Traffic Regulations—Motion.

Mr. Duffy

I move:—

That Seanad Éireann is of opinion that in the public interest traffic regulations should be so framed as to require the driver of a mechanically propelled vehicle when passing along an urban thoroughfare and other built-up areas to slow down to a prescribed limit of speed.

Senators may be disposed to criticise this motion on the ground that it lacks definitiveness. I want to disarm that criticism by saying that it is left indefinite so that we may discuss the problem without committing the House, if the motion is adopted, to a particular speed limit or a particular set of regulations. If there is general agreement regarding a speed limit, we might ask the Minister, or we might ourselves determine, what a reasonable speed limit would be.

The frequency of accidents on public highways is causing uneasiness in many quarters. In recent times, a growing proportion of the accidents have been fatal and it is hard to pass through a week without reading of a fatal accident caused by a motor vehicle in Dublin. The position may not be as bad in other parts of the country, but we read of accidents in Athlone, Cork and Limerick. There seems to be a growing volume of fatal accidents. It may be a straining of the English language to refer to these incidents as "accidents", as in many cases they are inevitable, arising out of the conditions under which mechanically-propelled vehicles are used on the road. We have the careless driver, the driver who is intoxicated and the driver who has no regard for the welfare of the public or of animals, or even of passengers in his own car. These are hardly accidents at all, but incidents arising out of a criminal disregard for the public interest. In speaking of mechanically-propelled vehicles, I wish to include not only motor-cars, buses and lorries but all those other types of vehicles used on the highway. One may ask what remedy there is for this serious situation. If all the killings and injuries were due only to excessive speed, the matter would be simple, but they are not.

Excessive speed plays a big part in the category of incidents which lead to these deaths and injuries on the public road, but there are other types of carelessness—I have already referred to some of them—so that our job is to try to eliminate from the public highway the reckless driver, the drunken driver and the speed merchant. The alternative is the building of a chain of motor roads, if we are prepared to face the task of building special motor roads, as they have done in some parts of the United States, and allow the drivers of vehicles to fly along at any speed they like. That is one solution—keep the public off these highways and designate them, as we designate the railways, for a particular kind of traffic. Hardly any problem will then arise, except in the case of the deliberately unscrupulous or drunken driver.

Mr. Douglas

Or one who travels too slowly.

Mr. Duffy

He cannot, because he will be "hooshed" on, whether he likes it or not. The construction of a chain of motor roads will be a very slow and a very expensive undertaking, and, pending the provision of that network, we must take whatever precautions are open to us to save life and limb on the highways we have.

I might perhaps be permitted to refer to one or two incidents which happened quite recently for the purpose of drawing attention to the kind of thing that is happening and to which this resolution is directed. I do not propose to mention any case and I do not want the House to think that I have any particular case or any individual in mind. Unfortunately, on a previous occasion, when I was referring to the misuse of the highways by motorists, it was thought that I had in mind some individual who happened to be involved in legal proceedings some few days previously. That was not so, but I cannot avoid referring to statements in the public Press for the purpose of drawing attention to what is involved in the resolution.

I want to refer first to a case which was being tried recently before one of the metropolitan justices. One of the witnesses in that case said that he was working on a particular road on the evening of the incident and saw a motor coming from the direction of the city at a very fast rate. Another witness in that case said that the car was in the centre of the road and a man was sitting in it. When he got out of the car, he was unsteady on his feet. Another witness said that he was standing with his wife about 50 yards from where the accident occurred. The car was travelling as fast as he had ever seen a car travel and it was the excessive speed that drew his attention to it. I do not want to comment on the case, beyond drawing attention to the evidence that, when the man got out of the car, he was unsteady on his feet and to the fact that witnesses testified that the car was being driven at a very fast rate.

Another case occurred quite recently in which a man lost his life through his own fault. At the inquest, the coroner said there was no doubt that the deceased had been speeding at the time, that it was a blind and dangerous corner and that every effort should be made to prevent a recurrence of that type of accident. That was an accident due to speeding—wild and careless use of a vehicle by a gentleman who probably was not familiar with the topography of the area over which he was travelling.

A number of local authorities have been agitated by the constant recurrence of these accidents, so-called, and with these deaths within their functional areas, and they have been trying to take action to prevent them. Travelling to Longford a week ago, I noticed at the approach to the town a big notice stating "Speed limit 15 miles per hour". I am informed that there is no such speed limit and no lawful authority for the erection of that notice outside Longford; but it does, however, betray the anxiety of the local authority in Longford to try to restrict the speed of vehicles passing through their town, a very praiseworthy attempt to prevent the accidents and the killings which are becoming so common elsewhere. There is, however, no means of enforcing that speed limit and anybody who knows the law will pass by at 30, 40 or 50 miles per hour and pay no attention to it.

As a result of a recent incident in Dún Laoghaire, I notice, in a Press report on 6th July last, this paragraph:

"A motion was passed at the monthly meeting of Dún Laoghaire Council requesting the Government to permit local authorities, in the interests of public safety, to impose speed limits where they deemed it desirable to do so."

There is a request directed to the Government that local authorities be permitted to impose speed limits. I do not know whether that is a good solution. I think there is a lot to be said for permitting a local authority to determine these matters for itself, but there will be a lack of uniformity. You go into one town and find a notice, which may not be conspicuous, fixing a speed limit of 15 miles per hour, and, in the next town or village a few miles away, a limit of 35 miles per hour may have been fixed.

Mrs. Concannon

The conditions may be different.

Mr. Duffy

I agree entirely. I am merely raising the question so that members might consider whether it is desirable that local authorities should fix a speed limit for their own functional area, or whether the State should take power, through the Minister for Local Government or the Commissioner of the Garda, to fix a speed limit which would be uniform. My own view is that the speed limit, if there is to be a speed limit, cannot be uniform. For instance, at certain times of the day, no vehicle can safely pass Trinity College gate at a greater speed than three or four miles per hour, and one is lucky if one can get from the corner of Grafton Street to the Pillar in half-an-hour at certain times; but you can permit a greater speed out at Blackrock or Merrion gates, although there again there is need for a speed limit, because it is a built-up area and people cross the road. It is a thoroughfare used by children going to school and there are four or five places of public worship along that road.

There is always the danger of some person with some defect in hearing or with defective sight, some old person, walking out in front of a vehicle and paying the penalty, unless great care is exercised. When the 1933 Traffic Act was going through the Dáil there was a considerable amount of discussion on this question of a speed limit and where limits of speed were being fixed in respect of certain vehicles, such as single and double-deck buses and so on, heavy vehicles. The Minister at that time, and I am speaking entirely from memory, took the view that it was better not to fix a speed limit so that if any person was charged with an offence he could not plead that he was not exceeding the speed limit. That case was made 15 years ago. The local authorities, the Garda and the Government Departments concerned have had 15 years in which to study this question and I would be glad to know whether they are satisfied that there is no need for a speed limit now in respect of the ordinary motor-car. The procedure, I understand, if you want to fix a speed limit, is rather involved. I notice in the morning papers of the 4th August a notice by the Secretary of the Department of Local Government that an inspector of the Department has been appointed to inquire, at the Town Hall, Bray, into the request of the Bray Urban District Council to have an Order made under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, prescribing a speed limit of 20 miles per hour for mechanically-propelled vehicles on all roads in the urban district of Bray.

This is a case in which the local authority is proceeding, unlike the case of Longford, on orthodox lines. It is having an inquiry so that the Minister may prescribe a limit of speed. As I understand it, the position is that in the case of light vehicles there is no limit whatever unless it is prescribed by the Minister following a local inquiry. Section 46 of the Act of 1933 prescribes speed limits for certain classes of motor vehicles but no speed is prescribed for light motor vehicles and that perhaps includes motor cycles as well as motor cars. The section prescribes a speed limit of 20 miles per hour for double-deck buses and 25 miles per hour for single-deck buses.

Mr. Douglas

Twenty-five miles per hour anywhere?

Mr. Duffy

Yes, I think that is the position. Of course, they travel at 40 miles per hour. Section 48 of the Act provides for the making of a special speed limit applicable to any specified road or to all the roads in any specified area which may operate at all times or for specified hours on specified occasions. Special speed limits may be prescribed by the Minister after he has held a public inquiry but such regulations, however, cannot be made by the Minister except on the application of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána or on the application of a local authority in whose functional area is situated the road or roads to which such regulations relate. The matter of speed limits, I think, is obviously in a chaotic condition. Most people are anxious that something should be done to ensure the safety of the thoroughfare for every type of user whether pedestrian or a person driving his cattle to the fair or a person driving his donkey and cart to the market or a cyclist. It is a matter about which some differences of opinion will arise as to the method of approach.

Is the speed limit the best method and if so what speed limit? I have already intimated that I do not think that a uniform speed limit is possible. I have already indicated that the best people to prescribe what the best speed limit should be are the local authorities. They may want different speed limits for different parts of their areas. For instance, you do not require to limit the speed of vehicles between Sandycove and Dalkey to the same extent as when passing through Dún Laoghaire and the same applies to the City of Dublin, to Cork and to Limerick and to all other functional areas. In my opinion the speed limit is a subject which might be discussed properly between the local authority and the Garda authorities. If both bodies are authorised to prescribe a speed limit which would eventually require the sanction of the Minister they will arrive at a sensible arrangement appropriate to the area and appropriate to the kind of vehicles passing through that area or locality. One other observation I would like to make: if there is to be a speed limit there should be very severe penalties for those who violate it, just as there should be very severe penalties for those found guilty of other traffic offences. I have seen cases which seem to me to be of very little importance, where persons had not their licence displayed or where they overlooked some unimportant regulation of the Traffic Act and they were fined £5 or £10. I have also seen instances of persons driving carelessly or driving a car or lorry or bus while under the influence of drink and killing someone. They are charged with manslaughter, acquitted and pay no penalty whatever.

Mr. Douglas

If a man is acquitted you can do nothing about it.

Mr. Duffy

I agree, but these are problems. We know these things are happening. We know that people drive cars at 50 or 60 miles per hour in densely populated areas and even drive cars under the influence of drink. We also know that there are business houses within ten or 15 miles from Dublin that live on the traffic they ob-obtain between 10.30 p.m. and 12 midnight, because hundreds of cars leave this city and visit these refreshment houses and spend an hour and a half there. Do not we know that practically every person returning to the city from these refreshment houses is under the influence of drink? He may or he may not be incapable of driving a car. That is a matter about which there can be a good deal of doubt. Some people can contain a good deal of drink without being incapable of driving a car. Some people cannot contain any drink without being incapable of driving a car. My complaint is that what appear to be serious offences involving loss of life, by some means or other, seem to go unpunished. The answer may be that they are found not guilty. If the law is such that a person who has injured another or has taken a life on the highway can go unpunished then that law needs to be amended drastically. One of the safeguards by which you can amend the law is to fix a limit of speed. If the limit of speed within five miles of the borough boundary, say, between Santry and Swords, is 20 miles an hour and somebody is driving at the rate of 40 miles an hour and there is an accident, whether the accident is due to his negligence or not, as determined by the courts, he is at least guilty of driving in excess of the speed limit. I think it is an essential safeguard and one to which we should have recourse.

I do not think it is necessary to go into this matter at great detail. Every Senator is conscious of the need for tightening up the regulations. There may be a different approach from different sections of the House to the problem with which we are confronted but I think everybody admits that there is a problem and everybody admits that something must be done to remedy the evils to which I have drawn attention.

Miss Butler

I am very glad to second this motion, not so much because I think the motion to establish a speed limit in built-up areas will solve our traffic problem or even reduce very considerably the number of accidents as because I think it is important that it should be known that this House is aware of the serious situation that exists and the extent to which traffic has got out of control, especially in the City of Dublin.

A speed limit such as is suggested in the motion applies only to the built-up areas and in the built-up areas I venture to say the necessity is greatest in and around the City of Dublin. At the same time I do not want to suggest that it would not be beneficial in many country towns and villages. In fact I regard it as absolutely essential that motorists should be compelled to slow down as they pass through towns and villages.

I regard the traffic problem as a three-fold problem—a problem of control, a psychological problem, and a physical problem, by which I mean the planning and lay-out of the roads and all that goes with it. This question of the speed limit touches on all three aspects of the problem. There is first of all the question of control. In order to implement the speed limit, we would have to have adequate signs and warnings at the entry to every town. We would have to have a considerable amount of supervision in the early years in order to catch people who were breaking the regulations. What is far more important, and what Senator Duffy has already referred to, is that we would have to have the necessary powers to enforce substantial penalties when the culprits were caught.

In the Dublin Corporation I have been on committees that have discussed this problem with the Garda authorities and I have also discussed the matter unofficially with members of the Garda who are responsible for carrying out traffic control. They are of the opinion that a speed limit will be of immense value but they feel very strongly that, under present conditions, the value of the penalty would be lost by the fact that it is almost impossible to apply the penalty within a reasonable period of time. All offenders under the Road Traffic Acts pass through the ordinary District Courts. Often the cases are held up for months and by the time the culprit is brought to court he has forgotten the offence or the prosecuting Garda has not the same keen idea of the degree of the offence. There is not the same effect as immediate action would have. I would suggest that unless means are adopted by which the penalty under such a regulation could be enforced quickly a great deal of its effect would be lost.

I am not suggesting that that is the only traffic control that has to be looked into. The fact that a speed limit is imposed on mechanically propelled vehicles would convince pedestrians, who are often just as much to blame as drivers and riders, that there was some consideration for them. They would not feel, as they do at the moment, that they are the forgotten section of the community and that mechanical vehicles have the exclusive use of the roads. Of course, in law that is not the case but it is the idea that the pedestrian has, that he is not entitled to any consideration. It would also mean that there would be some degree of usefulness in pedestrian crossings which at the moment are of very little use to pedestrians from a safety point of view. If there is no speed limit, it is very doubtful whether a car can slow down quickly enough at a pedestrian crossing to allow the pedestrian to cross in safety.

The speed limit concerns the psychological approach to our traffic problem. Far too little thought has been given to this aspect of the problem. By far the greatest number of accidents and the greatest amount of confusion and congestion is caused by lack of road manners. That can only be initiated in the very young. The introduction of the speed limit would act as a code. The fact that at the entry to every town there would be a large sign indicating that the speed limit was 20 or 30 miles an hour, as the case might be, would have a psychological effect. People would slow down automatically; they would take a little more care and be a little more on the look out for people stepping off the pavement. The whole tempo of traffic would be slowed down. From that point of view, the speed limit would be of immense value.

There only remains the physical aspect of the problem, and by that I mean the general layout of the roads and the congestion caused by bad planning in towns and cities. The speed limit would be difficult to enforce in a town that is badly laid out and on roads that are unsuited to traffic. It would be difficult to arrive at a uniform speed limit that would be suitable to overcome all the difficulties that exist. Dublin, for instance, where the greatest problem exists from the point of view of congestion, is an old city. It is congested in its centre and, except for certain streets, is unsuited to modern traffic. Certain proposals have been made by the planning authorities for arterial roads, and for linked roads to take the heavy traffic, which could bye-pass the city. If these proposals could be speeded up much of the congestion in the centre of the city would be disposed of.

It is unfortunate that the road plan for Dublin, which has been lodged in the Local Government Department for the last two years, and on which there has been no comment whatsoever so far, has been held up in this way. This may seem irrelevant to the question of a speed limit, but I should like to point out that whenever the question of traffic is mentioned in the City of Dublin we are always told by the Garda authorities, and other responsible bodies, that there is no possibility of improving traffic conditions while certain congested areas are allowed to exist. We are told that as long as bridges across the Liffey are not constructed that we must accept the condition that we have in the centre of Dublin. We are told that, as long as the widening of streets leading to the bridges is not proceeded with, there is no point in discussing other aspects of the traffic problem.

I do not subscribe to that at all. I merely mention it in passing because I feel that it will be an argument that will be put forward, and to emphasise the need there is for speeding up a decision from the Department of Local Government on road planning. There are other reasons why it should be speeded up. In the meantime all proposals for rebuilding must be decided on the basis that the plan submitted for the roads of Dublin will be accepted. There is nothing else to go on. Meantime, buildings are going up and repairs and reconstruction are going on. If one street is widened by one, two or three feet that will involve the City of Dublin in immense sums by way of compensation. This hold up in the road plan is made the excuse by the traffic authorities for taking no action.

There is another matter concerning traffic congestion in the city and speed limits. It is a ridiculous position that in this country anybody, the halt, the lame and the blind, can apply for a driving licence without providing any evidence that they are capable of driving. It may seem slightly ridiculous to refer to a speed limit at all when such a state of affairs exists—that we have no driving test in this country.

There are many other things which would help in the safety of the roads such as more islands, the marking of separate lines for traffic and crossing lines for pedestrian traffic. These will all be useless if we cannot instil into the people of the country a code of good manners on the road. I feel, as regards speed, that the worst offenders are young men in their 'teens and their twenties. I have been driving a car myself for about 14 years and while in no way trying to exonerate women drivers from the desire to speed, I have no hesitation in saying that the youths evidently find some excitement in driving at a high speed. They do not appear to have developed a great sense of responsibility.

From my experience in other countries, I have come to the conclusion that a speed limit is essential. Last year I took a car across England, to Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Germany. I drove through all the capitals of those countries and through many of the small towns and villages. In not one single town or village through which I passed was there the absence of a speed limit. In most cases it corresponded to the English 30 miles an hour. I do not feel myself competent to express an opinion as to what would be a suitable speed limit in view of the vast strides which have been made in the design of cars. It might be more dangerous to suggest 20 miles an hour than 50 miles for a certain type of car. That is a point on which only the expert can give us advice. I feel, however, that a speed limit would be of immense value.

Senator Duffy referred to alternatives to apply in the built-up areas. I think that the argument that the people would not co-operate has been disproved by the reactions of the driving public to traffic lights. When they were first suggested quite a number of people asked what was the good of having them, but experience has shown that they have been a success and are being obeyed.

The only other objection that I could imagine anyone offering to the motion is the cost, but if you can improve the safety of the roads and save human lives that is not something that can be measured in terms of money. We do feel obliged to spend money in trying to make our roads. safer. I feel certain that the Government, and particularly the Department of Local Government, do want to make our roads better and safer. I hope that the Department will do all in its power to hurry up planning legislation which would help to relieve congestion and would to a great degree solve our traffic problems in the cities and towns.

In Dublin we have the oldest tradition of a planning authority in Europe. We had the Wide Streets Commissioners, a body which was set up in 1754 for the express purpose of making our streets and laneways safe for vehicular and pedestrian traffic. We know the magnificent work which these commissioners did. Between 1754 and 1840, when they were abolished, they were responsible for the provision of our wide, open streets, for the wide and spacious bridges in our city and for one of the first circular roads in Europe which set a headline for other countries to follow. Our Irish Parliament, all through its years of struggle for Irish independence, passed 16 Acts of Parliament over a number of years and gave large sums of money for the widening and improvement of the streets of Dublin. I have much pleasure in seconding the motion.

Mr. Summerfield

I speak on this motion as a responsible motorist with 40 years' driving experience. I have had an equal number of years in the motor business. I have, perhaps, a more intimate knowledge of the causes and results of motor accidents than any other member of the House. While I would welcome a decision on the motion, I sincerely hope that the House will throw it out, because speed limits themselves will not eliminate accidents. They will not eliminate the drunken, reckless driver. I want to say at once that the vast majority of motorists are responsible people and that they deprecate the road hog, the reckless and the drunken driver just as vehemently as Senator Duffy and Senator Miss Butler do. Most accidents on the road can be attributed to causes other than speed. The cyclists are to be seen in the city riding 12 abreast, so why seek to put the responsibility on the motorist? Last night, between here and Sutton, I passed hundreds of cyclists without lights back or front, and I had to take care of them. The compulsory dimming regulations will make it impossible to see cyclists six or eight yards ahead. We want to see dangers eliminated, but we have a new bus terminus perpetuating one of the biggest bottle necks in the city. Right angles anywhere are wrong, yet between here and Howth new roads have been built and right angles created. Those are the dangers which cause the accidents. The Killester colony, built some 20 years ago, has a series of right angles, and streams of traffic pouring on to a busy bus route.

I am not hostile to the motives of Senators Duffy and Butler, but we have lived through speed limit regulations and, if statistics could be produced, they would show a greater percentage of road accidents than in proportion to the traffic. The average motorist then was persecuted by stop-watch cops and there were fines if you were caught doing more than 20 miles an hour. The only fine I got in my life was for scorching on a bicycle.

Furthermore, what about straying cattle, donkeys and horses on all our main roads to Cork or Galway? What about country crossroads, with high hedges which should not be there in this 20th century? Why wait until someone buys the corner plot and builds right up to the edge of the road, making it impracticable to get rid of the danger? We talk about road improvements. We all agree that anything that could save even one life should be given consideration. Why not deal with those improvements now? I came back recently from America and whilst in those busy cities I saw that, where secondary roads emerged on main thoroughfares, there were huge "Stop" notices and everybody, whether motorist or cyclist, had to come to a complete stop. These are the wise precautions which have arisen from experience in eliminating accidents.

I join in the statements on the leniency shown by many magistrates to the driver convicted of being in charge of a car while drunk. A man should not be allowed to drive a vehicle when under the influence of drink and incapable of controlling a car. It is hard to determine such intoxication, but where the evidence is overwhelmingly conclusive the penalty should be one to meet the offence.

Regarding safety zones, take the one at Amiens Street station. We motorists stop religiously there at the pedestrian crossing but in come the weaving cyclists in front of us and the pedestrians cannot cross. That is the daily experience of people using the streets. We do not need a speed limit to reduce the number, of accidents. What about the psychological reaction on the motorist, who imagines that a maximum speed is his minimum? The average motorist accommodates his speed to the road conditions, but there are times when six miles an hour is dangerous and if you tell people with a certain mentality that the speed limit is 15 they will imagine that they are within their legal rights at 15, no matter what the conditions are. From my experience, I say that a new speed limit will achieve nothing, but will be a blistering nuisance on the vast majority of road users.

Regarding the speed of motor buses, does anyone imagine that the public time schedules could be maintained if the prescribed limit were enforced? Apart from buses, take the long distance lorry. We have many regulations available to the Gardaí already which are not being enforced. One of them compels the motor lorry to have a driving mirror. Many of the lorries on our roads to-day have no mirror at all and it is quite impossible for the driver to see overtaking traffic, but these are things which have, to my own knowledge, caused accidents, and within the past 12 months.

Another thing which I know has, in itself, been the cause of many accidents is the fact that many of our roads are not properly cambered, and they are roads of recent creation or repair. When we talk about accidents on the roads, let us examine all the contributory causes and not concentrate our attention on something which is antediluvian and out of date. Senator Butler referred to speed limits that still obtain in certain cities in Europe. I know other cities where there are no speed limits. If it suits these cities to have them, it is probably because nobody has made a move to get rid of them.

We should be very chary and hesitant about asking for the reimposition of a speed limit. That, in itself, would do nothing. I feel that this discussion and whatever publicity it may get will do the more important thing, that is, will focus the attention of the community generally on a lot of dangers which we are maintaining and continuing to create, and which, in themselves, inevitably cause accidents. I strongly urge on the sponsors of this motion to be satisfied with the discussion and the publicity it may get, and incidentally whatever I get myself, and not to press the motion. Let the authorities be asked to use the powers they already have concerning some of the matters I have mentioned, which I feel sure every person in this House knows represent sound sense.

You cannot go 20 miles out of any of our cities without being confronted by crossroads in a country where land at present is relatively cheap but where the view of the driver of a vehicle coming from a side road on to a main road is completely blocked by high hedges. Apart from these high hedges, why not immediately proceed to round off all these rectangular crossroads which in themselves have been the cause of more fatal accidents than any member of the House has any conception of? I know of a very tragic incident involving a personal friend of mine at a crossroads, a crossroads which was nowhere near an urban area, and, incidentally, high speed was not in question. It was simply a case of two vehicles converging at a country crossroads. The driver of one vehicle lost his head, and, instead of turning away from the other vehicle, drove into it, with the result that the driver was killed and his sweetheart sitting behind him was maimed for life. These are things which burn into a man's mind, but because they happened remote from any urban area and through causes which were in no way affected by speed, I again ask the sponsors of the motion not to press it because I am satisfied, from my own experience, that it would not achieve the objects it desires to achieve.

Professor Bigger

I cannot claim quite Senator Summerfield's experience of motoring. So far as I can recollect, I have been driving motor cars for 39 years, but even that short period, I think, entitles me to have some views on this matter. I should like to say, in the first place, that with the underlying motives which caused the proposer and seconder to bring this motion forward, I am in thorough agreement. I would favour anything which would tend, even in a small degree, to reduce the number of accidents, whether fatal or non-fatal and, if I were convinced that a speed limit would do that, I would agree to it. I think it might be supplemented by other things which I shall mention, but, if there is to be a speed limit, it must be a reasonably practicable speed limit. We are told that there are speed limits of 20 and 25 miles per hour for buses and we know that no bus driver could attempt to obey the law in that respect. If you are going to provide for a speed limit of 25 miles per hour in Dublin, every motorist will laugh at it and disobey it, and our courts are not nearly large enough to hold all who will break that law. The way to bring law into disrepute is to make it incapable of practical application.

There are difficulties if one is to attempt to prescribe a speed limit. How is one to define "urban thoroughfare", "built-up area" and that sort of thing? The English definition, I believe, is a road or street lit by public lamps. That would be quite impracticable here. Parts of the Phænix Park are lit by lamps and are we to have the same speed limit there as in Grafton Street? Again, are we to have the same speed limit throughout an urban area, say, in Grafton Street and in Morehampton Road? You would have to have the very maximum permitted speed, a speed so high as to be quite useless in the dangerous areas, because, as somebody said, four or five miles an hour in College Green might be quite excessive.

Another point is that, if you have a speed limit, it will be put forward as a defence, when an accident occurs, that the motor-car involved was travelling well below the maximum speed. It may not be a legal defence, but it is going to carry weight, and there is going to be a tendency for the average rate of motorists' driving to be very close to that permitted speed. Under certain conditions, as I say, I would favour the imposition of a speed limit. One is that it would be reasonable, but the more important one is that it would be part of a general policy. I should be completely against the bringing into force of regulations imposing a speed limit and doing nothing else. If we had a complete safety code, part of which prescribed a speed limit, I would agree with the reasonableness of it and attempt to obey it.

There are, however, alternative, methods and practicable methods of reducing the number of accidents. Two of the recent fatal accidents which occurred in the vicinity of Dublin occurred on stretches of roads where the motoring papers had predicted that an accident would occur. The roads are badly constructed; they are wrongly cambered; and they are inviting an accident. My son, who is a better motorist than I am, predicts that, in the near future, there will be a serious accident on the portion of the road at Loughlinstown Fever Hospital, on the hill where the road curves, because the camber there is wrong. It may be recorded that it is predicted that there will be a serious accident. there and we will see whether it occurs. If one can predict by looking at a road that an accident will occur, surely the obvious precaution is to change the road. It is not a question of any big process of rebuilding or replanning. It is a question of correctly cambering the road.

Senator Butler has referred to the question of education. Every road user wants education. A great many motorists want it; cyclists want it even more; and pedestrians also want it. I was driving a couple of weeks ago in Sligo, following fairly slowly a small car. The driver of the car gave the signal for me to pass and then turned to the right. What can you do with people like that? They are suicides, although, in that case, nothing happened. I was not driving myself and we were going slowly, so an accident was avoided; but I or my driver might very well have been blamed, if an accident had occurred. That driver wanted education. Cyclists want education even more. They give no signals or they give wrong signals, while pedestrians just gander across the street without looking to the right or to the left to see whether traffic is or is not coming. The respect that the pedestrian has for the brakes of motor cars is beyond comprehension. Even Senator Summerfield's new car will not pull up as rapidly as some pedestrians think it should.

I am thoroughly in favour of treating in the most severe way in the courts abuse of alcohol leading to accidents. As to overcrowding of cars—the baby Austin with four adults and seven children—no driver can drive a car safely in such conditions. As to breaches of existing regulations—we have some very reasonable regulations. We have traffic lights. Senator Miss Butler, in her innocence, said that the cyclists obeyed these lights. I follow a different road into town from Senator Summerfield. Almost every day I cross Essex Bridge, approach the City Hall and turn left into Dame Street. Six times out of seven the light is at red when I reach the City Hall. I stop Every other motorist stops. I have never seen a motorist jumping that light. Every time I stop at that corner I am passed, not merely on the left, but on the right, by hordes of cyclists. I have scarcely ever seen a cyclist stop at that light. The regulations are there. Why do not the guards enforce them? You have a safety device in the lights. The lights are a thing that I respect even if I can see around the corner, even if I know there is not a single vehicle, pedestrian or cyclist within a quarter of a mile. I think everyone should respect the red light, and until cyclists are made to respect them, by being fined, I do not see any great future for safety.

In connection with how you are to deal with cyclists, my suggestion would be singularly unpopular. It is, that every cyclist should have a number. I would not enforce a big licence fee, say 1/- a year or something of that sort, but why should not a cyclist have a number? Then he will know his number can be taken and that he can be prosecuted instead of accelerating rapidly and getting out of the way before he can be caught. That device is a very simply enforced one and would do a great deal to ensure greater safety.

As to the suggestion that Senator Summerfield made of having stops on roads approaching major roads, an increase of those is of the greatest importance and every stop signal should be treated with the utmost respect and any breach of that regulation should be heavily penalised. It is no use having regulations unless you see that they are enforced. One is entitled, if travelling on a main road, passing a junction at right angles to assume that nothing is going to come out on the main road. If it does, it is the fault of that thing that comes out, if an accident occurs.

There is one other suggestion which would do a great deal to obviate serious accidents. The majority of the accidents the scene of which I have visited subsequent to the accident have been, not on right angle bends but on slow curves, often on a fairly narrow road. On these, there is, in this country, practically no prohibition on passing. If you had properly marked lines on the surface of the road, as there is in England, showing where passing is allowed and where passing is not allowed, it would be one of the cheapest safety devices. A few men with whitewash in a bucket could put the marks on the road. The places where the marks are to go would need a good deal of consideration. That is a very cheaply applied remedy and would do a great deal to avoid danger. You could do that on these dangerous curves, on pretty well cambered roads. In that way you would cut down very considerably the number of serious accidents.

I could talk at considerable length on this question but I am sure other Senators want to talk. I hope I have contributed a few suggestions. I want to say again that, if speed limits are introduced in a reasonable and intelligent way as part of a general safety code, I would favour them. Speed limits alone, without anything else, I would oppose completely.

Mr. R.M. Burke

I do not intend to delay the House by repeating the many useful suggestions which have already been made. I counted over 30 suggestions made here this evening. The debate should do a great deal of good and I entirely agree that all the contributory causes of accidents should be taken into consideration. I want to mention a few points that have not been referred to. First of all, there is the matter of small country towns. If we were to have a speed limit in these towns, 20 miles an hour in some towns and 15 miles in others, might be considered reasonable, but on days when there is a fair in the town and when the town is full of animals, it might not be safe to travel at ten miles an hour. If there is to be a speed limit it should be made clear that if a driver says he was not driving above the speed limit that fact should not exonerate him. It should still be within the power of the Guards to prosecute a person for dangerous driving because, in certain circumstances, ten miles an hour, or even less, might be dangerous driving, especially in small country towns that have very narrow streets.

I still believe that there is a lot to be said for a speed limit. In many parts of Ireland considerable improvements have been carried out on the roads but I agree that enough has not been done yet. In some cases we have widened the roads considerably and have widened corners and made curves instead of right-angle bends. I have discussed this matter with a number of people, members of the Galway County Council, and others, and a good many of them have said to me that we spend thousands of pounds widening these roads and improving the corners and the result is that the motorist goes twice or three times as fast and the roads are just as dangerous as they were at the start. Therefore I think there is a very strong case for a speed limit.

Another point in favour of the speed limit is that some drivers are absentminded. I would not say that every driver going fast does it simply through selfishness. A good deal of it is done through selfishness and thoughtlessness and bad manners but some may do it because of absent-mindedness. If there were a speed limit and if they were continually reminded by notices warning of the speed limit it would make them concentrate more and they would be more careful. As Senator Miss Butler said, it would have a psychological effect. If there is to be a speed limit, I believe it would be desirable to have uniformity to the extent that if there are two towns in different counties that are similar in every respect the speed limit should be the same in each. I do not think it would be desirable to leave the matter entirely to a local authority because in one county they might have a speed limit ten miles an hour or five miles an hour lower than the speed limit in the adjoining county. I suggest that the system should be to have officials of the Department who would travel the whole country and inspect the various towns and villages and decide what would be a reasonable speed limit for each.

In the case of built-up areas and of country towns, I think that the whole situation should be considered seriously. At the same time, I do not say that you can decide on a speed limit and have it efficiently controlled. Senator Summerfield suggested if that were to be done efficiently you would need to have Guards all over the country with stop watches in their hands. I do not believe that would meet the situation. I believe that what you want is to focus public opinion on this question generally, and try to get the motoring public to realise their responsibilities and cyclists as well.

There is one thing that needs urgent attention and that is the question of headlights. I drove from Clonmel to Dublin last night and from my experience I can say that it is a miracle there are not many more accidents. In connection with headlights, I believe there is a new invention on the market now, some type of a non-dazzle glass. A man driving against headlights in present circumstances might as well pull something over his head, for he can see nothing. You can only hope for the best. Last night, I passed 20 or 30 cars coming in the opposite direction, and the only reason why there was not somebody killed was because there were no cyclists on the road. That is all known to the cyclists, but if a cyclist is brought up in court for not having a tail-light on his bicycle there is sympathy for him and the judge is considered a terrible man if he just fines him. I suppose we have a tradition of law-breaking in the country, going back for centuries, and it is not easy to get us wittingly to accept any regulations.

I believe that what we want is not so much any hard and fast laws as to the speed at which we should travel, but propaganda telling the people their duties and responsibilities. We should not, at the same time, allow ourselves to run away with the idea that because a man happens to drive a car he has no sense of proportion. The average man driving a car is afraid of his life that he will run on top of somebody. We have known people who had the misfortune to run people down, through no fault of their own, and they have been haunted for the rest of their lives by the memory of the occurrence. I know that I am in mortal terror, when driving, that I might knock down some small kid. What you want is to get people thinking on right lines, by means of pictures or something of that kind, rather than trying to regiment them.

Debate adjourned.

The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday, August 11th, 1948.

Seanad Éireann debate - Thursday, 5 Aug 1948

Traffic Regulations—Motion.

Seanad Éireann debate -
Thursday, 5 Aug 1948