublin Bus will not provide the shelters but will not allow anyone else to provide them either. I ask the Minister to use his influence with his colleague in lifting this injunction, getting back to the real world and having some thought for commuters rather than for Dublin Bus alone.

If this does not happen, the rationalisation provided for in this Bill will be futile because it will not make any difference. I welcome the Bill in principle. Our road traffic code is technical and arcane. I would not claim to be an expert, but even I can see that it leaves itself open to challenge in a variety of ways. It is also flawed in terms of the resources and technology available to implement it. Much work is needed on this Bill before it is passed into legislation.

Mr. Naughten

I welcome the long overdue introduction of this Bill. However, it is too little, too late. Since the Bill was published in March, more than 250 people have been killed on our roads. As we all know, Ireland has the worst fatality rates in the EU. This is evident every Monday morning when we read the litany of fatalities from the previous weekend – a litany of shame for this Government.

The legislation was to have been passed into law in 1999. Upgrading of the Garda IT systems and the computerisation of the national drivers file was to have been completed by 2000 and the new penalty points system in place by January 2001. The new system is running two years behind schedule and as a consequence at least 100 extra lives will be lost on our roads. So much for this Government's commitment to road safety and the reduction in fatalities by 20% by 2002 – a goal which everyone agrees cannot be reached.

To its credit, this is the first Government to introduce a road safety strategy, although it has failed to implement some of even the most basic proposals. This legislation, though it does not go far enough, will have a dramatic impact on the number of fatalities on our roads but it begs the question as to whether the Government ever wanted to implement such laws.

Leaving these criticisms aside, this is a positive development and one which should be welcomed. However, it misses a golden opportunity to address fundamental problems in the way in which we use our roads. The Minister for Public Enterprise is forcing more heavy goods vehicles and vehicular traffic on to our roads. The proposal by Irish Rail to reduce its capacity to carry freight on the network by nearly 50% contradicts not only Government policy but EU policy and it flies in the face of this legislation and the road safety strategy.

HGVs are implicated in one in five of all road fatalities and the current proposal would see an additional 30,000 HGV journeys per annum. Such fatalities have been brought home to us by the deaths of Dominic Wogan and Fiona O'Neill who were killed on the Dublin-Belfast road last week, just as they planned to go to Australia. That HGVs are involved in so many fatalities puts a question over not only the proposal by Irish Rail but also road design. Throughout the country new roads have been designed and built to relieve congestion and reduce accident rates, however the design of some of these, and more especially the design of the junctions, raises serious questions which have not been addressed by local authorities or the engineering firms involved.

I am aware of two such junctions on the Athlone relief road where there has been a series of accidents. The local authority has to repair the warning signs on an almost weekly basis because they are being knocked down by motorists. This situation is repeated throughout the country as the number of accident black spots, which have seen repeated accidents take place over the years, have yet to be upgraded. In many cases they will only be upgraded after a fatal accident. Why do we have to wait for someone to be killed before any action is taken? Even when they are upgraded it can take years before such works are completed. In one such example, only after a fatal accident did the NRA address a dangerous section of road, even though members of the local authority had been pressing for such action for years. Now, three years after traffic calming has commenced, the upgrading has yet to be completed. How could this improve road safety? Even when such works are completed, signs indicating men at work, loose chippings and so on can remain up for years. This has become so prevalent throughout the country that most drivers ignore such warning signs. This is all the responsibility of an unelected, unaccountable authority, namely, the National Roads Authority. It is high time the NRA was made directly responsible and accountable to this House and that these and other serious questions were raised with them and proper and adequate responses obtained.

While on the subject of the condition of our roads and the NRA, serious questions must be raised about the causes of accidents. The NRA compiles statistics on road accidents and the causes of such accidents. It trots out figures such as 40% of accidents involve drinking and driving, 40% of accidents involve young drivers and 45% of drivers do not wear seat belts. Yet we are never told of the number of accidents where the road structure itself is a major contributing factor. Why? For two reasons. The NRA is not willing to highlight its own inadequacies and it is not prepared to put the spotlight on the Department of the Environment and Local Government because he who pays the piper calls the tune.

A further question arises in relation to the drink driving figures. All those involved in road safety claim that 40% of road fatalities involve drink driving yet nobody can stand over these figures. It is a misrepresentation of the road accident figures to make such a claim as these figures are not compiled and in many cases the level of alcohol is never even assessed. As a consequence, to make such a claim is erroneous and the true extent of this as a contributing factor is unknown. If the numbers are accurate then Garda enforcement and the National Safety Council's advertising campaigns have failed dismally. Figures are available for the extent to which drivers break the speed limit – as a contributing factor in road accidents it is easily assessed. Similar figures are not compiled in relation to alcohol.

It is also wrong to assume automatically that accidents which happen in the early hours of the morning involve alcohol. Other factors such as speed or fatigue are rarely taken into consideration in such circumstances. A proper road accident investigation unit within the Garda is required. The framework for such a unit already exists within the PSV licence inspectorate. Such a unit could investigate the root causes of many road accidents and this information could be used to address the specific contributing factors. Similar work is already performed by the insurance industry when assessing claims but this information is never collated or published. The insurance industry itself must take a more proactive approach in this area. This would have a positive impact on the public's perception of road safety. If such statistics were compiled by the insurance companies it would be possible to differentiate between genuine accidents and downright carelessness and the results could also be used to make the public more conscious of dangerous driving habits.

An accident may be caused by somebody's answering a mobile phone or tuning the radio if the driver takes his eye off the road. Speed may be only a secondary factor. All accidents should be investigated to see how the driver contributed to the accident, whether he could have done anything to avoid it and what the general driving population could learn from this accident. To make an impact on accident statistics we must change driver behaviour and attitude. This information could be a very useful tool, as it has been in many other countries.

Another major issue of concern is young drivers. Judging by the majority of comments on road safety it is perceived that they are the root cause of all accidents. This allows older drivers to abdicate their responsibilities. Nevertheless, the figures showing that 40% of accidents involve young drivers and that by the year's end 100 young people will have been killed in single vehicle accidents, hitting a pole or a wall, highlights this serious problem, yet the Government's road safety strategy virtually ignores this section of the driving population.

While everyone agrees that better driving skills and behaviour would make an enormous difference to the number of accidents, especially involving young drivers, nobody has been prepared to address the issue except my own party, which published its proposals in August 2000. While it was welcomed by all involved in road safety the only response from the Government was to send a backbench TD out to try to knock holes in it. If the policy was so bad from the Government's perspective, it has had the last 15 months to develop its own policy. Yet the silence is deafening.

There is ample evidence that the way many new drivers learn to drive is unsatisfactory. Too many people are ill-prepared when they take the test and fewer than half the candidates pass the test first time. Even after passing the test young and newly qualified drivers have a poor safety record compared to older and more experienced drivers. Fine Gael is determined to improve the safety record of young drivers and, as a consequence, address the issue of spiralling car insurance costs.

Every week the State finds that 43% of drivers taking the test are unsuitable to drive, that is 1,394 drivers who are allowed back on the road after they have failed their driving tests. They are not even told what mistakes they are making. How does this improve our safety record? If there was a similar failure rate for the leaving certificate there would be a huge public outcry, yet we are prepared to allow people who have shown that they cannot pass the test to take charge of a potentially lethal weapon, a car. There are a number of reasons the failure rate is so high. A sizeable percentage of driving instructors have themselves never passed the test but are allowed to pass on their bad driving techniques to young drivers. The Minister for the Environment and Local Government turns a blind eye to the regulations for driving instructors.

Drivers who fail the test are given a results sheet which is little more than double Dutch. They are none the wiser about why they have failed and are therefore unaware of their mistakes. They cannot improve their techniques or ensure that they do not repeat the mistakes on their way home after the test. If a student fails a subject in the leaving certificate he has access to the paper and can review the marking system. We must introduce a driving test report which would highlight the minor faults marked during the test. The idea is to make the driver aware of his weaknesses.

Fine Gael has also proposed the introduction of a log book to give a structured programme for driver training, yet the Government has ignored this issue. Even if a young driver is competent and safe there is no encouragement to take a responsible attitude to driving. The insurance industry ignores responsible young drivers who see their premiums double despite their unblemished records. The current policy of the insurance industry does not promote a safe and responsible attitude from young drivers to road safety. This policy is directly controlled by the insurance industry. The gardaí are going around with one hand tied behind their back in relation to enforcement due to the lack of resources.

I suggest that the Minister bring forward an amendment to this Bill which overnight would save at least 20 lives per year. I propose that the Bill be amended to introduce daytime running of car lights during the winter period. This has been introduced in Scandinavian countries to great effect and would be of major benefit to this coun try. The Department of the Environment and Local Government has run two pilot projects but they have not yet decided, after four years, whether to proceed with this proposal. This is a simple but significant proposal which would benefit all road users and has been conclusively proven to work, even in this country, through the pilot projects of Donegal County Council, South Dublin County Council and the ESB. I therefore urge the Minister to include this proposal in the Bill.

I welcome the Bill which is a result of the first road safety strategy produced by this Government. However, it falls far short of what is urgently required and there remain serious question marks over its implementation and enforcement.

Mr. Gilmore

This week saw the publication of the Government's national health strategy. It was a familiar formula. The Taoiseach stood at a presidential style podium and announced the good news. An entire army of departmental press relations people and public relations consultants were sent out like John the Baptist to leak parts of it in advance, to prepare the way and to spin it so that it was widely communicated to the public.

Acting Chairman (Mr. Browne,

Carlow Kilkenny): The Deputy should get back on the road fairly quickly.

Mr. Gilmore

I am on the road. I was reminded, when I saw the fanfare for the Government's health strategy—

Mr. O'Flynn

Was Deputy Gilmore there himself?

Mr. Gilmore

I will remind the Deputy about something. It reminded me of the same type of fanfare three and a half years ago when the Taoiseach, using much the same formula, announced the Government's road safety strategy in 1998. When he launched that, in the same style, he told us that the level of road deaths was an unacceptable social problem and that road safety had to be tackled immediately and systematically.

What did the Taoiseach mean by tackling it immediately? The cornerstone of the strategy was to be legislation introducing a penalty points system for driving offences. According to the road safety strategy that legislation was to be introduced in 1999. This Bill was to have been introduced in 1999 but we are debating it now for the first time. It was not published until March 2001, almost two years after the publication of the Government's road safety strategy. Having been published, it then languished on the Government's legislative list for eight months before it got its first outing in the House yesterday evening. We will be very lucky if this legislation is enacted in the lifetime of this Dáil and it will certainly be well into next year at the earliest before the provisions of the Bill come into effect.

When those of us who questioned the delay in the publication of the Bill raised this issue at various times we were told that it was very complicated legislation and that a lot of preparatory work had to go into it. That is clearly not the case from the Bill before us. It is a cut and paste job which borrows the penalty points system that applies in other jurisdictions, tidies it up somewhat and adapts it a little to meet our own road safety legislative framework, then inserts it in various sections of the parent legislation. It is difficult to see how it could have taken so long to prepare, publish and debate this legislation if the Government was serious about dealing with road safety as an immediate problem.

As for the Taoiseach's description of road safety as a matter which had to be tackled systematically, let us look at the record regarding that systematic approach. The road safety strategy set down a systematic blueprint for dealing with traffic offences and road safety issues. The main objective of the road safety strategy, which I welcome and support, was to reduce road deaths and accidents by 20% in 2002 over 1997. Interestingly enough, the strategy, although it set a more ambitious target than the 15% set generally in the European Union, set a target which was significantly less than that suggested by experts to the high level group which drew up the strategy. At the time the strategy was being drawn up, experts were brought from Lancashire, the London metropolitan area and Victoria, Australia, to demonstrate the success they had had in reducing the number of road deaths not by 20% but by 50% in a seven year period. It is interesting that against that background, the more modest target of 20% over five years was chosen.

However, the delay in bringing in the legislation was not the only missed target in the road safety strategy. Most of the deadlines set in the national road safety strategy have been missed. The establishment of a computerised national driver file, through which the penalty points system will be administered, was to have been completed by the end of 2000 but will not now be ready until well into next year. The random breath testing was to have been introduced in 1999. In the second report on road safety this was changed to 2000 and in the third report was changed again to 2001.

Mr. Naughten

What about the fourth report?

Mr. Gilmore

The compulsory carrying of a driving licence was to have been introduced in 1999 but that has now been changed to 2001 and will probably have to be moved to 2002. The written theory test section of the driving test was to have been introduced in 1999 but was delayed until 2001 and then introduced only for first time applicants. Provisional licence holders who have taken and failed the driving test have been exempted from the new theory test. A national seatbelt wearing survey, which was supposed to have been introduced in 1998, will not now take place until next year. The national speed survey, which was to have been conducted in 1999, has also been put back until next year. The average waiting time for a driving test was to have been reduced to ten weeks nationally but it has now gone up to 14 weeks again.

Meanwhile, 25% of the drivers on the roads are not qualified to drive. They have not passed the driving test, they do not hold a full driving licence and they would not be allowed on the road unaccompanied in most other European countries. Enforcement of existing road safety laws is weak. Of the over 400 deaths on the roads in each of the years 1997, 1998 and 1999, only 12, 15 and 12 cases, respectively, were brought for dangerous driving causing death. The remaining cases were brought for dangerous driving only. The number of drink driving convictions work out at an average of just one per garda per year.

Those who are wondering today if the Taoiseach and his Government are serious about implementing the national health strategy would do well to examine their record on the national road safety strategy. The road safety strategy is not unconnected to health. The most traumatic admissions to accident and emergency departments in hospitals are from road accidents. The economist Peter Bacon was engaged by the National Safety Council to produce an economic assessment of the road safety strategy. He estimated that the State would save over £500 million by implementing the national road safety strategy and that it would save almost four times the cost of implementing the strategy. Most of the savings would have come in the health services.

Unfortunately the Government, which was so loud in launching and publicising the national road safety strategy, has failed to implement it. Eddie Shaw, chairman of the National Safety Council, has stated: "If the strategy had been implemented, people would be walking about now who are dead."

The Bill is before us now because road safety is seasonal. Road safety, breath tests and drink driving advertisements are as much part of the Christmas season as Santa Claus and, like Santa Claus, they disappear again after Christmas. The reality is that road safety is not a priority at all for the Government because it has not implemented its own strategy.

Page 13 of the national road safety strategy itself states:

If responsibility for this strategy is seen to rest with Government and public agencies only, then it will fail. Road safety depends critically on public support from individual citizens and from voluntary and other local interests. This shared responsibility for our wider ownership of road safety is a critical success factor for many of the specific policies and measures of this strategy.

It is interesting that the National Safety Council, the State agency responsible for promoting road safety, was frustrated by the Minister for the Environment and Local Government when it attempted to give meaning to the theory of localising the road safety strategy.

I would like to quote from a speech given on 27 January 2000 by Mr. Cartan Finegan, the former chairman of the National Safety Council, shortly after his departure from the council. I will quote some sections from the speech which were not widely reported, but which summarise the degree to which the attempt to localise road safety was frustrated:

A lesson learned from the UK and Australian experience was that community ownership of road safety was essential and that this could best be accomplished through local authorities in recruiting commercial, social and educational involvement in the campaigns. In fact, the road safety strategy document was unequivocal in relation to that. Bringing it down to county level, involving schools, health services, chambers of commerce, etc., particularly the newly elected council, required the organisational resources of a road safety officer in each county to develop a road safety plan, a programme of activities linking in with road engineers and gardaí and national campaigns for road safety. The recommendation by the board of the National Safety Council to Government was that each county would have a full-time safety officer, instead of the existing systems where a designated official allocated approximately two hours per week on the safety function. From extensive consultation with county managers and councillors, it was evident that no new or extended functions would be taken on unless financial resources were provided and the cost benefit analysis had included £1.3 million, to be required over three years, to cover the cost of full-time road safety officers.

This was the recommendation of the National Safety Council. Mr. Finegan, who was chairman of the council when the national road safety strategy was adopted, continued:

The recommendation was rejected by the Minister, quoting the ongoing re-organisation of the local authorities and the proposed setting up of special policy committees. A revised recommendation was made, that ten counties as a pilot scheme be set up, but the December budget contained no provision for the necessary funding. There is a definite irony in the fact that 29 counties have full-time and funded arts officers and by the end of this year there will be eleven full-time and funded heritage officers in the counties, notwithstanding the constraints of local authority re-organisation quoted by the Minister. It would be a strange inversion of values if the promotion of arts and heritage ranked over the value of human life.

That is a strong statement, coming from the former chairman of the National Safety Council, describing the degree to which the efforts of the NSC to localise road safety and to get approval from the Department of the Environment and Local Government for the appointment of full-time road safety officers in each local authority was frustrated.

It may be that the location of the road safety function is a problem. It could be argued that it is no longer appropriate to allocate responsibility for road safety to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government. The Minister may face a conflict in relation to road safety as he is responsible for funding local authorities, which are responsible for physical road safety measures and infrastructure, including the sometimes rushed construction of roads. Such matters seem to be taking precedence over road safety. The National Roads Authority has also been given a road safety function, despite the fact that its primary role is the building of roads and the reduction of journey times on major national roads.

I wish to give an example of such conflict in my constituency. A roundabout outside Loughlinstown Hospital links the Bray-Shankill bypass which will eventually be part of the M50 motorway, the N11, the road serving Shankill village and the road into the hospital. The staff and management of the hospital have asked for many years that traffic lights be placed at the roundabout, so vehicles exiting the hospital can safely enter the flow of traffic. It is impossible to leave the hospital grounds at peak times, for example, during the morning rush hour. The request of the hospital authorities was supported by the local authority, which asked the NRA to provide traffic lights. The NRA refused to make such a provision, however, arguing that its job is to increase and improve the flow of traffic. It is a straightforward conflict. The National Roads Authority sees its role as facilitating the quickest possible flow of traffic through the roundabout and on to the N11. It is not in the least concerned about how long it takes for a doctor, nurse, ambulance or patient to get in and out of the hospital.

If we are to be serious about road safety, the time has come to give responsibility for the problem to a dedicated single State agency. There is an argument that the agency should be the National Safety Council. Following a recent report by consultants, we were told that the Minister intends to establish an agency with responsibility for driver testing. It does not make sense to me that one agency will be responsible for the promotion of road safety, another will be responsible for the driving test, another will be responsible for collecting road tax and the Department of the Environment and Local Government will be responsible, in theory, for the provision of resources to implement the road safety strategy.

There is an argument for giving responsibility for all aspects of road safety and driver behaviour, comprising everything from the issuing of driving licences to the funding of road safety measures, to a single State agency. I believe, furthermore, that such an agency should be accountable to the Minister for Health and Children, not to the Minister for the Environment and Local Government, who has many responsibilities in this area. A connection needs to be made between road safety expenditure and health expenditure, especially in hospital accident and emergency wards, which will decline if road safety measures are successful. The case is supported by the assessment in Peter Bacon's report, which outlined the huge financial cost of road accidents and deaths. The full implementation of the road safety strategy, which needs increased expenditure, would lead to a reduction in the number of fatalities and injuries on our roads. This, in turn, could lead to huge savings in health and hospital budgets. Road safety should be seen as a function of the Department of Health and Children rather than a matter merely associated with roads and infrastructure, as has been the case.

Road safety is not a financial issue, but a human one. Nobody can put a value on the lives lost on our roads or on the human suffering which results. It is clear that we have an enforcement problem even of existing road safety legislation. We are now creating a new raft of such legislation which introduces new offences when the existing road safety legislation is only being implemented and enforced on a haphazard basis. I quote from a letter received by the leader of the Labour Party, Deputy Quinn, from the Campaign Against Dangerous and Drunken Driving:

As you know, there are two separate charges. (1) Dangerous driving only, brought in the District Court and (2) dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm, brought in the Circuit Criminal Court. The whole problem is that the Director of Public Prosecutions brings charges of dangerous driving in the District Court where the culprit kills or seriously injures an innocent victim. The charge of dangerous driving causing death or serious bodily harm should be brought instead in the Circuit Court. Of the 400+ deaths on the roads, only 12 cases in 1997, 15 in 1998 and 12 in 1999 were brought for dangerous driving causing death in the Circuit Court. The remaining 380+ cases went to the District Court under the charge of dangerous driving only. The result of this scandal was that the culprit who killed or seriously injured a person gets off with a fine of usually about £1,000.

The Garda has numerous responsibilities and a huge workload in terms of policing the increasingly difficult society in which we live. It simply does not have sufficient resources to fully enforce road traffic laws. Until such time as a dedicated traffic corps is created within the Garda Síochána or a separate traffic police force is established, we will not see full enforcement in this area.

I generally support this Bill although there are issues which it should have addressed. A great deal of emphasis is placed on drink driving. There is a widespread problem of illegal recreational drug use, particularly cannabis, in this country and our road safety legislation should address that. The road safety strategy refers to research into the effects of recreational drugs other than alcohol on drivers and these should be specifically addressed in the legislation. Significant numbers of people under the influence of these drugs drive motor vehicles.

We need to reduce speed limits, particularly in urban areas where the current speed limit is 30 miles per hour. A provision should be included in the Bill whereby local authorities can, in urban areas or housing estates, introduce speed limits significantly lower than this to reduce traffic to a crawl in housing estates or near schools. We must address the problem of end-of-life vehicles, an issue I have raised on a number of occasions during Question Time, which contribute to road safety problems in so far as vehicles which do not pass the NCT are being driven around housing estates by joyriders at nights and weekends and are eventually burned out in the corner of a field. We must also address joyriding itself. My colleague, Deputy Broughan, introduced a Bill some time ago on this matter and I would like to see its provisions incorporated into this road safety legislation. Cycle ways have been developed in Dublin and some other urban areas and, while I welcome their introduction, we must address the issue of cyclists who put pedestrians at risk.

The implementation of this legislation must be examined. This Bill proposes the introduction of a regime under which a garda will be able to issue on-the-spot fines and penalties for motoring offences. The legislation will confer significant additional powers on the gardaí. I strongly support the Garda Síochána which has served this country very well and which has a difficult job to do. Only last week, allegations of Garda abuse were made in this House. We must introduce a mechanism to ensure that any abuses of the powers which this Bill will confer on gardaí, however limited, can be dealt with. As it stands, a person who commits a traffic offence is charged and brought before the courts. However, under the new regime, a garda will be able to impose a one point penalty on a motorist whose left indicator does not work, for example. Once 12 points are accumulated, a person loses his or her licence for six months. The House must address any potential for the abuse of these powers during the Committee Stage debate.

I propose to table a number of amendments on Committee Stage on behalf of the Labour Party seeking the inclusion of the measures and desired improvements to which I have referred. The Labour Party generally supports this Bill but I regret that the road safety strategy on which it was built has not been implemented with the same enthusiasm as it was launched. Road safety should be given a much higher priority by the Government than is evident from the delay in introducing this Bill.

Mr. O'Flynn

I was somewhat concerned during the course of Deputy Gilmore's contribution that the Labour Party did not support this Bill or the road safety measures it proposes but I was delighted to hear his concluding remarks.

Mr. Gilmore

It is called constructive opposition.

Mr. O'Flynn

I do not have experience of that.

Mr. Gilmore

The Deputy will experience it in the near future.

Mr. O'Flynn

Not everyone who travels on our roads on a daily basis does so in a safe manner. Gardaí are also victims of road fatalities. Only a couple of months ago, two gardaí in Cork lost their lives in the line of duty. Our thoughts are with the families of Garda Rice and Garda McIntyre this evening.

Irish roads claimed the lives of 1,415 people during 2000 and to date this year 362 fatalities have been recorded. Driving on public roads is a social freedom but also a social responsibility. More than 26,000 people died in road accidents in the last century and for every death on the road there have been many serious injuries, some of which result in lifelong disability and reduced quality of life.

Road vehicle travel in Ireland will have almost doubled by the end of the year 2001, compared with 1990. The strong growth in road transport is putting pressure on road safety, and road accident figures have been rising. Increased road travel is unavoidable, at least in the short term. The key to improved road safety in these circumstances is the systematic reduction of risk factors. International experience shows that a reduction in the number of road accidents can be most quickly achieved by targeting human behaviour. At present, about 40% of Irish cars and heavy goods vehicles drive in breach of the principal speed limits. Our rate of seat belt wearing is well behind international best practice and despite a welcome change in social attitudes alcohol is still a major factor in road accidents. Surveys have shown that the Irish public have a high level of concern about road safety and are generally supportive of action to improve it but, on the other hand, fewer than 2% of Irish drivers consider that their driving is dangerous compared with others – 57% believe they drive more safely than others.

Ireland needs to be more serious about its road safety performance. We stand at mid-division in comparative EU terms and have been falling behind EU best practice. The time has come to adopt a more proactive and precautionary approach to road safety in Ireland. The requirements of efficient transport and the convenience of our social lives cannot be allowed to dominate road safety policy. We need to relate road safety to issues of health and security so that the various restrictions and disciplines imposed by road traffic regulations are contributing positively to a safer Irish society.

Apart from reducing road deaths and serious injuries, other benefits of a systematic strategy will include the freeing up of many acute hospital beds, reducing demands on our courts system and health and environmental benefits through increased walking and cycling. Economic and employment benefits are associated with more efficient road freight and other vehicular traffic, quality of life benefits exist in affording personal mobility to young and older people and smaller cars and motorcycles offer consumer benefits. The strategy will lead to a more friendly road and street environment.

The Government's objective is to provide a safe, efficient and cost effective movement of persons and goods by road. There are many initiatives in place, including the Government's road to safety strategy. The Government wants to reduce deaths and serious injuries from road accidents by at least 20%. If the strategy succeeds – the Government and the road safety agencies are determined it should – 172 lives could be saved in the year 2002. The strategy specifies a set of policies and measures to improve human behaviour on our roads and to make roads and vehicles safer to support the achievement of this target.

Achieving the strategy's ambitious target will place heavy demands on our implementing agencies – the Garda Síochána, the National Roads Authority, the National Safety Council, local authorities and others. They all support the strategy and are strongly committed to delivering on it. Major gains in road safety are achievable in Ireland as elsewhere by concerted efforts in the areas of speeding, alcohol and seat belt wearing. The strategy will prioritise these three areas by new initiatives and the intensification of existing instruments and measures.

The Bill will extensively improve enforcement arrangements for road traffic offences. In particular, it provides for a system of penalty points which will trigger automatic disqualification from driving on the accumulation of points on a person's driving licence. The accumulation of penalty points will lead to the loss of a driver's licence. These will be the new facts of life for motorists. From now on, run-of-the-mill carelessness and lack of consideration in relation to safe driving will have the potential result of disqualification from driving.

The Bill also extends the grounds on which a member of the Garda Síochána may require a driver to provide a preliminary breath specimen to include circumstances where a driver is involved in a road accident or where a garda considers that a road traffic offence has been committed.

The Government is the first to prepare and adopt a national road safety strategy. I am not aware of a previous Government doing so, although we heard Deputy Naughten pontificating about what should and should not happen. I commend the Government on introducing the national road safety strategy.

The Bill supplies the substantive legislative measure promised under the strategy to support the road safety agencies to continue to strive for a reduced toll of fatalities and serious injuries. I am confident that we can improve Irish road safety performance to the targets set out in the Government's strategy and progressively go beyond these.

The Government will continue to support the development and introduction of new vehicle safety measures at EU level and will press for their implementation at the earliest possible date. These measures include mandatory fitting of anti-lock brakes to a wider range of vehicles, including all coaches and trucks, truck-towing trailers etc.; wider application of the requirement to fit speed limitation devices; and better safety belt standards, including more use of three point belts. At national level, practical measures to be taken will include the fitting of suppression devices to heavy goods vehicles; increased use of child restraints; enhancing school bus safety; the use of daytime running lights, as was mentioned by Deputy Naughten; the revision of the national regulations dealing with the construction, equipment and use of vehicles to take account of various technical developments in the field of primary and secondary safety; a wider and more effective use of speed limitation devices; and improved standards for tyres, mirrors, lights and signalling equipment. All these measures will contribute to road safety.

Other measures will include the upgrading of Garda and other IT systems relevant to enforcement; the extended use of automatic speed detection systems, mobile and fixed; the active deployment of ice detection monitoring systems by the NRA; support for the application of developments in the field of telematics to road safety. All these functions, if introduced, will help to reduce accidents and improve road safety.

Young road users need to be educated in road safety to develop the knowledge and attitudes which lead to responsible behaviour on the roads. This process includes action by parents, school-based programmes and novice driver training. Education and information in relation to road safety is being improved, including joint promotional campaigns with the Northern Ireland authorities. We must upgrade resource material for input to the primary school curriculum because children are a vulnerable category of road user. New material and programmes for the post-primary sector are vitally important for all adolescents. Awareness campaigns on speeding, drink driving, drugs and seat belt wearing, with specific emphasis on the wearing of seat belts on both short and long journeys, will be continued.

The recent introduction of the driver theory test will supplement the long-standing practical driving test and will encourage a deeper and more structured understanding by novice drivers of information and behaviours which will assist them to become safer drivers. The test, which covers matters such as the rules of the road, risk perception, hazard awareness and good driving behaviours, is being conducted at a nationwide network of 41 test locations. The obligation to do the theory test applies to everyone applying for a first provisional licence on or after 25 April 2001. Effective training and education of novice drivers is important in influencing driver behaviour. The introduction of the driving theory test is a significant development in the education of our learner drivers and should increasingly be reflected over time.

Research plays a vital role in developing road safety programmes and policies. Research will provide the foundation for a new generation of road safety measures and will ensure that the road safety effort is not misdirected into ineffectual strategies. A well focused research effort is required to support the Government's targets. Through comprehensive and well resourced research a more thorough understanding will be available of the causes and consequences of road crashes, the effect of existing counter measures in reducing the number and severity of road crashes and the likely effect of potential counter measures in reducing the number and severity of road crashes in the future. A better understanding of these factors will assist in identifying and targeting high risk and high incidence groups.

Drink driving continues to be a national problem that tragically affects thousands of victims and their families on an annual basis. Every injury and death caused by drink driving is preventable but, unfortunately, a frightening percentage of all traffic fatalities is caused by drunk drivers. It is easy to forget that dry statistics represent real people and real lives.

Like most other social problems, drink driving resists simple solutions. Increasing the cost of alcohol would have virtually no impact. Research and common sense suggests that heavy drinkers are not deterred by cost while increasing it would tend to discriminate against lower income consumers and create other problems of unknown magnitude. Rather than putting resources into laws that fail to address the real problem, we need to enforce the existing laws and proven policies that have demonstrated a significant impact. If we want to save lives we must go after the dangerous drivers on the roads.

Improved roads and vehicles can contribute significantly to motor safety. Technological initiatives in the United States include raised lane markers, which are easier to see and emit a startling sound when a tyre goes over them. Corrugations along the edges of roads emit sounds when driven over. These are installed on parts of our motorways, thus alerting inattentive drivers to their inappropriate location. Wider roads, improved street and motorway lighting, breakaway signposts, brake lights positioned at eye level, door crash barriers and many other improvements can save lives and are cost effective.

The preliminary findings of the drugs research bureau on road safety underlines that the influence of drugs on driving behaviour is an issue of growing concern. The identification of the presence of drugs is, however, more complex than in the case of alcohol. The Medical Bureau of Road Safety is continually undertaking informative programmes of drug analysis. In one submission of blood and urine samples under the legal alcohol limit submitted to the bureau between 1 July and 31 December 1999, 37% of those tested were screened positive for drugs, the most common being cannabis. When all national and international research has been completed in this area it will point to the need for possible changes in testing methods for the presence of drugs, changes in enforcement practice and procedures and possible changes to legislation. It is already illegal to drive while under the influence of drugs to the extent of being incapable of having proper control of the vehicle.

The insurance industry says accident statistics do not favour the argument that insurance premiums for young drivers are too high. A recent report by Deloitte & Touche evaluated insurance costs in Ireland and found that the average cost of an insurance claim for claimants aged 17 to 24 years was twice as high as the average cost of a claim for those aged 36 to 40. I am concerned about rising motor insurance costs, especially in the young driver category. Anybody who runs a constituency clinic or is in contact with young people must realise that they are angry at the exorbitant cost of motor insurance. Young people who educate themselves to take their rightful place in the workforce for the first time should also have the right to pay equal insurance premiums but they find it increasingly difficult to do so. In some cases the cost of insurance is greater than the cost of the vehicle they have purchased to travel to and from work.

In devising effective policies and programmes to reduce the cost of insurance, it is necessary to identify the key factors contributing to the high cost of liability and motor insurance. The Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment has found that the main factors include the high delivery cost of personal injury claims, including legal costs, the high level of medical inflation and the disproportionately high awards of general damages in smaller personal injury claims. The cost of delivering compensation has a major bearing on the premium rate ultimately charged in the marketplace. This needs to be looked at by the Department and the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform.

It is clear from the evidence that the primary focus of initiatives aimed at reducing the cost of motor insurance must be to reduce the frequency of accidents and the associated costs of claims. Unfortunately, many of our accidents on Irish roads involve young drivers and take place mainly between 11 p.m. and 5 a.m. This speaks for itself. It appears that many young drivers who are out late at night are tired when travelling home and are unable to concentrate in the early hours of the morning. This is a major cause of many accidents. It brings much tragedy to families when they discover that a son or daughter has lost their life due to a tragic accident.

At my instigation, in the past 12 months the Committee on Public Enterprise and Transport has considered the cost of insurance and its effect on young drivers. The chairman of the committee, Deputy Callely, took a deep interest in the matter. The committee sat for many hours. It invited representatives from the insurance companies and many of the drivers' groups to attend hearings. A delegation from the traffic division at Garda Headquarters also attended and provided the committee with the statistics I outlined earlier, with confirmation that the vast majority of fatalities involve young drivers.

To secure lower premiums we must mobilise support from private citizens, voluntary and other local interests, local authorities and the insurance, motor, drinks and telecommunications industries. Multi-agency co-operation is also essential and there must be a vigorous commitment to the implementation of policies and strategies. If all these groups become involved and work together it will help to reduce the levels of fatalities on the roads.

The behaviour of experienced road users could be improved through an ongoing series of co-ordinated public information campaigns. No Government has gone as far as this one in terms of policy development, national funding and the promotion of legislation on road safety. Drivers should go the extra mile in terms of addressing safety as a personal priority. They should never drink and drive, never drive under the influence of drugs and, for all our sakes, they should slow down. If they are old enough to drive they are old enough to drive responsibly. Responsible driving is a matter of life and death – the lives of the driver, passengers and other road users are at stake.

I commend the gardaí, especially in Cork, for their strict enforcement of the road traffic laws. Because of their extra vigilance there has been a reduction in the number of traffic offences in Cork. There was an element of Garda bashing last week and this week. I fully support the gardaí for the work they do on behalf of the citizens under very serious conditions. I do not wish to be associated with the Garda bashing in the media over the past seven days. I support the gardaí entirely.

Mr. Connaughton

I wish to share my time with Deputy Perry.

An Ceann Comhairle

Is that agreed? Agreed.

Mr. Connaughton

I welcome the Bill. Like others, I believe it will be useful if it can be implemented. We can spend endless hours introducing new legislation but irrespective of how good it is, if it cannot be implemented it will be useless.

Action must be taken in this area. The level of atrocities caused by accidents on our roads is shocking. Hardly a night goes by without a news item on television showing a most appalling accident. The accidents are so bad it is almost impossible to know the types of vehicle involved. When accidents happened in the past one would at least know there were two cars or whatever involved, but the impacts are now so dramatic nobody could possibly survive. The multiple death accidents are horrendous, and if this Bill addresses that then I support it 100%. There have always been blind spots in road traffic legislation and I am sure the same can be said of this Bill. However, we should at least give it a try. I do not believe we will solve the problem over night – it would be impossible to do so – but there are some provisions in the Bill which I hope will work.

I believe everybody sees drink driving as a major problem, which it is, but speeding is worse. I cannot understand why, in a country with speed limits of 60 and 70 miles per hour, one of the attractions that sells cars is that they can reach a speed of 130 miles per hour. We cannot but have problems when one of those high powered cars is put in the possession of a young person who wants to test it – we were all young once and liked to drive fast cars. I assume there is no point in reducing the horse power of cars, but we are facing a head wind before we start in the sense that every time a new car comes on the market it has a higher power than the previous model. Speed is a killer. People talk about the need for better quality tyres and ABS brakes, and they are hugely important, but an extra eighth of an inch or quarter of an inch of rubber, or a particular type of brake or suspension will make little difference when high powered cars travel at speed. I am not suggesting, however, that cars should not have good tyres.

There is a psychological aspect to driving offences. There is always a carrot and stick approach in terms of road traffic legislation. A clean driving licence will reflect itself in insurance premia, for example. I am not an expert, but one of the great strokes are traffic speeding cameras which will put manners on thousands of motorists. Those cameras can track hundreds of cars in a very short time, and if enough people have to pay a £50 fine or accumulate penalty points, they will soon realise they are foolish to break speed limits. Like every other politician, I travel a great deal throughout the country and I see more of those cameras in use. I admit I have been the victim of one of them, and having paid a fine of £50 I assure the House I will remember the speed limit in future. I assume the psychology works the same for everybody. Cameras are mechanical, and I understand they meet constitutional requirements. It is a matter of manpower and funding being invested in them. I assume all Garda divisions will shortly have access to them.

I do not know how useful penalty points will be, but they appear to be a worthwhile system. I am concerned that many countries in Europe with a lower level of traffic accidents do not use that system. I am sure the Minister has given much thought to this over the years and perhaps he will indicate why other European countries have not taken the penalty points route. The Minister mentioned the countries which use the system, including the UK and Australia, and it would appear they have a very positive effect in terms of reducing traffic accidents.

There will be much talk about the administration involved in operating a penalty points system. I am told there will be huge administrative difficulties, and I hope gardaí are not taken from other very important duties to operate the system. I assume this has been thought out as this is an integrated approach which will not have the necessary effect if we do not fire on all cylinders.

One must question why, given all the talk and the television advertising, 50% of people still travel in cars without wearing seat belts. I find this astonishing. One has only to look around at the lanes of traffic coming into this city in the morning to realise that 50% of people do not wear their seat belts. I assume the penalty points system will work very well in that regard and that those who are spotted not wearing one will accumulate one point. Those who accumulate 12 points will not need a safety belt for the following six months as they will be disqualified, and that will be a deterrent.

I have never seen such striking advertisements on television portraying the worst effects of drinking and driving. They are a tribute to the advertising skills of the people who make them. The advertisement in which the drunk driver crashes into a front garden killing a child gives me the shivers. However, for whatever reason, the majority of people take no notice of it after seeing it once or twice. I do not know why that is so as that advertisement is awful. I thought such slick advertising would have a huge effect, but it did not stop more people being killed on the roads this year than last year. The numbers will increase unless this legislation is implemented.

Mr. Molloy

That is not correct.

Mr. Connaughton

I thought there was as many killed so far this year as last year.

Mr. Molloy

Up to yesterday morning there were 18 fewer, though the figure could change over night.

Mr. Connaughton

I wish it was much fewer, but it is almost the same. The Minister is nit-picking.

Cecilia Keaveney

Eighteen lives is not nit-picking.

Mr. Connaughton

I do not know whether the figures for those injured are higher or lower.

Mr. Molloy

They are lower.

Mr. Connaughton

I am glad to hear that. Far too many people are being killed on our roads.

Mr. Molloy

I agree.

Mr. Connaughton

I fully support this Bill and, although it will have teething problems, I hope it will work.

Mr. Perry

I welcome this long overdue Bill. Perhaps the media advertising for cars should be accompanied by a health warning, as in the case of cigarette advertising. Media advertising for the sale of cars is highly glamorised, often featuring high powered fast cars driven by young people. The major car companies have a big responsibility in this regard. Their financial deals are very much geared towards young drivers. The current road safety advertising campaign in the media is very effective, particularly on RTE 1. The increased powers which this Bill provides for the Garda are important and I hope it will be enacted as quickly as possible. There should be a special task force in each Garda district to deal with traffic matters. Every road accident is one too many. The impact on families, relations and friends is an experience they will never forget.

A ban on the use of mobile phones while people are driving cars should be considered. The incidence of that dangerous practice appears to be on the increase. Driver error resulting from loss of concentration is another significant cause of accidents and the problem is compounded by the use of high speed cars. The introduction of the theory test as a requirement for the issue of a driving licence is a welcome move. Uninsured driving is a major concern and there should be an obligation on the insurance companies to provide all available information in that regard to the gardaí. A penalty points system is overdue. The equation of 12 penalty points over a three year period with a six months ban should provide an effective deterrent against road traffic offences. Some 68 offences, with penalty points attached, are listed under the Road Traffic Bill. The enactment of the Bill should be followed up with a media campaign so that everybody is fully aware of the situation. The wearing of seat belts should be more rigorously enforced.

With half a million additional cars now on the road and with the emphasis in the national development plan on the improvement of the national roads structure, there is a greater need than ever before to concentrate greater efforts on road safety. The Garda Commissioner has described the incidence of drink driving as appalling and shameful. Approximately 1,000 arrests per month are made for drink driving offences, amounting to over 37,000 since 1997. That is an outrageous and alarming figure and it underlines the need for much more rigorous enforcement. Regardless of the level of resources and legislative measures which are applied, the situation will only improve significantly if we can succeed in changing attitudes and behaviour of road users. Many road accidents occur after midnight and a considerable proportion involve driver only cars. A combination of high speeds and excessive alcohol consumption are clearly major contributory factors.

This Bill is long overdue. Although the Minister has referred to a reduction of 18 in the number of road deaths for this year to date, the figures are still far higher than the pro rata figures for the UK. I know the Garda already have a heavy schedule of work but, where over 300 people have lost their lives this year on the roads, with enormous consequences for thousands of families, greater enforcement of the existing road traffic legislation must be a high priority. There should be a major campaign on the drink driving issue with a long period of disqualification for offenders. Every life saved is well worthwhile. On the spot fines are very effective. There should be a greater investment in automated speed-check cameras, not only on national roads but also on class 3 roads. Such cameras have been very effective in the UK and the Minister should consider allocating a special budget for their widespread installation in this country. If there are appropriately severe penalties, that system will be effective in curbing excessive speeds. Automated cameras are more effective than manual speed checks by the gardaí, which are often counteracted by the practice of drivers warning each other of speed checks ahead. That is a regrettable tactic but it is all too commonplace. There should be an education programme on road safety, aimed at young drivers, through second and third level educational institutions.

This Bill is long overdue and I urge the Minister to implement its provisions as quickly as possible.

Cecilia Keaveney

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill. The changeover to the euro next January will involve considerable effort in adapting and becoming accustomed to the new currency. The provisions of this Bill are probably no less far-reaching in their potential effects as the vast majority of people are either car owners or drivers or have access to the use of a car or other road vehicle. The primary focus of the Road Traffic Acts is to provide a legislative basis for the safety of the nation's road network. It is a laudable and important goal when one considers the number of people, particularly young people, who die on our roads.

Debate adjourned.