Skip to main content
Normal View

Joint Committee on Transport and Communications debate -
Wednesday, 25 Oct 2023

Road Safety: Discussion

Apologies have been received from Deputy Duncan Smith. This meeting is to discuss all aspects of road safety. On behalf of the committee, I am very pleased to welcome the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Jack Chambers, and his officials from the Department.

I will read out a note on privilege. Witnesses are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice that they should not criticise or make charges against any person or entity by name or in such a way as to make him, her or it identifiable or otherwise engage in speech that might be regarded as damaging to the good name of the person or entity. Therefore, if their statements are potentially defamatory in respect of an identifiable person or entity, they will be directed to discontinue their remarks. It is imperative that they comply with any such direction.

Members are reminded of the long-standing parliamentary practice to the effect that they should not comment on, criticise or make charges against a person outside of the Houses or an official either by name or in such a way as to make him or her identifiable.

I remind members of the constitutional requirement that they must be physically present within the confines of the Leinster House complex in order to participate in public meetings. I will not permit a member to participate where he or she is not adhering to this constitutional requirement. Therefore, any member who attempts to participate from outside the precincts will be asked to leave the meeting. In this regard, I ask any member participating via MS Teams to confirm prior to contributing to the meeting that he or she is on the grounds of the Leinster House campus.

I thank the Minister of State for attending and invite him to make his opening statement.

I thank the committee for inviting me to talk about the important matter of road safety and update it on the road traffic measures Bill 2023. I sincerely appreciate the committee having made this time available at such short notice to discuss this legislation given the trends on our roads. I am joined by my Department officials who work in the area of road safety.

In three out of the last four years, we have seen an increase in roads-related fatalities and serious accidents. As the committee will be aware, 2023 has been a particularly dark year on our roads so far. As of Monday morning, there had been 155 fatalities on our roads this year. This is an increase in fatalities of 37, or 31%, compared to this time last year. This increase stands in stark contrast to the broader trend we have seen on our roads in recent decades. Ireland has made great strides in this regard, but we clearly need to do more to address the worrying change in direction which has emerged since the return to normality following the pandemic.

Each death and serious injury on our road impacts not just the victim but his or her family, friends and the wider community. Every family, including my own, has experienced it. Broadly, this requires action across four key areas, namely, enhanced enforcement, increased driver education, infrastructural improvements and legislative reform.

On enforcement, research by the Road Safety Authority, RSA, confirms that drivers rank having more gardaí on the roads as the single most influential factor that would encourage them to stop speeding or using mobile phones. There has been a decrease in the number of offences detected in 2023, which is of concern to me and a matter I have had significant engagement on with both the Minister for Justice, Deputy Helen McEntee, and the Garda Commissioner. The Minister recently announced a 20% increase in the hours of deployment of speed camera safety vans by An Garda Síochána to the end of the year. This announcement is positive and will play an important role in addressing speed on our roads. I have also received assurances that additional resources will be deployed to roads policing as recruitment continues.

As regards driver awareness and education, the RSA recently received approval for €3.6 million in additional funding to strengthen its message on road safety.

I am sure we will touch on each of these areas in greater detail this morning but first I will update the committee on the road traffic measures Bill 2023, which forms the legislative response to the current trend. The Bill will act as an aid to the Government’s Road Safety Strategy 2021-2030. This strategy sets out 186 actions which will aid Ireland in achieving its goal of reducing road fatalities by 50% by 2030 and put us on the path to achieving Vision Zero by 2050, in respect of eliminating all traffic fatalities and severe injuries while increasing safe, healthy, equitable mobility for all.

The Bill will address a number of important issues which contribute to road safety, and I am sure that members, like me, want measures brought forward which aim to reduce the worrying trend we are experiencing on our roads. The ministerial road safety committee, which I chair, tasked a group of legislative experts across the road safety sector to consider possible changes to the penalty points regime to increase deterrence of dangerous road behaviour. This is aligned with Action 30 of the road safety strategy. While the recommendations on penalty points from that group are contained in the Bill, it also contains proposals on mandatory drug testing and the introduction of safer speed limit defaults following the publication of the speed limit review last month. These are all areas in which I believe we can make impactful progress before the end of the year.

I now propose to briefly outline the main issues to be addressed in the Bill. I am happy to respond to any questions the committee may have. Penalty points were first introduced in Ireland under the Road Traffic Act 2002. The goal of penalty points has always been to encourage safer driving behaviours and vehicle maintenance standards. As penalty points for specific offences are set out in tables contained in the First Schedule to the 2002 Act, any change in points will require an amendment of that Act. This makes it difficult to respond in a timely way to changing requirements in road safety and enforcement of driving offences. The Bill proposes moving the setting of penalty levels into secondary legislation via amendments to the Road Traffic Act 2002. However, it is also important to ensure the continued role of the Houses of the Oireachtas in any penalty point change. Accordingly, the Bill proposes that resolutions from both Houses would be required for any change in penalty points regulations would take effect.

The 2002 Act specifies that where a person commits more than one penalty point offence on the same occasion, they will receive only one set of penalty points, which will be the highest or joint highest. In contrast, someone who commits those offences on separate occasions will receive penalty points for each offence. This is a legal inequity on the basis that a driver who commits several offences at different times may attain 12 points and be disqualified, while another driver who commits the same offences, on the same occasion, may not be disqualified. The Bill will repeal the sections causing this anomaly.

Drivers retain the right to not pay the fixed charge notice and contest the charge in court if they wish. It is important to note that, where people commit multiple serious breaches of road traffic law on a single occasion, An Garda Síochána has discretion, under the Road Traffic Act 1961, to choose the most appropriate path, by either issuing fixed charge notices for the individual offences or prosecuting a person with an offence. Again, a driver may choose to contest the fixed charge in court.

My Department has conducted research into the variation of points during specified periods. A similar system operates successfully in several Australian states and has been shown to have a significant impact on improving road safety. Under this Bill, the Minister for Transport will be empowered to set higher penalty points for periods when road safety risks are higher. For example, evidence-based figures suggest bank holiday weekends give rise to a higher level of road deaths, serious injuries and other driving offences. As the Australian example shows, increasing points for specified periods is likely to lead to a positive impact on driver behaviour. It is important to note, however, that the introduction of such legislation would have to be accompanied by public awareness and education campaigns so that drivers are aware when increased penalties will be in force and can modify their behaviour appropriately. Denoting periods such as bank holiday weekends as increased penalty periods creates this certainty for drivers, and it is not intended that the legislation would be used to increase penalties in response, for example, to periods of particularly poor weather or other periods that could not be defined properly.

Under the Road Traffic Act 2010, members of An Garda Síochána are required to take a breath specimen for the purpose of testing for the presence of alcohol - known as mandatory alcohol testing - at the scene of serious road traffic accidents. Gardaí are not currently required to conduct a mandatory drug test at the scene of a collision. Instead, they have the option of conducting a drug test. I should state that gardaí often do conduct drug tests at the scene of collisions, but this amendment will simply ensure that drug tests will always be conducted on the same basis as alcohol testing, further strengthening the safety of our roads.

Committee members will be aware of the recently published Speed Limit Review. The review is a comprehensive document which recommends a number of changes to the speed limit framework. These will require legislative amendments. This Bill will include provisions for the implementation of key recommendations. The Bill will amend the default speed limits for national secondary roads, local roads, and urban roads, including built-up areas. While these new defaults will be safer, as previously outlined, local authorities will retain the ability to set speed limits for roads through the review process that will follow. These changes to default speed limits are being addressed as a matter of urgency. Other recommendations from the Speed Limit Review will be addressed in due course.

I thank the Chair and the members of the committee for facilitating this session in the interests of progressing the legislation before the end of the year. I look forward to the discussion with members and to hearing their thoughts and input.

I thank the Minister of State for his comprehensive opening statement. The first member to speak is Senator Doherty. We are going to do ten-minute slots, nine plus one.

I have a couple of questions to ask the Minister of State rather than giving him four or five. In case he gets the impression that I am not 100% behind the what he is doing, it is not that I am trying to pick holes but I genuinely have concerns. I am very concerned at how the number of fatalities on the roads has increased in the past three and a half to four years, in particular in light of the fact that we had so much of that period when there was not a car on the road. The Minister of State and I were coming to work for a period of probably 18 months when there was not a single other sinner on the road. How significant is that increase? It looks awful but how significant of an increase is it given that we had so few motorists on the road for such a long time during Covid?

The second part of the question is that before we get to the 186 actions, which I know the Minister of State is ambitious to do, in order to attempt to reduce the fatalities by 50%, could he tell me why the current laws are not working? We have a lorry load of laws and speed limits around the country. We have attempted to introduce legislation in recent years to make dangerous driving affecting cyclists an offence, but we could not get it to the Statute Book because the Attorney General felt it was too wishy-washy. Two of the four deaths in recent weeks involved people on bicycles. Why are the existing laws not working?

In response to Senator Doherty's point on the trend in recent years, she is correct that during some of that period there was reduced activity on roads. However, we saw ongoing persistence of some of the lifesaver offences in that speed was still a central factor. We know that the trend during Covid and even after continued in terms of the incidence of intoxicated driving. The consumption of alcohol and drugs is still a significant factor. That trend is continuing again this year.

Distracted driving is a serious issue. Research by the RSA has analysed driver behaviour post the pandemic, which seems to have deteriorated. It is being researched to try to provide a helping space in that regard. We know that seat belts play a central role. The trends are observed over a number of years. The four dangerous behaviours I have mentioned are central factors in the ongoing increase in fatalities.

There are a number of factors involved in why it has worsened. I mentioned that research is being done on driver behaviour. In every public statement I have made, I have referred to strengthening enforcement. We must match progress on legislative reform in parallel with improved enforcement. We have engaged on that with the Garda Commissioner and the Minister for Justice. There must be a perception of detection among the public for the overall paradigm of offences to be workable. That is an ongoing focus for me as I chair the road safety committee.

Senator Doherty is correct that in the immediate term, notwithstanding what we are discussing today, the two central areas that we are focusing on, apart from the legislation, is how we can strengthen enforcement. The 20% increase in the number of GoSafe vans will help with speed detection. The ongoing improvement in An Garda Síochána and strengthening roads policing units will be important. In parallel to that, the education campaigns from the RSA play an important role as well to address and break the current trend. They are central areas of focus in addition to examining the evidence and trying to reset the speed limits, for example. We have a lot of inconsistency and fragmentation with speed limits across the country. We are trying to provide a much more comprehensive and safer baseline on speed limits, which will save an awful lot of lives. It will save the lives of vulnerable road users like cyclists, who, as Senator Doherty mentioned, are often killed by vehicles being driven at excessive speed or by people driving recklessly and not paying attention.

It is unfair to ask the Minister of State these questions because he is not responsible for this, but he might know the answer. We could all sit here and talk about the difficulties we have with enforcement because we do not have enough gardaí. I know we are getting 1,000 more and yesterday we were told we need 2,000 more. We will get there, I have no doubt, but in the absence of having a quick fix for that, why did we increase the number of GoSafe vans by only 20%? Why did we not increase it by 100% and have one at every black spot in the country? It is relatively small money that has a huge impact. I will tell the Minister of State how much of an impact it has. The €80 fine was changed to a €160 fine, which is a whopping amount of money. Not everybody gets caught by the GoSafe vans. Why would we not do something as simple as that?

My understanding is that An Garda Síochána sought to maximise the opportunities with GoSafe. The possibility through the contract was to increase by up to 20%.

It could not go any higher.

The Garda will be able to give further information on that. It is recruiting additional personnel to run the GoSafe vans and procuring additional vehicles to maximise the opportunities through GoSafe. I agree that if there is further capability to do more there, that should be pursued. My understanding, however, is that the Garda has sought to reach the upper end of what is possible through the GoSafe contract.

I am sure the Minister of State has statistics, which is why I ask the following. Why is our behaviour different on a bank holiday Monday from what it would be on a Thursday night or a normal family drive on a Sunday? Are we in a hurry getting home? Is it the weather?

We know that increased activity over bank holiday weekends is a key factor. Looking at the trends here and globally, there are higher numbers of collisions and often higher numbers of deaths. I can set out some of the research from Australia which tracked this over a number of years to give an example of how changing the periodic offences makes a difference. To give some context, RSA collision data show that the May bank holiday weekend, for example, is a very high-risk period. We know there is an evidence base that bank holiday weekends are higher-risk, with a higher number of people on the road for travel, holiday reasons or whatever else. Seven people have been killed and 83 seriously injured over that weekend in the past five years. We know that over the May bank holiday weekend in 2022 there were 2,800 speed incidents, 154 motorists driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs and 91 drivers not wearing a seatbelt. The June bank holiday weekend, since 2018, has seen 20 fatalities and 94 serious injuries. When this was studied, and when they changed this in Australia, where the penalties for such specific periods were increased, it had an impact in that fatal collisions in those periods decreased by 20% over a number of years and fatal collisions where speed was a factor decreased by 52%. There is therefore a clear evidence base that education, enforcement and higher penalties during specific periods have made a significant difference and have saved lives during those periods.

I do not doubt that, but the key for me is the enforcement part. If my road has a 60 km/h limit at the moment and next Tuesday it is changed to 40 km/h, if nobody catches me going 80 km/h, it makes no difference to my behaviour. What is it in the Minister of State's proposed Bill that will actually change my behaviour or my self-discipline in not picking up the phone when I am stopped at the traffic lights? Is there money for that? Is there-----

Unfortunately, when the Road Safety Authority does its various surveys on driver acceptability of speeding, it is very high, and a significant percentage of drivers openly admit to speeding when they are anonymously surveyed. It is unfortunately socially acceptable to many. For many drivers who are compliant, the speed limit is often the target rather than being aware of the wider environment. By setting a safer default baseline, many people will comply and that will help to reduce overall speeds on roads. Yes, there will be a cohort of our population to whom speeding is acceptable, and they need to be targeted through improved enforcement. I am not for one minute denying that strengthened enforcement can play a key role in this. We have a technology group with the National Transport Authority and Transport Infrastructure Ireland. People will be aware of technological interventions that have been used elsewhere to improve compliance, and there is work progressing on that as well. The default baseline will make it more consistent and will ensure safer speed limits. In rural Fingal there are certain country roads that have limits set at 80 km/h. If you go at 80 km/h on those roads, which some drivers target, you will be in a ditch. This is about setting the baseline at 60 km/h, which is safer for a cyclist or a pedestrian on the road. It is just to have a safer baseline for everybody, and I think it will save lives. We know that if someone is hit by a vehicle in an urban area, at 30 km/h 90% survive and as the speed increases the chances of survival radically reduce. That is the whole evidence base behind what we are trying to do.

Our next contributor is Deputy O'Rourke.

I thank the Minister of State for being here. Picking up on that point about the default baseline, I think many people's starting point is that there are a range of anomalies in the speed limits, and I agree that they are perceived as targets in many people's minds. There are lots of anomalies now. One of the ways in which this has been presented is that it will be a standard across the board and we will still have those anomalies in different places and they might be even more anomalous. Will the Minister of State speak to the flexibility that is there? Is it at a local authority level where the authority can assess and appropriately adjust upward or downward to ensure the speed limits are appropriate to the environment, while I guess there is an overall intention to reduce them?

The Deputy is correct. The plan is that we have to enact the legislation to change the default speed limits. Once that is enacted, we will produce detailed guidance for every local authority then to do a speed limit review and the new guidance will inform local authorities on how to conduct a review and on the recommendations that evolve from it. Essentially, the present position is that, for example, with an 80 km/h limit on a local rural road, the chances of that being revised downwards in each instance is not occurring. The Deputy will know that from being in a rural area. The default position will be at 60 km/h and the local authority can revise it upwards where it is safe to do so. Essentially, it is a devolved function of local authorities to set the speed limits on our roads, and that will continue. There will be a central role for local authorities and we will engage through the Department and with others involved, including councillors, as the guidance is published.

Another issue before was that Meath might move in quarter one next year and then Tipperary two years after, so there was inconsistency and fragmentation. If you are moving between Meath and Fingal they are both at different stages of implementation. We are trying to synchronise that next year in order that local authorities move together and make it more consistent. We have referred to national secondary road limits going from 100 km/h to 80 km/h, but if there is a new national secondary road that has recently been upgraded and is assessed as being safe to have a limit set at 100 km/h because it is engineered to take that speed, that will be revised upwards to 100 km/h. Again, it is about revising something upwards where it is safe to do so rather than making the exception as a reduction. That is the change in the approach, which is starting at a safer baseline and then revising where it is correct to do so. That is how the speeding review will evolve.

As regards the overall policy on road safety and the direction of travel as regards transport policy, it is about making it safe for walkers and cyclists and encouraging the use of public transport.

I want to raise something while the Minister of State is here with us. There has been a very significant uptake in public transport in County Meath. However, in recent weeks there has been a massive deterioration in the services provided by Bus Éireann, to the point that we are at a crisis point. On Monday, 20% of services on the 103 service were cancelled. Yesterday more than 10% were cancelled on the NX service, a busy service from Navan. There were 12 cancellations. The 103, 105 and 109 services serve Ashbourne, Ratoath, Navan, Duleek and the surrounding areas. There were massive cancellations that are really discommoding people. People are late for work, missing college lectures and missing hospital appointments. I was contacted by one constituent who had a keyholder responsibility in his post that he had to give up because he could not rely on public transport to get him in on time. Parents are ringing crèches because they missed picking up their kids. There is an acknowledgement from Bus Éireann. There is a shortage, which we have dealt with at this committee, in mechanics, drivers and buses. It really is an unacceptable level of service. There is no contingency in place. The committee has agreed that we will invite the NTA and Bus Éireann in before us next month. Is the Minister of State aware of this crisis within the bus services in County Meath? Is it something he can raise with the National Transport Authority and with Bus Éireann? Before things get worse, there needs to be an intervention at the highest possible level. We accept there are challenges but there have to be contingencies in place.

I thank the Deputy for that. I regret that there has been a negative impact on many commuters and public transport users in Meath and the regression in service people have experienced this week and in previous weeks. We will reflect what is said at the committee to Bus Éireann and the National Transport Authority and we will write back to the committee with their feedback and response. I acknowledge the concerns the Deputy has raised on behalf of his constituents.

I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for the work he has been doing on road safety and championing that cause because it is something that concerns all of us. He has been doing some pretty good work on that. I will ask some straight questions and if he does not have the figures, that is fine. He can come back to me on them. If all the roads that were planned or promised in the national planning framework were to be delivered, what would the total cost of that budget be and how does that relate to the actual transport budget that is available?

I am here to deal with the general scheme of the road safety measures Bill. What I will say is that we have an ambitious plan to continue regional development and upgrade our road network, which is of central importance, particularly for the roads that have a very poor road safety record. What we are trying to do through the national development plan process and through the funding allocations that are made every year is ensure we can continue progress for many of those roads.

I would appreciate if the Minister of State could come back to me when he has had time to have a look at the number of roads that are promised or planned, the reality versus the actual transport budget that is available and how we would prioritise those roads within that budget envelope.

There is also a need to prioritise and keep focus on the road safety dimension to road investment.

That is something we are keen to advance.

My question does lead into road safety. Transport Infrastructure Ireland, which is the agency responsible for national roads and motorways, produced two reports over the past two years. One related to reducing speeds on national roads and the impact that would have on climate emissions. Part of that report suggested that if we reduced the speeds on those national roads, the cars may divert onto regional or lower grade roads, causing further collisions. In my view, that report should have considered what interventions would be required on those roads rather than just producing a report saying that, if we reduced speed limits, it would drive cars onto those roads and there would be an increase in collisions.

I have not seen its most recent report but I have seen snippets of it in the press. The transport chief, as I think he was referred to, suggested that if 18 road projects do not proceed, there will be an increase of 77 fatalities. I have not seen that report and I do not know who has. We do not have the context for that and we do not know what assumptions are being made in both of those reports. I am concerned that TII is producing reports compiled by consultants who build roads to suggest that if we do not build more roads we are going to have greater collisions and greater fatalities. We do not have the full context of that. I think the first report is slightly flawed, and for the second report I do not have the context or the assumptions that were made. It can be quite difficult as a public representative to try to defend what we are trying to do on roads versus public transport. My concern is that you could almost suggest that the roads issue is being politicised by an agency. That is not something we want to see. The priority of all public representatives is to ensure we have proper road safety, proper transport and proper investment in public transport. Does the Minister of State have any concerns about those two reports that were produced by TII, directly related to the road safety aspect?

I acknowledge the expertise of TII. It would be unfair to accuse it of politicising something. I have engaged with councils on this. To take the Knock to Collooney road, the N17 along the Atlantic corridor, or the N4 from Mullingar to Longford as examples, they have a very poor safety record. The outworking of that may have consequences. It is a matter for TII to respond on how reports are constructed and drafted. That is something for people to ask of it. There is no political involvement in how reports are drafted.

I accept that. Our agencies would suggest they are policy takers, not policymakers. We make the policies on this. However, it is quite difficult when we do not have those reports. I would take it up with TII at any time and say the report on the emissions aspect was flawed and the safety aspect it put into that was flawed. I do not have the details on the other report.

On road safety, when the assistant commissioner of the Garda was at the committee about 18 months ago, they highlighted the work the Garda does on the national routes and motorways in patrolling and monitoring road safety. However, there seems to be a deficiency in policing within the built-up urban areas in towns and villages. We all see that every day when we walk around our constituencies with parking on footpaths and poor driver behaviour within urban zones. I asked the assistant commissioner if they could direct more attention to that. It has been raised by others as well. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State could take that up with the Garda Commissioner. We need to pay more attention within those areas where children or older people are walking. We want to encourage our town centre first policy and make it nicer around our towns. We cannot do that if there is poor driver behaviour. I would appreciate it if the Minister of State could take that up with the Commissioner.

We will reflect that feedback to the Commissioner. The overall active travel budget of €360 million and the huge investment we are seeing is to provide additional segregation for many vulnerable road users. Thirty-eight pedestrians have died this year. It is tracking to be the worst year in 15 years for pedestrians killed on our roads. That shows the serious impact on vulnerable road users in particular. Enforcement plays an important role in trying to protect people.

I would agree with the Minister of State's comments. There are certainly stretches of road in this country that need improvement, including safety improvements and upgrades. There is probably a need for more town bypasses to be built as well. We do not need to build a big massive road. Building a bypass around those towns would make much more sensible use of money and create those nice town centres by taking a lot of that through traffic out of them. I have always held the view that cars should be able to get to a town but not necessarily through the town. That is something we should look at wherever possible.

I suggest we invite TII before the committee so we can take up those concerns on the emissions report and on the report on which we have seen the headlines.

We can add that to the future work programme. The committee will decide what it prioritises. If only I had the power to decide all these topics. We will make a decision together but I will certainly put that on the draft programme.

I will suggest including it in our work schedule.

Deputy Lowry has another pressing engagement so I have agreed to let him contribute briefly at this point.

I thank the Vice Chair for giving me his slot. I welcome the Minister of State and thank him for the synopsis and summary of the legislation which he wishes the Oireachtas to enact. I welcome mandatory drug testing. I have the impression, as do many people, that many people who are drug driving are not being apprehended. The public is aware of this. It is very important that gardaí are tooled up with the necessary equipment to deal with this issue. I have the impression from gardaí that the mechanism for testing for this is more time-consuming and difficult than breath testing. One would not want to see a reluctance to do it.

The Minister of State spoke about a public awareness campaign. We have serious difficulties with the rising numbers of deaths and injuries resulting from accidents. The Minister of State referred to figures. It is interesting that when the public is being informed about statistics, people speak in percentage terms. It would be far more effective to give a breakdown in order that people know how many accidents and collisions result in fatalities or serious injury. Unfortunately, some lead to fatalities. The Garda investigates these incidents and completes reports, some of which may lead to prosecution. How is that information compiled and who has access to it? In terms of its delivery to the public, it would be far more effective if the public knew that during the previous weekend, for example, there had been “X” number of apprehensions and the figures for each of the following: excessive speeding; defective tyres or a defective vehicle; tiredness resulting in lack of concentration; driving while using a mobile phone; drink driving; and drug driving. We also need to know about cyclists and e-scooters. They are a nightmare in Dublin. Where are the penalties for cyclists who do not conform to the rules of the road, wobble across a lane, cause an accident and endanger somebody?

On speed limits, the Minister of State indicated that the councils will have a role to play on this area. It is very important that they do. When I drive up to Dublin on the motorway, I can never understand why, when I get as far as Goffs and An Poitín Stil where the road, a dual carriageway, is perfectly safe, the speed limit suddenly goes from 120 km/h down to 80 km/h. Needless to say, a speed van is stuck there and it is like shooting fish in a barrel. That annoys the public. There are many anomalies in relation to the speed limits. The Minister of State indicated the councils will have a role in this mater and there will be national guidelines. We have seen this in the planning process. The national guidelines are so restrictive that they remove discretion from the councils. I hope the same does not happen with these guidelines and it becomes meaningless.

There is a massive problem in Tipperary and across rural Ireland with school transport, which is the Department’s responsibility.

I thought it was, sorry. Maybe the Minister of State could pass on my comments and have the matter dealt with.

He will always have a listening ear regardless.

There is one issue that needs to be dealt with, namely, the forced retirement of people aged over 70 years in rural Ireland who are providing a bus service on behalf of the Department. They cannot drive a school bus but they can do an international route. They can travel anywhere on the Continent even though they are over 70. In several instances buses have had to be taken off school bus routes because there are no drivers. The drivers would be available if we got rid of this nonsense of requiring drivers aged over 70 to retire. They are perfectly capable and experienced. They know exactly what they are doing and people feel safe with them but for some reason Bus Éireann does not allow this. I ask the Minister of State to use his offices to have that matter looked at.

Deputy Lowry is correct about the scale of the problem with drug driving. Tracking back on those who have died has shown that 13% of driver fatalities have positive toxicology for cocaine and 7% had a positive toxicology result for cannabis. Those figures, which are for the period 2015 to 2019, show the prevalence of drug driving. In addition, 37% of driver fatalities had a positive toxicology for alcohol during the same period, which also demonstrates the scale of intoxicated driving in the State. On mandatory testing, gardaí often do drug testing but making it mandatory in the legislation will make a difference.

On data, if the Deputy recalls some of the campaigns run by An Garda Síochána in recent weeks, the Garda regularly publishes the number of people detected speeding. It often publishes various information from checkpoints. There is ongoing engagement between the Department of Transport, the Department of Justice and An Garda Síochána on getting the full breadth of information for a specific period. The Garda publishes broader information on offences and detections, as some of its recent campaigns show. It is important to strengthen the message of enforcement so people see the activity of roads policing units across the country.

On the speed limits review, the legislation is being changed to change the default position. Guidance is being worked on to be issued to local authorities. It is about having a more balanced and consistent approach. As I said to Deputy O’Rourke, where national and secondary roads are engineered to a standard that allows the speed limit to remain at 100 km/h, that will be accommodated in the guidance. If a road is of a poor standard and has not been upgraded in many years, it is likely to be at the baseline of 80 km/h, for example.

The Deputy mentioned the speed limit at Goffs for those driving from Kildare. Given the number of junctions and exit points as drivers enter the city at that point, the reduction is a way to start slowing the traffic. Similarly, the reason the speed limit on the N4 goes from 120 km/h to 80 km/h on the approach to Lucan is that it is safer for drivers moving lanes and taking the exits. It is about having a balanced approach.

Local authorities will have the devolved function in the legislation. The guidance will set out wider recommendations and will take a balanced approach. Some local authorities already have some of these limits in place. The problem is that the inconsistencies as one moves between counties do not uphold proper road safety standards. Cyclists or vulnerable road users moving between counties could face different limits on a rural road, for example. That does not uphold proper standards.

On school transport, the Department does not decide age limits for drivers. That is decided independent of us. I know public representatives have been raising this issue and the Minister for Education, Deputy Foley, obviously co-ordinates the position on school transport with Bus Éireann directly. That is a matter for Bus Éireann to adjudicate.

We have had some worrying incidents involving vulnerable road users such as pedestrians and cyclists this year.

It is important to remember that they are vulnerable road users in our cities. What we have tried to do through investment in active travel is to facilitate better segregation on roads. It is important not to label or alienate any road user, and we are working with everybody to uphold proper road safety standards and protect cyclists, pedestrians and vulnerable road users from unsafe speeds, particularly in our cities and urban areas where we have inconsistency that needs to be addressed.

I thank Deputy Lowry and the Minister of State. I am now going to proceed to my own slot. I thank the Minister of State very much for being here, and we were happy to facilitate his request to come in before the weekend. We will be examining his request, and we understand the reason he is looking for the waiver in that he wants this in before Christmas. Christmas is one of those awful times when there are a lot more people travelling longer distances. To address Senator Doherty's point, a lot if it is that people who are not used to driving long distances tend to be doing so at holiday times, visiting holiday homes and friends, and travelling to various events that are on down the country. There are people in this room who travel long distances all the time but a lot of people do not, and all of a sudden they are, and lots of those people are all in tourist type places. They are not used to these roads. Even though the locals might be, they are not, and that is part of the problem.

It is a frightening figure that we are up 31% in this year. The points about education, enforcement and so on are very valid. How many of the 186 actions have been implemented and how many are on the way? I very much welcome the mandatory drug testing. It is surprising it was not there before. Equally, it is very welcome. That people who committed multiple offences were not being penalised for them is almost like they were being rewarded by having a load of offences at the one time and could get away with some of them, so it is welcome that will change. On the change of bank holidays, I think we understand it but it needs public awareness.

There are a few things I would like to ask the Minister of State about with regard to technology and where we can put more technology into people's cars. We all have mobile phones. We are all being tracked every minute of our day, from the minute we get up to the minute we go to sleep. There are boxes that can go in cars that are tracking people's behaviour. If only we had proper technology in cars where, as you drive into a village, housing estate or town, your car is initially warned about it but is ultimately slowed down. That technology probably exists, especially for newer cars. If we were able to slow people down driving into estates, we would not need to be building ramps that cost €20,000 and €30,000 each, which wreck people's suspension, damage their light settings and so on. There is an awful lot there that we are not doing enough on yet. We have seen the really positive effect of what the N7 and the Dublin Port tunnel have done with regard to the levels of enforcement going from over 60% to over 95%. This morning, I was a cyclist who cycled in, and a lady nearly walked into the cycle lane as she was listening to something on her headphones. She was highly apologetic. However, it is about the vigilance of us all - cyclists, pedestrians and road users.

I spoke in the Seanad this morning. We have a bank holiday weekend this weekend, and it is really important that all of us, in all of our social media channels and all of what we do, get the message out to remind people of the point that it is about speed, intoxication, young male drivers, night-times, weekends and mobile phone use. It surprised me when we had the RSA in with us - not the last time but the time before - or maybe it was An Garda Síochána, that there are still a very significant number of people in fatalities who are not wearing seatbelts. That really surprises me. We need to communicate the basic message of wearing a seatbelt, and not plugging it in and sitting on top of it, which I have heard is a practice with certain drivers. I am not going to say in which particular area.

I have a concern about one issue, and it is really the only concern I have with what the Minister of State is proposing. We all know of laneways in rural parts of Ireland where there might be grass growing in the middle of them and they officially have speed limits of 80 km/h. Yet when I was a local authority member, there were places like the dual carriageway from the UCD campus out to Cabinteely church, which was part of my electoral area on one side, where there would often be gardaí on enforcement, watching people doing 60 km/h, being 37 mph, on a very wide, three-lane dual carriageway at 10 o'clock on a Sunday morning. That is where we lose the public's buy-in. The public understands speed limits but people are asking if it is really not okay to drive at more than 60 km/h on those roads, on a bright day with quiet traffic. There are lots of times in the day when it is full and congestion is so significant that they cannot drive at those speed limits anyway. However, I would have a small concern about urban areas versus built-up areas. The idea people put to me is that it is going to be a default of 30 km/h on every single road in Dublin. I know it is not but we need the Minister of State to say that and allay people's concerns. In housing estates it is one thing but on main arterial roads, and I am thinking of roads in my area like the Goatstown and Dundrum roads or the Stillorgan dual carriageway, people would have a concern. I would be very happy if people were being enforced at the 50 km/h they are on now. It is for the Minister of State to allay that for us.

However, I am very supportive of the vast bulk of what the Minister of State is recommending, and all of the committee is very supportive of it. The sooner the legislation is in, the hope is that it will reduce road deaths. Seamus Brennan was my local Deputy and the Minister for Transport who introduced penalty points, and at the time it was for three offences. There was a lot of structural resistance within the system, and he was asked if he was sure and told that he was being very brave and courageous. Within weeks of penalty points arriving, road deaths were very significantly down and road incidents were down. I think it was 2003 he brought them in after the Act in 2002. It was hugely beneficial. We had 800 deaths or something in 1972, I think, with an awful lot less people driving, and cars that were obviously not as good.

There is an awful lot technology can do, and I would like to see more being done by the RSA, An Garda Síochána, and the system - ourselves, all of us - to incentivise people to have these technological items in their cars that slow people down. As you drive into towns, cities, villages having come off a motorway, it would slow you down, and then we would not need to worry about making sure there is no GoSafe van or whatever. We would just behave, and our cars would behave on our behalf.

I thank the Minister of State for everything he is doing but he might address those points, in particular the one about the speed limits, and where we are with the 186 actions.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. On the speed limits first, the principal recommendation in urban areas is 30 km/h, as I have said, and that is for urban centres, but there are exceptions to that. There is 50 km/h for key arterial routes. These are public transport routes, for example, or roads that would be better engineered than one within a residential area. That is set out in detail in the speed limit review and the guidance will set that out. It is 60 km/h on transition zones in urban areas, which would be better understood by engineers. Again, that is striking a balance. Where there are urban arterial roads which have a higher design and are better engineered, and where there are key public transport routes, they will be an exception to the overall default speed limit.

Within urban areas, the default speed limits are about setting a better and safer baseline and then revising it upwards within the wider network, where there are arterial roads and where it makes sense to do so. There are also pedestrian and shared space zones in highly urbanised areas where, if you read the speed limit review, it is recommended at 20 km/h. Regarding pedestrianised streets, some of them are at 20 km/h but there is a lot of uncertainty over the actual limits of some. I know there are school zones where there are shared spaces. They are quite limited in different urban areas but need to be managed in a much safer way. It introduces those in a strategic way. If you read the principle recommendations of the report, it sets out the exceptions and then the various standards that will be required, for example, for an arterial road, key public transport routes and so on.

On the 186 actions, many of them have commenced this year and we will send the committee an update on them. To give a sense of it, we have sought to prioritise a number of key actions this year. Regarding the Leas-Chathaoirleach's point on technology, we are strengthening the technological piece with the Department of Justice and An Garda Síochána in the provision of GoSafe vans. We have also worked with Transport Infrastructure Ireland on how we can broaden the technological offering we have.

The Leas-Chathaoirleach also referred to the M7 and the Dublin Port tunnel in the context of average speed cameras. That is a key area to improve targeted enforcement. Technology within vehicles will play a more important role in the coming years but, obviously, there are different vehicles with different standards and technological capabilities. In future, there will be far more prudence in the context of technological integration within vehicles, but that will be a wider European framework in terms of its overall adoption. As I informed Senator Doherty, we have work ongoing in the actions to examine the trend in driver attitudes and behaviour, particularly post Covid. That is being assessed and evidence is being gathered.

Penalties is another area of reform. We are addressing this in the legislation. In the context of those who drive vehicles for work, we are trying to progress a trial on an alcohol ignition interlock device. Again, that involves integration of technology. There is work ongoing between the Health and Safety Authority, the RSA and An Garda Síochána on that trial.

We are reviewing the driver testing curriculum. It has not been reviewed for 35 years and is totally out of sync with the modern driving experience. I have tried to progress that as a priority, with €2 million to be spent on reviewing the curriculum. The point was made to me recently that drivers are not allowed on a motorway before doing the test but once they drive out of the test centre having passed the test, they are allowed to go on a motorway for the first time. That is totally out of sync with what it needs to be. Reforming the curriculum will play a key role for the future. That will be progressed. The speed limit review is one of the other recommendations.

That is a flavour of some of the priority actions we have taken this year. A significant amount of other work has commenced and progressed as well and I will get my officials and the team to send the committee information in that regard.

I have addressed the questions on technology-----

The Minister of State has probably addressed everything at this point. It is about communicating the message.

I forgot the issue of seat belts, which is important. Going back to the coronial data from 2015-19, 40% of driver fatalities in that period were not waiting a seat belt. That is a shocking figure.

Did the Minister of State say 40%?

That is frightening.

Who does not wear a seat belt?

People who get killed, unfortunately.

That figure relates to driver fatalities where there are records available but all available records are being examined. From 2015 to 2019, 40%-----

It does not meant 40% of drivers were not wearing a seat belt but it does mean 40% of-----

It is 40% of driver fatalities-----

-----fatalities were not wearing a seat belt.

-----were not wearing a seat belt. There is also a percentage in the context of the self-reporting survey data. It is a shocking figure.

Yes. That figure jumped out at me last year. It is terrible.

This is part of the piece we are reforming in the legislation. A person who is not wearing a seat belt and is using a mobile phone is exhibiting a combination of multiple risk-taking behaviours. That person could kill himself or herself and others through distracted driving and not wearing a seat belt. At the moment, such persons would only receive points-----

And smoking a dubious cigarette.

They would only receive points for one of those two offences despite them being committed in the same act. That will be changed in order to ensure they get points for both offences.

That is welcome. I thank the Minister of State. It is important legislation and we understand why he is seeking a waiver. We are here to tease out what is in the legislation in order that we are in a position to grant the waiver. I whish him and his team in the Department, the RSA and the Garda the very best with all their endeavours. The message can go out from this room that people who are travelling at the weekend, whether they are pedestrians, cyclists, motorcyclists, passengers in cars or drivers in cars, should be vigilant, remember the points we have heard many times in respect of seat belts, speed, intoxication, night time, age and mobile phones, and just try to stay safe. The human cost of every fatality is enormous, but we were also told that every road fatality incurs a cost of €3 million or €4 million. I am not taking away from the human cost, but if there are 200 deaths, that is €800 million. We could do an awful lot with €800 million instead of it being incurred on fatalities. It is tragic. What we are doing today is important. I thank the Minister of State and members for being here.

I thank the Minister of State for his presentation. Some of the issues I wish to raise have been covered. Three main issues, namely, penalty points, speed limits and the intoxication test, are being addressed . There is no argument with regard to the intoxication test. The committee heard from An Garda on this. It showed us the tests and explained that the test for drugs is a more expensive and elaborate test and will be used less regularly than the alcohol test. We understand that. It is appropriate for that to be part of the legislation.

As regards speed limits, I take the point that many of the speed limits, particularly the 80 km/h limit on regional, smaller or country roads, are totally inappropriate. One could not drive at the speed limit even if one wanted to do so. Most people know that. An issue of which we must be careful is that if we come up with laws people think are ridiculous, they will not abide by them. The first thing one must ensure is that the law is appropriate. All members are contacted by their constituents. I was contacted by a retired garda recently and had a long discussion with him on this issue. He made the point that if there is a low speed limit on the relatively straight first 5 km of a 20 km road between two towns, people will ask what the hell is going, wonder why they are driving like they are on a tractor and will not abide by the limit. If another section of the road has a bridge and a number of bends, it would be appropriate to have a lower speed limit there. The real question is whether local authorities, in conjunction with An Garda Síochána - they usually consult with it in respect of road speed limits - will have the scope to adjust speed limits appropriately. For example, will the speed limit for a 20 km stretch of road be fixed at 60 km/h even though a limit of 80 km/h would be more appropriate for one third or two thirds of it?

The Minister of State referred to the road between Mullingar and Longford and the upgrade of roads such as that. The speed limit on that road is currently 100 km/h. Will the limit go down to 80 km/h everywhere on that road under the proposed legislation? There is much of it where 100 km/h is fine. We need to understand there are many heavy goods vehicles, vans delivering to shops and all those issues. Those drivers are under time pressure to get their job done and if we bring in legislation they believe is ridiculous, we will have difficulty in making sure people adhere to the legislation.

That brings me to the issue of penalty points, which the Minister of State also addressed. I am not sure it is appropriate for us to say a person breaking the law on a Tuesday is somehow less a breaker of the law than if they do it on a Saturday or Sunday. The law and penalties should apply across the board.

More than anything, the issue here is detection and enforcement. Roads policing units throughout the State have been depleted for many years. That is evident. The retired garda with whom I had a long conversation told me that, in many cases, gardaí were taken off the roads and GoSafe vans were put in. His point was that GoSafe vans watch only one thing, namely, speeding, whereas gardaí in patrol cars watch everything that goes on, including people who may not be speeding but may be acting suspiciously or whatever. I have done the calculations. Using gardaí instead of GoSafe vans is far better value for money and they do more things. GoSafe vans have a role to play in the context of where we are now because we do not have enough gardaí to do the job but they are not the answer. The answer is ensuring we have enough gardaí to do the job. We should be considering how to have fewer GoSafe vans but more gardaí in place to fulfil the role.

I have am issue to raise with regard to the waiving of pre-legislative scrutiny. Pre-legislative scrutiny is important. The Minister for Justice came to the justice committee on several occasions, seeking for pre-legislative scrutiny to be waived. Obviously, she did so with good reasons from her perspective or that of her departmental officials. Pre-legislative scrutiny was introduced because it provides the committee with an opportunity to tease out the issues and bring in people with a different view.

Perhaps we will come to the same conclusion at the end but perhaps we will not. Perhaps there are consequences we have not thought of that we need to weigh up. It is appropriate to have pre-legislative scrutiny of all legislation unless it is an emergency. I understand that we can say this is an emergency in one sense, given the number of people being killed on our roads.

The measure regarding penalty points in the Minister of State's proposal probably would not be on my Christmas list even if we do not have pre-legislative scrutiny. The speed limit proposal will certainly not be on my list because the Minister of State will be asking every local authority in the country what it is going to do and it will probably take a year or two before local authorities have that done. They have signs up all over the country with regard to the reduction in speed limits. I doubt if An Garda Síochána will be up to speed and have all the kits for Christmas when it comes to the intoxication test for drugs, even if this legislation goes through by then. I do not see the reason for haste in the context of all of that.

We need to be careful when it comes to waiving pre-legislative scrutiny when it comes to these matters. We should invite An Garda Síochána to appear before us to discuss this legislation along with the road safety lobby and insurance companies. There is a range of groups that will have a view on it, including perhaps views that are counter to those held by the Minister of State and the committee. It is appropriate that we would do that. I would like to hear the Minister of State's comments on that.

The Deputy mentioned a road between two towns, which would likely be a regional road. The speed limit there would be 80 km/h. We have not proposed any changes to regional roads. If the Deputy is referring to a national secondary road, the speed limit could be between 80 km/h and 100 km/h but where it is safe to do so, local authorities will be able to revise the speed limit upwards. In many rural areas, the connections between villages and towns are regional roads and there has been a recommendation that there be no change to the regional road default baseline.

The Deputy's second question was about the N4. This is a national primary road with a speed limit of 100 km/h. No recommendation to change the speed limit for national primary roads from 100 km/h to 80 km/h has been proposed so the speed limit on that road will not change under the proposal.

The third issue raised by the Deputy involved penalty points. What we are presented with here is a very high number of collisions, deaths and injuries on bank holiday weekends in particular. Australia's decision to introduce reform in this area in 1997 has saved a significant number of lives and made a significant difference. There is an evidence base for doing this. Penalty points are obviously an administrative system where a penalty is imposed on a licence but it has a clear evidence base during particular periods.

The Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023 has allowed for variable speed limits that vary depending on particular weather events. Where there are variable speed limits based on particular weather events, there will be variable enforcement on the basis of the variable speed limits. As such, we already have a system of variance in our legislation. We have been presented with a clear evidence base that this will save lives and make a big difference because when there are higher volumes of cars on our roads, there are higher levels of collisions. This measure can be introduced in primary legislation and we can trial and review it at that point. We see the stark figures for the number of people who die on the roads on bank holiday weekends. This measure has an evidence base.

Regarding the Deputy's point about enforcement, I said earlier that we must increase recruitment. We are trying to strengthen roads policing units and I am advocating for the improved deployment of members of An Garda Síochána to roads policing because these units have a central role in improving deterrence and as a preventative factor in terms of poor driver behaviour. GoSafe plays a complementary role in speed detection but enforcement is improved when we strengthen recruitment.

Regarding pre-legislative scrutiny, there is an urgency to this legislation for a number of reasons. Regarding the review process in local authorities, we would have to change the default limits to allow that to start next year. Deputy Kenny and I were members of the Oireachtas Committee on Justice in the previous Dáil. Pre-legislative scrutiny would delay this Bill for six months, which might mean this Government and Dáil will not be able to see through the reforms on the speed limits review. We are trying to enact the legislation before Christmas. We want to have it ready for early 2024 in terms of having penalty points reforms, multiple offences and mandatory drug testing in one Act. I do not think these areas are contentious but they will make a significant difference. We see the trend in drug driving. I share the views expressed on pre-legislative scrutiny. I believe in the process and when I was Government Chief Whip, I tried to be constructive in the reform around that by striking a balance between the Government always wanting to get things done and pushed through and everyone else wanting to get things through but with scrutiny and input. I value that but these are targeted measures which, if progressed in the coming weeks, will make a difference in 2024.

I accept that to an extent but I still do not see how varying penalty points at weekends will prevent a person who drives recklessly from driving recklessly. If people drive recklessly, they will have a tendency to do so and will continue to do it. Detection is the only thing that will make a difference. If the speed limit in an 80 km/h zone is reduced to 60 km/h, the kind of person who drives at 120 km/h in an 80 km/h zone will probably still drive at 120 km/h in the 60 km/h zone. That is the reality.

Some people do not pay heed to any legislation.

They are the 10% who cause the problem and if we cannot detect these people, and we are not detecting them-----

The data are there. An Garda Síochána is intercepting and detecting-----

It is detecting fewer than it was previously.

We can always point to enforcement as a reason never to reform. I acknowledged at the start that enforcement has a central role but we must also look at the evidence. This measure has been shown to work elsewhere. If the legislation is enacted, this is something we will look to progress in 2024.

I still think our role in respect of all of this, when it comes road safety, is that people should proceed with caution and without undue haste. The same should be true when it comes to legislation. We should give it the proper scrutiny it deserves and get informed views from across the board.

I accept the Minister of State's point that there is evidence about penalty points from one other jurisdiction and that there are variations in speed limits depending on road conditions. Where technology has come in, it has led to significant advances in respect of that. Technology is a way forward and will deal with some of these issues. It may mean that we will require less of the physical detection that we now require. The problem we have at the moment is that speeding usually occurs because someone is intoxicated. There are multiple factors involved. The person needs to be caught in the act.

I know other jurisdictions have looked at installing tachographs on lorries which can detect the speed at which the lorry travelled over a period of time. While driving, it will show the driver what the speed limit is on a particular road and whether, for example, the limit has gone from 80 km/h to 100 km/h or 60 km/h. I am sure it records or can record that, so technology will catch up with us in respect of this. That is why we should be careful that we do not bring in legislation we regret at some point because the public rebels against it, finds it too restrictive and will not comply with it. People might not comply with or believe in it.

I hate to use the term "nanny state" but people have that notion that they are being "lawed" out of it rather than asked to co-operate. We should give it due scrutiny in that respect.

Deputy Kenny gave two examples of roads, both of which I clarified for him.

He had a perception that it was one thing. He also mentioned the N4. It is also important that we are factual in showing people what we are actually proposing rather than them thinking it is something it is not.

To be fair, if the Minister of State does not mind, for the benefit of everybody, including me, it is actually a relatively targeted review. It is not a comprehensive review of all road traffic legislation ever. It targets the penalty points regime. At the moment, the fine can be doubled but the penalty points cannot. It is giving the ability to change penalty points without primary legislation and secondary legislation. It is providing for mandatory drug testing, which I think we all welcome.

It still has to be approved by the Oireachtas.

Correct, yes. I think we all approve of mandatory drug testing. Multiple offences will be caught which are not at the moment. It is not as big a piece of legislation as perhaps some think. The speed limit part is the bit about which I think we all have concerns. I think the Minister of State addressed a lot of them.

Local authorities will have the devolved function.

The challenge is that there was a 31% increase in fatalities this year. It is in all of our interests; it could be a member of our families or our friends involved in an accident that often is not caused by them. That is probably where the Minister of State is coming from. I always take on board, as do the Minister of State and Deputy Kenny, pre-legislative scrutiny, where possible, and sometimes legislation will be a long way away anyway, so it is fine. I would hate to think of more people dying this Christmas and, not that there would be blood on our hands, but, ultimately, if we had done what the Minister of State hopes we will, maybe they would not happen.

On the pre-legislative scrutiny issue, I have some sympathy with where Deputy Kenny is coming from. If we are to change speed limits in urban areas in the way the Minister of State quite rightly wants to, it will not happen inside six months. It certainly will not make a difference between now and Christmas. It is disingenuous to suggest that. The Minister of State is 100% correct in his view that people see a speed limit as a target - they have to get to 120 km/h. I have driven on rural roads where the speed limit is 80 km/h, it goes up to 100 km/h, you head for 100 km/h and the next thing you are into a series of U-bends, still at 100 km/h. There needs to be a review of when we move from 80 km/h to 100 km/h and when it is safe to do so. The Chairman adverted to something that drives me insane, which is driving down the Stillorgan dual carriageway and seeing the speed truck at Stillorgan. The number of people caught is minimal, I would say. Yet, I drive on rural roads in west Galway or County Donegal - as a Senator, we drive on rural roads quite a lot - and I have yet to see a significant number of speed traps on rural roads anywhere. I have driven on roads in some parts of the country where I was taking my life in my hands, only to be overtaken by somebody travelling at perhaps 100 km/h. I would certainly be driving much slower. I have a difficulty with that. Even if we were to waive pre-legislative scrutiny right now, there will still be difficulty getting local authorities to rebadge roads or agree that a stretch of road between two different local authorities is capped at 80 km/h or 100 km/h. The guidelines that will have to be laid down will be really important.

Another issue is motorways. I have seen more speed checks on motorways than on rural roads. Something is terribly wrong about that. There is a tendency to treat it as a fishbowl - just sit on the motorway and pick them off one by one. They should be out on secondary roads. I spoke about the issue of farm vehicles on rural roads during the summer. There are farm fatalities all the time because of young people driving tractors. The tractors we have today and the tractors we had 20 years ago are very different machines. There are enormous machines with huge capacity and massive horsepower and we see 16-year-old kids driving them. They are not supposed to be on the road but they are. There is absolutely zero requirement associated with driving a tractor. You can drive one on the family farm and there is no requirement whatsoever. During busy times of the year when silage is being collected and various other things, you see young children driving these massive tractors.

I take issue with the story behind young male drivers. I recall when my son was in his teens and was learning to drive. He and his friends were opposed to the notion that anybody would drive having had alcohol, even the following morning. They had a much more appreciative view of the rules of the road than I would have had at that age, for example. I am not so sure young male drivers are all wrong; there is certainly some evidence but I am not so sure they all are.

If I am uninsured, chances are I will not obey any other rule of the road either. If I am taking drugs, chances are I could not give a continental damn about other rules of the road. If I am drinking and driving, I certainly am not going to be too pushed about speed limits. I suggest to the Minister of State that if somebody is caught driving over a particular speed or under the influence of drugs or alcohol or uninsured, the vehicle should be taken from them and crushed. It should be sent to the local scrap yard and destroyed because if you do not have a vehicle you cannot drive over the speed limit or under the influence of alcohol or drugs. We should be far less tolerant. If you crush one or two cars in a village or town, I guarantee people will start to become a lot more compliant with the rules of the road.

On the issue of cycling, I once criticised a cyclist for crashing a red light I was sitting at. He was beside me and he crashed the red light and took off. I was challenged to cycle around Dublin and I did. It is a very dangerous occupation. One surprise was that HGV drivers and bus drivers were far more aware of me on a bicycle than car drivers. Car drivers seemed to feel they had to win the race at the traffic lights and get out ahead of me. We need to look at our traffic lighting system. There is a system in some places but not others that allows the cyclist perhaps 30 seconds to get past a junction before a car can move off. We need to look at that.

Another matter slightly outside this conversation-----

I remind Senator Craughwell that we all have ten minutes per slot and he has used seven of them. I want to give the Minister of State a chance to respond to him.

On the issue of public transport, there is a request from Cork and Galway to introduce light electric rail. We should do that for both cities. It is not something we should be talking about; it is something we should be doing. I know there is a preoccupation in Galway with the ring road and the problems that has caused. I support an integrated ring road and light rail system for Galway. It is the only solution. I know Cork has a very strong view on that. Let us hope this is not window dressing. I am sympathetic to the Minister of State's need to do away with pre-legislative scrutiny but at the same time I am also sympathetic to what Deputy Kenny said. Let us not throw the child out with the bath water.

I thank the Senator. To his point on timing, he mentioned the Stillorgan dual carriageway, local authorities and speed limits. The challenge is that we have to change the legislation before the process can commence with local authorities. The longer this goes on in the committee and the broader Oireachtas, the further away the commencement of the review process will be. It will take a significant number of months, even in the best case scenario, for local authorities to do an assessment and change the limits in different areas. That will take a significant number of months anyway. That process cannot even commence without changing the underpinning legislation, which is the default limits.

We plan to have the guidance ready in the first quarter of next year. We are trying to progress this as a matter of priority and this has an impact on the other sequential timelines which we are trying to synchronise in the speed limit review.

Unfortunately, the figures this year are shocking. In terms of the Senator's point about young male drivers, the figures bear that out. Approximately 78% of fatalities are male this year, while 49% of overall fatalities are among people aged 35 and under. Approximately 14% of fatalities are between 16 and 20. We can combine these data with what we know from Garda toxicology evidence covering the period 2015 to 2019, which is that 37% of driver fatalities had a positive toxicology for alcohol, 13% had a positive toxicology for cocaine and 7% had a positive toxicology for cannabis. There has been an increase in the number of detections since that toxicology data was collated. Unfortunately, we are still seeing very worrying driver behaviour.

I welcome the fact that the NTA, in conjunction with local authorities, is installing safer traffic lights to facilitate cyclists moving first. That has been introduced in many parts of this city. The Senator also spoke about light rail. The NTA is currently examining the designs for Cork on the basis of council feedback and a preferred route is expected to go to public consultation in the coming months. Galway is progressing a new transport strategy. There is a focus on congestion in Galway and we have had a lot of feedback in relation to the ring road but people in the city and the county also want better public transport options, including bus and rail. I appreciate the Senator's feedback on that.

I also asked about the issue of crushing vehicles.

Does the Senator think we should be confiscating them and then selling them to somebody else?

No, I would confiscate them, crush them and make the so-and-so that owns them watch them being crushed.

That is not very environmentally friendly.

It is done in some places.

Maybe the Senator could present the Department with evidence of places where that is done.

I will do that but it would take a very brave Minister.

Unfortunately, as the data show, there is a cohort or percentage of people who are completely reckless and who have a total disregard for their fellow citizens and society more generally. They should face greater consequences but I am not sure that what the Senator has suggested would be possible.

If people saw their SUVs, worth €50,000, being crushed-----

One of the ways we are addressing recklessness in this legislation is through making multiple behaviours in the one act liable to a penalty points consequence. That will make a difference for those who are reckless on our roads.

Would the Minister of State accept that a lot of guys who are banned from driving are actually caught driving subsequently? Worse still, many are caught driving without insurance.

The time is up Senator. Deputy Cathal Crowe is next.

I welcome the Minister of State. I will make a few general points and then move on to some more specific issues. First, a homogeneous approach to speed limit reduction will not work. We can all think of examples of roads in our constituencies and home communities that have a speed limit that is too low and many more roads that have a speed limit that is too high. The Department will have to give a huge amount of discretion to local authorities in this regard and to the elected members of those authorities. In my 16 years as a councillor, I found it very frustrating that we were locked into periodic speed limit reviews. When I first became a councillor in 2004, I could bring a resolution forward to a council meeting and if it got past the local gardaí, the council engineer would consider it and the speed limit could be changed in a matter of weeks. Now we are locked into five-year reviews. I hate using the cliché, but does it take someone to die? It does, because when someone dies, unfortunately, that triggers a review. It is a clichéd remark that we hear at all public meetings but it does take someone to die to trigger a review. Otherwise, councils are locked into linear, five-year reviews. We must break out of that cycle. If there is good reason, from a safety point of view, to change a speed limit, it should happen. We should not be telling councillors that the next review is not until 2028. I ask the Minister of State to respond to that point.

We are trying to synchronise this next year by councils. There are also inconsistencies between local authority areas, meaning that Clare and Limerick, for example, might move at different times and have different limits. There could be rural roads running between both counties that have different limits, for example.

It is not a homogeneous approach. It is a balanced approach that seeks to have a new default baseline while allowing local authorities to revise limits upwards where it is safe to do so. As I said earlier, the speed limits on motorways, national primary roads and regional roads which are currently set at 120 km/h, 100 km/h and 80 km/h, respectively, are remaining the same in the default limits. What we are changing is the default limit on rural roads, which is dropping from 80 km/h to 60 km/h; on urban roads, which is dropping from 50 km/h to 30 km/h; and on national secondary roads, which is dropping from 100 km/h to 80 km/h. At the same time, we are giving local authorities the discretion to revise those limits upwards where it is safe to do so. It is not a homogeneous approach. We are setting a safer default baseline and then allowing local authorities to revise speed limits upwards. The guidance will be balanced in setting that out as well.

As one travels from Galway to Dublin there is a stretch of the motorway around Athlone town-----

It is not a motorway at Athlone, it is a dual carriageway.

Okay. One goes down from 120 km/h. One gets slowed down at that section-----

Down to 100 km/h.

---- and then one reverts back to motorway speed again. In the main, our motorway network is really well designed and it lends itself to driving at 120 km/h. Generally, that speed is safe. However, I want to give the Minister of State an example of a place where it is not safe, namely, junction 13 on the M18 from Limerick to Galway. This is the Tulla exit on the motorway. In 2018 a 57 year old man, Mr. Michael Fogarty from Crusheen lost his life there. He was exiting off the motorway at that point and was rear ended by a vehicle. I met his widow at my advice clinic in that village on Monday afternoon. At the time that he passed away, there was a huge public outpouring of support. The community stood with her and called for an action plan but unfortunately - it is human nature - that support tapered off as the years went by and she is now fighting a solo campaign. The coroner said that the acceleration zone for joining the motorway at that junction is half of what it should be and the deceleration zone for exiting the motorway is also half of what it should be. The road was built to dual carriageway minimum specifications but afterwards it became a motorway. The configuration of the junction is entirely inappropriate. A life was lost there but TII repeatedly comes back with wishy-washy answers on it. If we are going to look at speed limits we should consider reduced speed limits on certain sections of our motorway network, this being one of them. I ask the Minister of State to comment on that.

I am very sorry to hear that a person lost his life. Obviously that had a devastating impact on his family and the wider community. I will reflect the feedback from this committee to TII. I note that the coroner commented on this as well so I will bring Deputy Crowe's feedback to TII.

I thank the Minister of State for that. The next issue I want to raise is scramblers. I know there is legislation coming through on this but we have seen a development in my area that may also be happening in other towns and cities. Down home something has been happening over the past 12 months which is worrying. When I was growing up, scrambler bikes were used off road. People brought them up hill sides and so on and riding them was a fun, recreational activity. These days, however, one sees scrambler bikes going down river pathways and down city streets, often going against the traffic on one-way streets, driving across green areas and so on. More alarmingly, the drivers of these scramblers are not wearing helmets but are wearing balaclavas. They are doing drug runs. They are drug mules. The wearing of a balaclava is very intentional because the wearer cannot be identified but not wearing a helmet is even more intentional because An Garda Síochána has given direction to all units in the country not to pursue youngsters without helmets riding scramblers. What this means is that these guys are riding down canal banks, across green areas and along footpaths with impunity. They cannot be followed. I have heard down home that the going rate for one of these scramblers is €150 per day.

They bring drugs from Limerick city to south Clare. They dart across various communities and then go back again. We always see them queuing up at local petrol stations to fuel up and change the oil. They take off the balaclavas then of course. Someone needs to scream and shout that this is not good enough. I know there is a balance between the safety of the rider of the motorcycle versus public safety. I would say the safety of the public far outweighs any privilege those drivers have to drive with impunity.

There was an issue identified prior to the most recent road traffic legislation with regard to the inability of gardaí to pursue scramblers. I have been canvassing in my area in recent weeks and there has been consistent feedback from residents about scramblers going through green spaces and a lot of antisocial behaviour associated with them. We are in the process of commencing many of the provisions relating to this that are in the legislation that was passed in the summer. One of these is that dangerous driving is now an offence on every terrain and not only in a public place. An issue identified prior to the enactment of that Bill was that gardaí could only pursue these vehicles on public roads and not on every terrain. They now have the power to seize these vehicles if used dangerously on any terrain. Some of the regulations on scramblers have already been commenced. There is a final piece of work and we hope to have the other provisions commenced in November.

If I may interject, the law is very robust and the Minister of State is to be commended on it. The Garda Commissioner Drew Harris has his interpretation, some of which harps back to an incident during the summer - I will not go into all of the details - in which a garda was sanctioned for pursuing a stolen vehicle. Rank and file gardaí are being told not to pursue someone not wearing a helmet. The application of this at local policing level will need a strong voice from the Minister of State and perhaps the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, in order to see it overcome.

I will move on to another issue which has a Department of Transport angle. Some months ago the Minister for Housing, Local Government and Heritage, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, and the Minister of State at that Department, Deputy O'Donnell, wrote to Clare County Council, as often happens, to state that they had scrutinised the county development plan adopted in April and were changing some of the zoning in it. We have had a debate on this and it belongs to a different Department. At the same time, an element of land zoning is the potential to develop along the national routes in Clare. I am specifically speaking about the N67 and N68 in west Clare and the N85 in north Clare. The local authority was told there can no longer be development of one-off housing along these routes. Normally speaking, it makes sense not to develop a house on a national road for safety reasons. It makes sense if we are speaking about a motorway such as the M18. It makes very little sense when we are speaking about the rural road network that weaves around west and north Clare. If we were to sterilise this from one-off housing potential, it would mean the death knell for that part of the community. It equates to close to 100 km of roadway being taken out. When speed limits are lowered, some cognisance needs to be given to the fact that not every county has a network of tertiary roads. In some parts of rural Ireland along the Wild Atlantic Way, many communities are built along national routes. There has to be some provision for people to be able to build on these. When the speed limit review is taking place, will the Minister of State cast an eye on this aspect and be favourable to development so long as it is safe? This should be the only metric. There should not be one rule stating it is not allowed on national roads. It should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. If it is safe to provide an entrance and an exit, it should be entertained. The homogenous heavy fist does not work here. It needs to be done on a case-by-case basis. I would love the Minister of State to lead on this when we are looking at a speed limit review.

I appreciate the points made by Deputy Crowe. As I have said, I am not directly involved in the communications on zoning that come from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. Certainly in our parliamentary party there has been a lot of concern about some of the county development plans and the inability of local authorities to progress housing more generally. This is something the Minister, Deputy Darragh O'Brien, is considering in the context of the ongoing review. I appreciate the points made by Deputy Crowe and I will reflect them back to the Minister.

We are here to discuss the issue the Minister of State has asked us to discuss, which is whether we will have pre-legislative scrutiny of the Bill. The Minister of State has outlined that he would prefer to have it done and the committee would like to scrutinise it in advance. I have looked at the Bill and it would be appropriate in this instance that we allow it to happen, for all of the reasons outlined by the Minister of State.

There are serious issues with the increase in road accidents. There is an old adage that says when people are talking about an issue, it starts to register in the consciousness of people. Nothing could be more the case when it comes to driver behaviour and correlation with either announcements on deaths on the roads or new laws and legislation being introduced. I take the point my good friend Deputy Martin Kenny spoke about. We have to be careful that we do not become so overburdened with law that we annoy people. There is a cohort of drivers out there and other than enforcement we will never change their behaviour. Eventually they will get caught.

I disagree with my colleague from the Seanad who said there is not appropriate enforcement on country roads. I assure him there is. I see it regularly. Many of us are very busy in life and our consciousness drops. It is at this stage that we become very dangerous on the road. We go too fast because we are not concentrating or we are not thinking about road safety. When we speak about it in here, when it is amplified in news media and when people believe something else is about to happen it is in their minds. There is a deterrent in this in itself for the greatest cohort of drivers who are law-abiding and by and large want to obey the law. They want to drive safely but because of the busyness of their lives from time to time they go too fast. Sometimes they are not great drivers in the first instance and they are not used to the situations in which they find themselves, such as roads being wet or slippy. The approach taken by successive Ministers with responsibility for transport must continue, with the legislation being updated on a regular basis. It might not make a big difference but it creates a debate in society. It gets people thinking again that they might get caught or they might be in breach of the speed limits. This is very good.

We must be very careful about the review of certain speed limits. We have improved our road network very well. There are many blackspots for sure and we do not identify blackspots in the same way as we used to. They used to have a big red sign and we need more of these. We do not need to reduce speeds, and local authorities will have significant input on this, on the good stretches of road that we have improved. This would ultimately lead to accidents because there would be frustration where somebody who wants to get to where they need to be gets caught behind somebody obeying the law in a very rigorous way. We all know how these frustrations can lead to accidents.

The Minister of State is right to identify input from local authorities as being paramount but he still needs the tools with which the legislation will provide him to address it. The more power that is given to local authorities, the better. I am also conscious, as is the Minister of State, that often local authorities do not want powers. They like to be able to escalate something back and say it has come from the Minister. When they are given powers, exactly as a number of others have said, they can be slow to deal with them and we will not have a uniform approach. The right thing to do is to allow the Minister of State to move on this quickly. We have a responsibility to react to the statistics. For sure a number of accidents in recent months have been freaky in nature. In statistics we will always have outliers that are freaky in nature. There is a trend at present that certainly needs to be addressed in some way and the Minister of State is taking the appropriate action.

I thank Senator Dooley for his support. As he has said, we are trying to introduce a number of targeted measures in the Bill. There is a balanced approach with local authorities.

It is about having a default baseline where it is safe. Where there is a new road infrastructure that has been built out and a national secondary road, for example, they would be able to revise the limit upwards and leave it at 100 km/h, if that is what it has been at, with the upgrade. It is just to set a safer default baseline and have a more balanced approach. We know from experience they tend not to revise the speed limit downwards and there is an inconsistency around that. This just changes the position around that. I appreciate the Senator's comments on the issues.

I will now move on to our visiting member. Deputy Leddin is very welcome.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. It is really good to be in this committee as I have a particular interest in transport and I would like to come more often. This subject is very important to me as I have a family member who lost a loved one to a road death. The Minister of State mentioned too that his own family was impacted in a similar way.

This is critically important. In recent weeks and months we have seen a really alarming spike in injuries and fatalities. I congratulate the Minister of State on showing such leadership on the issue, and indeed his officials for the work being done in bringing this critically important legislation to the Oireachtas. The Minister of State is to be commended. I recognise he is really leading on this.

I have three points to make and perhaps some of them are outside the remit of the legislation. Notwithstanding this, they are important points to make. My first point is on the enforcement. We have not really spoken about the use of camera technology to capture bad behaviour by motorists. There is a culture of this, particularly in urban areas. We often talk about speeding in rural Ireland but in urban areas, at every change of traffic lights you will see two or three cars going past the amber light and through the red light. This is all part of a culture of getting where we want to go as fast as we can and perhaps knowing we are not going to be caught. I have been pushing on this issue, and I am aware that colleagues across the Oireachtas have been pushing on this too, with regard to cameras at traffic lights and a portal where citizens can upload examples of bad behaviour. This issue is just being passed around from Department to Department and from State agency to State agency. It needs a political leader to grasp it and ensure we actually make progress. As far as I can see, we are not making progress. If we can get past the administrative, legal and technical challenges, there is a huge benefit to be accrued from tackling the issues around breaking red lights, parking on footpaths, parking in bus lanes, and parking in cycle lanes. Cameras on buses can record car driver behaviour as buses are driving their route. It is a critically important issue that needs somebody to run with it and make progress on it.

The second issue is probably outside the remit of this legislation, which is the alarming trend in sales of heavier and larger vehicles now. I chaired the Oireachtas Joint Committee on Environment and Climate Action. We had a presentation from the European Federation for Transport and Environment, a lobby group based in Brussels. We were discussing the climate consideration of this trend but every member of that committee was struck by the safety issues that came through. Everyone walked out of the room that day and said we have to address this. These vehicles are safer for the people in them but they create a hostile and dangerous environment for the people outside of them. That is a real problem. I do not believe success in the context of road safety can only be measured by reduced fatalities and reduced injuries, even were we to get down to zero fatalities and injuries, if in tandem with that we create an utterly hostile environment for people who are walking and cycling such that we do not have people using those modes. That would not be success. We must address that alarming trend.

The third issue is around access to collision data from the Road Safety Authority, RSA, for roads researchers and road safety auditors, and indeed for practitioners at local and national level. I understand it was discussed last week at a Society of Road Safety Auditors' seminar in Sligo. Apparently there is an issue with GDPR, and this has gone to the commissioner. There is a lot of concern, especially among road safety auditors and researchers, that they do not have access to historical collision data. It is very much in the public interest. Many countries produce anonymised data about collisions that in turn go on to inform policies. There is a gap there. In addition, the RSA produced a child casualties report recently. The statistics on the numbers of serious injuries and fatalities of children over the past eight years is truly shocking, with 56 children killed in the past eight years and 852 seriously injured. Interestingly, two out of three of those were on urban roads. The report focused solely on the victim and did not actually show data relating to the driver, the type of vehicle, the road design and so on. Perhaps the Minister of State will relay that concern back to the Road Safety Authority. If for some reason data are not provided for researchers, it is a real problem and we need to overcome this.

I appreciate the Deputy's own interest and input on this whole area. On the first issue relating to camera-based enforcement, we must make progress on that. The first issue identified, which has been resolved, is whether it required further legislative change. Section 81 of the Road Traffic Act provides for the use of cameras by the Garda to assist in the detection of certain offences. There has been clarification around that. Work will be presented to me in November. At the November meeting of the road safety transformation partnership board, which I chair, a National Transport Authority-led working group is due to present recommendations and proposals around the increased use of camera-based enforcement. We will take forward the proposals, once received, through the legislative enabler group if legislative changes are required. In addition, a delegation of Department officials, along with officials from the RSA, An Garda Síochána and NTA are visiting Scotland this month to observe their camera-based enforcement setup. Following this technical visit, it is expected that all agencies involved will consider how best to take this away.

The Deputy is correct that there are two issues. First there is the protection of vulnerable road users and the enforcement of breaches of our legislation, which we all see too often and especially in urban areas. Then there is upholding the wider public transport principles for the investment we are making in bus corridors and the other areas that go beyond road safety specifically. If we want to keep the integrity of public transport supported through our urban areas, we need to have much better camera-based enforcement and a wider use of technology more generally. Other members have spoken to that point. We will be able to provide further detail when the NTA group has made the presentation to us at the end of November. We are committed as a Government to making progress on this.

On the issue of larger and heavier vehicles, in the context of the scheme before us today and the slowing down of all vehicles in urban and rural areas, we know the difference it makes between a 30 km/h zone versus a 50 km/h or a 60 km/h zone and how this can save a life and reduce serious injury or harm. Separately, through the Department of Transport we are trying to incentivise the uptake of electric vehicles more generally.

They are often constructed of heavier components sometimes as well, so I know there are contradictory positions relating to the weight of particular vehicles, in respect of whether they are electric or not. Our focus is predominantly on the scheme we have and on addressing dangerous driver behaviours. I have read some news reports regarding what was referred to and I will also be interested to read some of the research undertaken.

I will ensure the material is passed on to the Minister of State. It is very interesting. If the Minister of State does agree with it, and I suspect he will, he might, in turn, relay it to the RSA for comment and analysis.

I have read news reports in this regard and I know there has been European consideration of this matter, but I would be interested in reading and considering the research. Based on the Deputy's request, we will certainly reflect this to the RSA and others as well. I thank the Deputy for raising this point.

Turning to the issue of collision data, its publication and access to information and data in this regard, we are trying to bring this aspect to a conclusion. This involves An Garda Síochána, the RSA and the Department of Transport. We are also working with the Data Protection Commissioner on trying to conclude this matter. I am aware that many in the academic community want greater access to information and data. I value their input in terms of getting academic contributions in the wider context of road safety measures and this is to be welcomed. We are trying to bring this process to a conclusion. It was discussed extensively at recent meetings on road safety, and, I said, we will try to conclude this endeavour shortly.

I thank Deputy Leddin. I call Senator Doherty, who would like to come back in.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach. I thought of a question just after I had finished my last contribution. I apologise to the Minister of State. Regarding the powers he has to change the baselines and the directions he gives to the councils, one of his colleagues mentioned earlier that it is sometimes frustrating to try to get a council to do things. What powers will be contained in the legislation to address a situation where they do not do something? If there is a desire to change all the speed limits from 80 km/h to 60 km/h, for example, and Fingal County Council just does not get around to doing it, what can we do?

The guidance and direction will be clear. This is what we are working on through the guidance we issue nationally. The Government decides, in a national context, to synchronise matters like this with the local authorities. It is the issuing of the guidance that ensures there will be a more focused approach on when and how changes happen than perhaps there was before.

I call Deputy Matthews.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for letting me in again. I wish to raise another few issues relating to road safety. I concur with Deputy Leddin concerning the prevalence of red-light running we see. I have this rule for my children when we are crossing the road that when we see the green man, we look twice as hard and should not assume that seeing the green man means that cars are going to stop. I have this rule drilled into them. It is unfortunate that we have to do this.

Deputy Martin Kenny raised an issue in respect of it not being necessary to have very long roads. I have a particular road in mind, which is just over 1 km long, that is quite straight and with clear lines of sight as well. When I was trying to propose that we have 30 km/h zones in Bray, I drove on these types of roads to see what the experience would be like. I found it difficult and came under pressure when the cars were building up behind me. One of the strongest indicators that can be given to drivers to let them know they are in a slower or 30 km/h zone may not necessarily be the 30 km/h signs around them. We can have engineering interventions or road layouts that indicate much more strongly to drivers that they should be driving slowly in an area. Does the legislation allow for this? The design manual for urban roads and streets, DMURS, is a little restrictive in respect of allowing engineers to do things like that, but we could consider how we could signal to drivers that they should drive more slowly on a road rather than just putting a 30 km/h sign on it.

Incidentally, a very good roads engineer whom I worked with before told me about a road layout that had been worked on. Before there was a chance to reline the road and provide all the users with the channels they should have been in, and in which they felt safe, people drove more slowly when all the road markings were missing. This was because they did not know where they were meant to be on the road. It was counterintuitive. We would tend to think it would have been the opposite. Yet people did drive more slowly when they did not know where they should have been. Working on these types of measures, therefore, can be counterintuitive sometimes.

In my constituency of Wicklow, 30 km/h zones have been introduced at schools. Solar-powered, light-emitting diode, LED, flashers are going to be erected to indicate to drivers that they are coming to these zones, and I think this has been done out of the county council's own budget. These mechanisms will only operate during school hours, but a very simple layout is required to install four of these flashers, two on either side of the road, outside a school. Equally, other simple interventions include, for example, changing the road colouring, using some material that will not wear off quickly, just to indicate to drivers they are at a school. I refer to the different coloured road markings we see and that cause us to realise when we enter them that we are approaching something different. These types of subtle interventions would be good.

Another aspect I raised with the Garda Commissioner previously was the ability for people to be able to submit photographs or footage from dash cameras or the cameras people wear on their cycle helmets, although not necessarily for use in prosecutions. I understand that could be difficult and that it would be necessary to look at such images and decide how valid they were. This type of material, however, could be well used to indicate a location that could be problematic. If many incident reports were received, and not necessarily accident reports, because that would mean something had gone wrong, while an incident is a situation where something could have gone wrong, such a build-up of submissions could be helpful as evidence to demonstrate the necessity of an intervention in an area. I do not know if the ability to undertake this type of submission was ever brought in or contained in the miscellaneous provisions in the Road Traffic and Roads Act 2023. The Garda Commissioner was concerned that the force would be deluged with loads of videos and photographs, which we can understand. I refer, however, to allowing such submissions to be made not for the purposes of prosecution but to determine what areas might be pinch points or locations of concern. I hope these aspects could be considered as well.

I thank Deputy Matthews. On the first point, the legislation relates to the default baseline. There is no legislative impediment to local authorities putting in the appropriate physical signs or other interventions required to slow traffic. Many of them are doing this, and we can see this happening here in the city, as well as in other towns and villages. As part of the overall active travel budget, this is being done to some extent.

Regarding what guidance or engineering standards might need to be tweaked to facilitate more of these interventions, that is a wider discussion. If we are reducing the speed limit in an urban area, at 30 km/h we wish to ensure that the signage and overall road and other infrastructural elements are engineered in a way that facilitates the appropriate speed limits. This is the wider context that will have to be reflected in guidance. There is nothing, however, restricting a local authority, from a legislative perspective, from progressing such interventions themselves and many of them have done that.

Turning to the point regarding schools, I recently met, as did the Minister, Deputy Eamon Ryan, with the safe routes to school team in the NTA who have done tremendous work in schools across the country in bringing value-engineered solutions in school environments to give quick progress to facilitate an uptake of active travel and accommodate pupils and their parents to walk or cycle to school. Some of these interventions may be those that Deputy Matthews referred to, but we are keen to expand this endeavour as well. A wider point we must consider is how we can ensure that this type of approach becomes the norm when schools are being designed and built. We are going to try to do further work on ensuring that the schools built today are fit for the future to enable active travel in respect of how they are being built. We are getting engagement in this regard.

Moving to the Deputy's point about the Garda Commissioner and submissions relating to the matter he referred to, there is a plan to establish an online portal to allow the reporting of incidents as part of a suite of introductions under the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022. This will involve the establishment and introduction of a digital evidence management system, DEMS. The legislation must be progressed before this system is established, and a tender process will also be necessary in this regard. This is the note I have received on this point specifically.

Is there a good guidance document available for roads engineers? I know there is the DMURS, but is a good guidance document available for these types of simple interventions that could be undertaken? I ask because we want consistency across the board. We do not want people to be driving from County Wicklow into County Dublin and then find that the district engineer there has decided he is going to paint his roads in that area blue, for example. We cannot have a multiplicity of approaches.

Yes, indeed. From the schools' perspective, for example, there is a safe routes to schools team that collaborates with local authorities on appropriate interventions.

We see those being built out. We will get a note to the committee on the specific guidance relating to schools. I am happy to provide that.

I appreciate that. I thank the Minister of State.

I thank the Minister of State and Deputy Matthews.

I thank the Leas-Chathaoirleach for letting me in again. I refer to Deputy Matthews's point on the creative interventions around schools or junctions. I had the privilege of spending quite a bit of time in France this summer and there seems to be very different culture in the local and regional government system there. They are empowered to use their own discretion, and often will move away from the national standard. They certainly have regard to it but use their own professional expertise as well. There is probably something to be said for giving our engineers and planners that level of discretion, notwithstanding the importance of having consistency and very good national standards, which we generally do between the new national cycle manual and the design manual for urban roads and streets. These are really good documents, but they are prefaced with the caveat that the engineer will use his or her professional judgment when designing. We should understand this and certainly empower them to be creative in their solutions.

Reference was made to the Garda Síochána (Recording Devices) Bill 2022, which needs to go through the Houses. It is very important. I believe it was introduced in August 2022 so we are 14 months on. Am I right in saying that?

That legislation is not being led by my Department.

Which Department is it?

The Department of Justice.

It was with Seanad Éireann yesterday.

It is a very important Bill.

We will get the benefit of it.

Indeed. The Minister of State knows that the Bill is very important to his remit even if it is not within his Department. I am sure the Minister of State will impress upon the Minister for Justice, Deputy McEntee, the importance of it.

I thank the Minister of State, Deputy Chambers, for his participation and contribution to road safety and all other aspects of his Department. The Minister of State has a very broad portfolio, not just in transport but also in communications. We did not touch too much on or start hitting the Minister of State with aviation points today but no doubt we will be back for fun and games on that some other day with detailed deliberations and discussions. It has been very useful to have this discussion and to see all the Minister of State is trying to do. The Minister of State is trying to get it in as soon as possible for the benefit of all road users, including those of us who are motorists one day, cyclists another day and pedestrians on another day. Sometimes this gets lost at committees where people believe they have to be the motorists' advocate or the cyclists' advocate. Most of us are multiple users of the public transport system and the road network generally. It important that it is safe for all of us all the time, urban and rural. I thank the Minister of State for what he is doing.

The joint committee adjourned at 3.43 p.m. sine die.
Top
Share