Senator McGuire said last night that he found certain difficulty in speaking after the Parliamentary Secretary had spoken. He said he felt like a person speaking at a banquet after the National Anthem had been sung and everybody was prepared to go home. I feel like an advocate addressing the court after judgment has been given, and, therefore, instead of trying to act the part of an advocate and to influence the court, perhaps it may not be regarded as contempt of court if I make some comments on the judgment which was delivered by the Parliamentary Secretary last night on this motion.
I do not feel very strongly in favour of the motion or against it, but I do think it is eminently one of those motions that is suitable for debate in the Seanad. The state of the roads is a matter of common concern. Everybody is agreed that a great deal requires to be done in the interest of road safety and I certainly would not suggest for one moment that the imposition of a speed limit, whether desirable or not in itself, would solve the problem. At most, I suggest it is worthy of consideration and I think it might form a valuable item in a programme of road reform containing a great many other items as well.
The Parliamentary Secretary used as one of his arguments against a compulsory speed limit the great difficulty of enforcement, and it seems to me that one or two comments may be made on that. In the first place, presumably, it is enforced to some extent elsewhere where it prevails. I do not suggest it is 100 per cent. enforced, but I cannot imagine that the speed limit under the British Road Transport Act of 1934 is a complete dead letter and, therefore, if it can be enforced even partially in other countries, I do not see why it could not be enforced here.
Even if every offender against a speed limit was not prosecuted, it seems to me that if a percentage of offenders were prosecuted, say one in ten, that the threat of such prosecution, the knowledge that it might take place, would have the effect of reducing the average standard of speed, that it is the fear of prosecution, the fear of being the unlucky one who may happen to be prosecuted, that would keep people under a certain speed limit. Arising out of that, it seems to me that it would be a good thing to give people, especially the younger generation of motorists who have grown up in the motor age, a more moderate conception of what a correct speed limit is. After all, 40 or 50 years ago, the most rapid vehicle on the highway was a car drawn by a trotting horse going perhaps 12 or 15 miles an hour. With the coming of motor cars people's ideas of a proper speed have been enormously magnified. I do not think that, apart from doctors on urgent calls and fire brigades, there are many engagements in this country that necessitate proceeding at more than 30 or 35 miles an hour, especially in built-up and urban areas. Even if the speed limit were partially enforced, even if there was a great deal of evasion, the very fact of partial enforcement is something in itself, on the principle that half a loaf is better than no bread, and if you can get down the average speed limit I suggest you are doing a good deal.
I do suggest that the excessive speed which takes place on Irish roads, especially in built-up areas, is responsible for a great deal of damage which takes place on the roads. The Parliamentary Secretary stated that only 12½ per cent. of the fatal road accidents in this country were caused by excessive speed. Of course, I must accept those figures, but I do suggest that a great many accidents arising from other causes have had fatal consequences which they otherwise would not have had, and much more serious consequences than they otherwise would have had, owing to the speed at which the vehicles were being driven. I cannot help feeling that a reduction in the speed limit generally, especially in urban areas, would not only reduce the number of accidents directly arising from excessive speed, but would reduce the number of fatal accidents and the appalling consequences of many other accidents arising from other causes. In other words, I suggest a reduction in the speed limit might have cumulative good effects beyond the immediate direct effects.
Even if that were not the case, even if there were no cumulative indirect effects, I suggest that if the 12½ per cent. of the fatal accidents which arise from excessive speed could themselves be seriously reduced or altogether abolished, that would be in itself a serious contribution to the cause of road safety.
Roughly speaking, there were 300 people killed in road accidents last year and 12½ per cent. of 300 would be something like 35 or 40 people. Even to reduce the number of casualties by that number would be a contribution towards the cause of road safety. I do not wish to repeat what I said last night about statistics, but I do say that the Act of 1934, which imposed a speed limit for built-up areas in Britain, also introduced various devices to ensure safety on the roads and the reduction in the number of accidents which took place as a result, when shown statistically by a series of graphs and curbs, was quite astonishing. That, of course, must be attributed, not only to the reduction of the speed limit, but to the various other devices which were introduced, but I do suggest that the reduction in the speed limit must have helped to a very considerable extent in bringing about that result. So much for what the Parliamentary Secretary said.
I take it that while the matter is still sub judice, we have to await the result of the Bray Inquiry. May I say in passing that I am extremely pleased to hear that there is also the possibility of an inquiry regarding the speed limit in Dun Laoghaire, because, of all the places I know where speeding is highly undesirable, I think the sea front from Sandycove to Monkstown is the area where possibly the most dangerous speeding takes place at present. I am extremely glad to hear that an inquiry with the object of reducing the speed limit in that particular area is in contemplation. I hope that if the Commissions of Inquiry in connection with Bray and Dun Laoghaire recommend the introduction of a speed limit inside those areas that the Minister will turn his attention to the possibility of extending that speed limit to other urban areas. If there are arguments in favour of adopting a speed limit in those areas, these arguments would apply equally in favour of its adoption in other areas as well. Although, as I have said, I do not wish to attach too much importance to any one remedy, I am inclined to argue in favour of a general speed limit in built-up areas in the country, as one part, and only one part, of a programme of full road safety.
The criticism of the motion by members of the Seanad was based very largely on the grounds that speeding is only one of the causes of road accidents. That, of course, is so. A number of other causes were mentioned, all of which, of course, are relevant. I am quite prepared to admit that there could be a much better cross-roads system, better roads, better cambers and a better system of tests for driving licences. There is, as the Parliamentary Secretary said yesterday, need for a very much more rigorous enforcement of the existing regulations, not only in regard to motorists, but in regard to other users of the road as well.
Here I would like to lend my support to what Senator Bigger has said about the part played in road accidents by the cyclist. Cyclists should be compelled to carry reflectors, as they are in other countries, and should also be obliged to carry identification plates. At a time when there is so much chaos on the roads and so much destruction of life owing to accident, every vehicle that can proceed at a fast pace should be at least identifiable. I do most seriously suggest for the consideration of the Minister the possibility of having identification plates for ordinary pedal bicycles. I can conceive of nothing, in the City of Dublin certainly, that would do more to assist a solution of the traffic problem than the possibility of cyclists being brought to justice for offences against traffic regulations. If a motorist offends in the slightest against the traffic regulations, he can be pursued, identified and prosecuted but a cyclist can transgress in every possible way and can get right away in many instances, without incurring any danger of prosecution. I suggest that all these are measures of reform that should be undertaken to increase road safety.
I suggest also that the speed at which different vehicles travel is very relevant and that all these other causes of road accidents and the injury and damage resulting from these causes are immensely aggravated when vehicles are travelling at a high speed. Therefore, I believe that a reduction in the average speed of motor vehicles would have the effect of reducing the evil consequences of what, I admit, are other causes of road accidents. In other words, I would say that the opposition to Senator Duffy's motion is really based on the ground that the motion does not go far enough, that the introduction of a speed limit in itself will not be sufficient to deal with the question of road accidents. While I perfectly agree that the net effect of one measure will not of itself achieve 100 per cent. results, that is no reason for not introducing that measure as a preliminary to other measures. The whole course of the debate has shown the magnitude of the problem.
I think, perhaps, it might be well to draw the attention of the Seanad to the complete revolution that has taken place in our lives in the last 30 years, owing to the introduction of widespread private ownership, in the hands of private individuals, of fast-moving road vehicles. I remember, as a boy, reading "A Tale of Two Cities," the story of the French Revolution, and I remember how indignant I was made to feel by the picture drawn of the carriages and chariots of the French nobility rolling along and throwing the peasants and poor people in on the side of the road. The fact of the matter is that since then, the question of chariot driving along the roads has become a very much more serious problem than ever it was in France, in pre-revolutionary times. In the first place, there are a very great many more chariots driving along the roads to-day. It is hoped in the United States that sooner or later everybody will have his own motor car, and even here at home a great many people have motor cars to-day.
I might say, incidentally, that it is rather interesting to study in a city like Dublin, the accommodation provided for private vehicles. If you look at the houses in Dublin built up to about 1860, you will find that all the big houses had stables. That meant that the richer people who lived in these houses had their own private carriages. They were what were known in my young days as the carriage folk. When I was young the people who had carriages were a privileged small minority. Ordinary people such as myself had to walk when they did not hire a conveyance. In the period from 1860 up to 1920 there were very few stables built in the city, and you can date the building of a house in the city and suburbs by the absence of stables. With the advent of railroads, trains and trams were the vehicles largely used by the people, and even the richer people did not pretend to have private vehicles of their own.
I may say parenthetically that it is interesting to compare the attitude of the later 19th century towards the question of safety in travel with the attitude of to-day. The new mode of travel in the 19th century was the railway, and the railway was hedged around with the most elaborate precautions against danger to life. Even at present, when you consider the cost to life and limb of road travel, not to speak of the nervous excitement occasioned to people by accidents on the roads, and compare that with the relative safety of travel on the railways, you will see why the railways, so far as safeguards to human life are concerned, are rated so high in the public estimation.
We now find in the later housing schemes that every house, practically speaking, has a garage. Take the new houses built in the neighbourhood of Dublin and you will find that a garage for a small car is almost invariably part of the architecture of the house. All that indicates that every man to-day, so to speak, has a vehicle of his own. That, to my mind, represents a complete revolution which has not been sufficiently appreciated. One hundred years ago the number of privately-owned vehicles on the roads in the cities of Ireland was very small; to-day it is very great. Therefore, the revolution brought about by privately-owned vehicles creates a problem much greater than 100 years ago. But remember, not only has the number of these vehicles increased, but also their speed. The chariots of the French nobility never exceeded, I should think, four or five miles per hour. The chariots of the modern motorists can proceed with very little effort at 50 or 60 miles per hour. When you take the weight of an ordinary motor vehicle and multiply the weight by the velocity—I am not a physicist, but I think you will get a figure showing that the impact or momentum of such colliding bodies will be very considerable.
The position at present is that everybody who can afford, either by backing a winner at a dog race or something else, to spend £500 or £600 can launch on the public highways a ton of metal which can proceed at 60 miles per hour. To my mind, that is even more dangerous than a V1. After all, the V1 can only touch the ground once, whereas the motor car is touching it the whole time. Really, the position is that every suburban house on the new housing estates is really a potential launching site for a V1. That seems to me to create a new problem and a problem of the greatest magnitude. The actual casualties caused in peace time by motor vehicles careering around the streets at the speed at which they do are much greater than the casualties caused in wartime by V1's.
That is the problem as I see it to-day, and that is the problem which, I think, the Seanad should discuss. It cannot be solved by any one simple solution. I agree with what practically every speaker said up to the present, that you will require a very complex remedy for this very complex situation; that you will require an entirely different attitude towards the use of the roads and a rigorous enforcement of the existing road laws. Still, I reiterate that, until all these other measures are successfully in operation, a reduction in the speed of motor vehicles would reduce the number of accidents and the seriousness of their consequences. Therefore, it seems to me, while not hoping for too much on this particular motion, that at least it is worthy of consideration as the first step in a programme of road amelioration which in this country is very badly overdue.
