Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 11 May 1955

Vol. 44 No. 15

Traffic Regulations—Motion.

I move:—

That in the opinion of Seanad Eireann (1) the present traffic regulations should be more strictly enforced; (2) the law should be amended so as to provide (a) a driving test, (b) power to enforce speed limits in certain areas without public inquiry, (c) rights of pedestrians at certain crossings, (d) clear legal indication as to major and minor roads, (e) limitations on the use of motor horns.

This motion is put down in order to enable the House to discuss a matter which, I think it is generally agreed, is of very great importance. The motion is in two parts. It asks for a more strict enforcement of the present traffic regulations, and it suggests certain amendments of the law; but the motion is not intended to be taken as insisting that the things it contains are things which absolutely must be done. I recognise that this question of traffic control and of the avoidance of casualties to life and limb on the roads is something which calls for the pooling of intelligence and experience. It is a matter which has no political limitations or implications of any kind.

The number of vehicles on the roads whether commercial, private or public has been increasing steadily, and to that has recently been added the tractor with the mechanisation of agriculture. Driving is easier, speeds higher and roads better, and the result is greater danger. I will not worry the House with any figures of casualties but it is well known that they are steadily increasing. There are several interests in this matter—the motorists themselves, cyclists, drivers of other vehicles, and pedestrians. All or nearly all motorists are at some time pedestrians, but it must be remembered in discussing this matter that pedestrians include children, old people, women with perambulators and other classes, including people who can run and who because they can run are likely not to be injured. All these people have rights, but none of them ought to have licence, and their rights should be exercised in relation to other classes.

With regard to the law of the roads I take it that there are really first and foremost the common law, which applies within certain limitations, and the rest is divided between two Ministries. Most of the rules and Orders come from Local Government and some from Justice. Enforcement is entirely a matter for the Department of Justice. The present law so far as I understand it depends on the Act of 1933 and a multitude of Orders made under it. I would like to ask as a query at this point—is there a traffic code? I would like to know whether there is any booklet in which one can find a complete account of the traffic code which is something which ought to be obeyed as distinct entirely from the statutes. There should be these laws and these rules, and as well as that what one might call the rules of common decency, and that, I think, is the law that is most frequently broken on the road. It is quite clear to anybody whether walking or driving that the law is absolutely unknown to a great many road users, or if it is known it is constantly broken.

The motion, before I go into it, omits parking altogether. That seems to be the only part of the law which, in Dublin at any rate, is strictly enforced. Coming to the first part of the motion, the enforcement of the present law, as far as my experience goes, prosecutions for breaches of the law take place mostly after an accident has occurred. I would like to suggest that no improvement can be effected until you have prosecutions and drastic punishments for breaches of the law where no accident has occurred. Let us take for example the traffic lights in Dublin. I take it that the obligation is that one stops before the traffic light and that one gives the road to pedestrians at pedestrian crossings. There are pedestrian crossings at every traffic light. I do not know if I am right in that, but pedestrians certainly make efforts to cross at the traffic lights. What is the position? At every traffic light in this city cyclists are on the pedestrian crossing. Very often they are right out in front. Many cars, including buses, lorries and private cars, are half over the pedestrian crossings; and a great many cars and nearly all cyclists start to cross the road before they get the green light. This very day coming down here to Leinster House at 2.30 a car passed me in Leeson Street racing to get the traffic light. It did not get the light. It went right across the pedestrian crossing. The driver was so impatient he kept on crawling forward until he was half way across the road at the Vincent's Hospital side into Stephen's Green, and he gave no signal. This is, of course, a common thing.

Another common thing here of which nobody seems to take any notice is that cars are parked at the lights. Part of the lights system here is an arrow showing that you can go straight forward. In any case where there is an arrow cyclists never observe it—or perhaps I should put it the other way around; cyclists always observe it, always assume that it is there and always go forward. Two examples which come into my mind mostly are the arrow at Rathmines opposite Castlewood Avenue and the arrow at Harcourt Road. Where there are arrows cyclists assume that they can always go forward.

There is also the question of signals. When one goes to Belfast from here it becomes immediately obvious that you get a great many more signals on the road and in the city than here. Cyclists are often blamed for not giving signals, but on many occasions I have taken the opportunity of watching what happens cyclists when they do give signals at certain road junctions.

My experience for what it is worth is that a great many motorists blow the horn and accelerate when a cyclist puts out his right hand. They regard as absolutely essential that they should pass a cyclist out. There is some explanation for the notion that they ought to give no signal at all. Before we proceed to do any amending of the law we ought to make up our minds as to what we ought to do about these traffic lights and get the present law strictly enforced.

It is against the law for cyclists to go three abreast. Is it against the law for cars to go three abreast? Can C pass out A and B at the same moment? I understand he should not but it is done constantly. If you travel on any particular main road in Dublin to a place like Harold's Cross Bridge, for instance, you will find three lines of traffic coming down, including buses, all keeping fairly steady and behaving very well. On the right of these people comes a motorist. He breaks out from the line, gets in front just out against the red light and finally passes everybody else. A prosecution against a person of that type would be of great assistance in preventing accidents. It is that type of person who causes accidents.

I also understand that it is against the law to pass on a cross-roads within a certain distance of a corner but that is done all the time. A great many of the devices on the roads have no legal significance at all and it seems to me that they accomplish the reverse of what they are intended to do. Take the case of the "winking willie". I do not know whether that has any legal significance but I know what motorists on the Rathgar Road do in regard to the "winking willie" at the corner of Rathgar Road and Frankfurt Avenue. The motorists just blow their horns and accelerate. That is what they do nearly all the time.

It seems to me to be a complete waste of time to paint "Slow" notices on the roads. I stood for 25 minutes at one of these notices situated about 50 yards beyond an intersection. The great majority of drivers simply blew the horn and accelerated The question arises as to what is the present law in connection with the matter. Is there any legal significance to the "winking willies" and the signs on the roads? Do these signs mean anything? I suggest that at the present time they mean little to motorists and still less to cyclists.

I am also told—I am not an authority on this—that a motor-car is supposed to have lights of equal size and intensity, but when one travels at night one frequently meets cars which have a big bright light on the right-hand side and a small weak light on the left-hand side. That is very disconcerting. A great many motor-cars have only one light. There certainly should be some rule about that.

If there is a law about it, it is more honoured in the breach than in the observance. One sees all kinds of varieties of lights. Sometimes you see a bright light on the right-hand side of a car and a dim one on the left. The reverse case is also frequent.

The owners of such cars are breaking the law.

I have never seen anybody prosecuted for it. It is extremely dangerous. I do not know whether the law compels you to dim your lights. Most people do so, but there are some who do not. Some road-hogs with plenty of nerve simply turn on their long lights and drive by. So much for the enforcement of the traffic regulations.

I think it is very bad for public morale that there should be regulations which are not enforceable. Regulations should be clear and, when made, should be enforced. They are certainly not enforced now, particularly the one dealing with passing on a corner. Often when you come to Terenure corner, which is a dangerous corner, and you slow up, people coming from Senator McCrea's county, County Wicklow, blow the horn as much as to say: "What kind of a fool are you? Why do you not go on?" Admittedly, they are not all Wicklow men. Some of them are Dublin men like myself. One is frequently passed on the corner. I do not know whether that is legal or not.

With regard to amending the law, I think a great deal could be done without any amendment of the law at all if you had reasonableness and proper and drastic enforcement of the law by what I regard as the most important penalty of all, depriving people of their driving licence, That is the only penalty which motorists fear. They do not mind fines at all.

The first amendment of the law I would suggest—I am not standing absolutely pat on these suggestions—is that there should be a driving test. I know this matter has been discussed up and down and that official opinion has been very much against it. It has been stated that driving tests have not improved the position in other countries. The present position here is that there is no safeguard whatever against the physically unfit. No discovery of any kind can be made as to what was wrong with a person driving a car until after an accident has occurred.

At the very least an applicant for a driving licence on the first occasion should be seen by somebody. Surely he should come into the physical view of somebody giving him the licence so as to see whether he is physically fit. If a driving test means that an applicant is examined about the engine I would not pass it. I know nothing about engines and I do not propose to learn anything about them. It seems to me that the experts on engines are about the most dangerous drivers on the roads.

The least important thing of all is the knowledge of the car itself. Apparently the modern car can be driven by almost anybody. I know that a driving test is expensive, but there should be some measure of security to provide that people physically unfit should not be allowed to drive and that the too young should not be allowed to drive a car. The people who drive cars should be examined about the rules of the road. A great many people who drive cars nowadays obviously know nothing about them.

The next point concerns the power to enforce speed limits in certain areas without public inquiry. I understand that it is very difficult at present to impose a speed limit. Again, it has been suggested that it is very difficult to enforce speed limits, but there are speed limits in Section 46 of the Road Traffic Acts and I do not think they are ever enforced.

I understand, as far as my reading of this is concerned that the speed limit for double-decker buses is 20 miles an hour. Anyone who lives on any road outside of Dublin and sees the speed at which these buses go, and particularly anyone in Dublin who sees buses going to the garage at night, well knows that the limit of 20 miles an hour or 25 miles an hour or 40 miles an hour is not observed. There appears to be no speed limit. The speed limit for single-decker buses seems to be 35 miles an hour. They travel at a much greater speed than that as people well know. Is there any limit for lorries? I have followed lorries in a fairly good car at 40 miles an hour and I was able to make no impression on them. In any event, I think there should be a speed limit and enforcement of it. On roads leading to Dublin, say on those outside of Inchicore, there should be an obligation on motorists coming long distances to pull up and slacken their speed.

At the present moment the power of punishment for driving at an unreasonable speed is rarely used. I do not know whether I am allowed to criticise the courts in general, but I suppose one can express a view. My view is that the punishments which are inflicted in these cases appear to be absurd. For example, I read a report in the newspapers myself of a motorist who was pursued on a particular road by the Gardaí. They had to do 70 miles an hour to catch up on him. His excuse was that he wanted to be home in time to see the baby bathed.

It must have been the first one.

His excuse was very funny and may have been very laudable, but I suggest that he should have been deprived of his licence so that in future he could go home by train or by bus over the next five or six years to see the baby bathed. That kind of thing is making a mockery of the courts. For that reason I think there should be either the imposition of a speed limit or a more rigid enforcement of the regulations. For example, if you live on any particular road and watch cars passing at any particular moment, you can see the same cars every day at the same time doing the same highly unreasonable speeds. You have the same persons doing the same speed every day. I do not agree at all that young people or women are the worst drivers on the roads. It seems to me that old men seem to do the most foolish things. They are people with hair as white as my own.

The next point is about the right of pedestrians at certain crossings. One is tempted to compare Dublin City with London or Belfast, and to ask whether pedestrians are recognised at all by the law in this State? Have they any rights at all on the road? Where a Guard is on duty everything, of course, is all right. The Guards carry out their duty perfectly in that regard. Their work outside of schools is wholly admirable. But where there is no Guard on duty it is impossible to get across any road in Dublin. There is no place between Rathfarnham and the quays, and that is a long distance, where a pedestrian can cross the road without having to risk his life. There is no use in saying that a person has rights if he has to risk his life in order to exercise them. Of course, in our more heroic days people were prepared to do that, but it is not fair, I suggest, to ask people to do that morning after morning. The fact is that a person cannot cross the road to get a bus to go to work. It is quite impossible to cross the roads in the morning at present.

I know roads myself and it is absolutely impossible to cross them to the bus stop. There is no place on that whole road where a pedestrian has any rights. People have those rights in Belfast. There is a new traffic light on Merrion Road. A member of this House got it put there. I was there one Saturday evening and I watched cars passing for 20 minutes. No one could cross the road. A woman came along with a perambulator and seven cars passed the red light before she could get across. Take the bottom of Leeson Street which I cross very frequently on the way to the university. It is an experience and a thrill to see what happens there every day. Crossing the road there is far more dangerous than being out in a rising because death is quite up against you all the time.

I wonder what is the police view of this? If I am walking across a road when the lights change have I the right to go on or have cars the right to drive on top of me? That is what they do. In Belfast they do not. They let you pass. There is another thing that I have noticed. If a motorist does stop to allow a pedestrian, say a woman with a perambulator, to cross the road he may not be doing her any good, but the reverse because a motorist behind him may pass him on the right or on the left and endanger the woman's life. I saw an example of that. I was not driving the car myself, but was being driven by a Garda sergeant. He stopped to let a woman cross the road and the fellow behind him started to blow his horn. The sergeant got out and showed his card. The owner was very civil when he discovered that he was up against a policeman. Of course, the bully is always a very cowardly person, but his explanation was that he thought he had the right to go on.

Have we any clear indication of major or minor roads or is there any such rule for Dublin traffic? In this State of ours we appear to have no such indication. At the moment we have nothing here but disorder and in Dublin no one ever knows to whom one ought to give way. For example, is there a rule that you have to give way to traffic on the right?

If there is, I should like the Minister some day to visit the bottom of Harold's Cross Green and watch the double-decker buses, the lorries and other motor traffic coming from Kimmage. They come along on the left-hand side hell for leather. If I am driving into town I can exercise my rights if I like, but I am afraid I am no longer a hero. I must tell the Minister that no such rule is being observed. I live on Templeogue Road and coming into Terenure I meet an intersection from Kimmage Road. Do buses or cars give way to me? They do not. There is no such thing as giving way to you. I gave way there yesterday myself to an ambulance and a driver behind me almost lifted the roof off his car blowing the horn. No one ever gives way to traffic on that road. I do not know whether there is any such thing as a major or a minor road.

I am living in Dublin all my life and I have been driving a car for more than 30 years, and yet I feel that I could not bring anyone to any place in Dublin and say: "Here is a major road". My observation does not lead me to believe that there is any such thing as a major road. I say that with all respect to the Minister. Perhaps he is thinking of a legal concept. Perhaps I should say that Rathgar Road may be a major road. If there is a major road there is no such thing as a regulation about it, or general practice, observing it.

In regard to the limitation on the use of motor horns, expert drivers always told me that driving on the horn or on the brake was bad driving, that if you used your horn constantly you were a bad driver. If that is so, there must be a considerable number of bad drivers in Dublin, as you hear horns blowing day and night. One of the practices in Dublin is that the moment the light changes to green at the traffic lights the boys begin to blow their horns to tell those in front to hurry up. They use horns constantly at traffic lights, winking willies, "slow" signs and at night to a disgraceful extent. They may not be all drunk—I am sure some of them are sober—but they constantly drive on the horn at night. I am well aware of that, as I have always lived within the city. You hear horns blowing steadily even though people have lights they can use.

I suggest that the use of the horn should be totally prohibited between certain hours, say, from 10 p.m. to 8 a.m. It might be a good idea to prohibit totally its use except in an emergency, so that one would have to prove one had justification for using it. It would make the roads much safer, since many people in city and country drive cars on the basis that if they blow the horn everyone will get out of the way and there is no danger. Pedestrians and others have got so used to horns that they use their ears instead of their eyes, and when they do not hear a horn they think the road is safe. I remember that on the last week of my holidays one year I was 140 miles from Dublin, beyond Dungarvan, when something went wrong with some part of my car which meant I could not use the horn. I drove from Dungarvan to Dublin without using it and found it far safer and not a bit slower. Horns as used in this city make the life of those who live on corners dreadful at night. Horns are blowing all the time and it is regarded as the natural thing. I know there is some rule about it, but it is never enforced.

I left out one point and would ask you to allow me to deal with it now. I know that the observance of Christian charity or even pagan courtesy will solve nearly all the problems of the road. The majority of the people are quite all right, they are decent people who observe the rules; but the minority make the roads unbearable. It is said that for safety first we must do some teaching and some propaganda. I say that motorists and cyclists are much more in need of teaching than school children. Too much is expected from the teachers and too much reliance is placed on what they can do. The human boy, thanks be to God, is not entirely dirigible and it would be a very bad thing for us to teach in the schools that everyone must walk on the path and do this and do that in order that reckless people with no manners may drive cars fast on the roads. Safety propaganda is more necessary for motorists and road users than for children.

I do not know what the common law is but in spite of the Road Fund to which motorists contribute, I understand the roads are not primarily for them and that others have rights there, including cattle. I have found myself with people in motor-cars who took most unreasonable views. Perhaps I am an unusual motorist, but I have no sympathy whatever with the impatient person who runs into a fair in a country town, wonders what all the cattle are doing and why he cannot get through in a hurry. I think he should be glad to see the cattle, to "hold his horses" and watch the people and be glad they are there. A cow has a common law right to use the road.

Not unless accompanied by a human being.

She exceeds her common law rights very frequently, and most frequently in Donegal, in my experience. The same thing applies to impatience outside churches. Motorists act in a disgraceful way at 11.30 on Sunday mornings when congregations are coming in and going out; they act as if they were on a lonely country road and expect to get through accordingly. The same thing applies when school children are going home; and at six o'clock in the evening they are impatient with cyclists. It would be a good thing for the soul of the motorist if he had to wait, and good for his character, too. The object of legislation should not be to make a straight streamline of everything so that people could travel as fast as they wished.

I suggest that the punishment for motorists is far too small. There should be more frequently the loss of licence for a period and, on second offence, loss of licence complete and entire. The motor-car is an extremely dangerous weapon. I do not know how to apply that rule to cyclists, but it should be done, too. It would effect a wonderful improvement.

One of the great troubles is the drunken driver. That trouble is rampant and it seems clear to those who read newspapers that the defence for drunken driving is far too easy. Most extraordinary defences are made up.

I do not think it is very fair to say they are made up.

I mean made up. Apparently, if your grandfather had malaria, a half of whiskey makes you drunk. Is that much of an exaggeration? One of the steps to make motoring safe would be the abolition of the bona fide traffic. It does not seem to have any relation to modern conditions.

Or to the motion.

The motion deals with motoring generally. I did not mention drink as I did not want to be specific. There is no doubt that people drive out of Dublin to get as much drink as they can before a particular hour and, having taken all the drink they can hold, they get into cars to drive home. That cannot be safe and no police force could supervise it. The bona fide traffic should be abolished. It may involve a revision of hours in Dublin City. Anyone who stands outside one of those places at closing time can see people stagger into cars. That cannot be safe or reasonable. There was a time when people were travellers, travelling in good faith and in need of refreshment, but with modern methods and modern social conditions, it has nothing at all to recommend it. Abolition of the bona fide trade would effect a great improvement in safety on the roads.

On the question of penalties, it is possible to kill a cyclist, do a period of imprisonment, come out and drive and drink again. The slogan is: "If you drink," don't driver if you drive, don't drink", but apparently it is difficult to prove a person is drunk. Some motorists remind me of the characters in the old tales of Fionn MacCumhail and the Fianna—they seem to be under geasa.

One of the things that seem to be in the minds of Dublin motorists is never to allow anyone to turn to the right, to park, or delay for one moment, because when they are in cars, they want to go on themselves. I feel that, since the majority of people are reasonable, and observe the rules of the road, the only thing we can do is to see that the minority, who are not reasonable, and who do not observe the rules, should be punished and put off the roads. After all, a motor-car is nearly more dangerous than a loaded gun, which you have to load, cock, aim and discharge.

There is an Irish phrase which says: "An té ná gabhann comhairle gabhadh sé comhrach; a man who will not take advice will have to take fight". It seems to me that is the position of road users. We ought to have reasonable rules clearly embodied in a code which should be available for everybody who drives a car. Before they are allowed to drive cars, people should be tested on their knowledge of these rules, and if they break them, there should be drastic and swift punishment for doing so. If that were done, the situation would be very much improved, because it cannot be improved by better roads; it cannot be improved by taking off corners, and letting people go faster; it cannot be improved by enforcing such rules. The aim should be to make them clearly understood, and by seeing that the people who can drive know them. I am aware, of course—I do not want to appear to be too harsh—that cyclists and pedestrians have defects. Even if they have defects, they should get more consideration than they are getting at this time. If interest is stimulated, and if we can bring about a situation in which we can have a code, reasonably enforced, I think safety on the roads would follow.

I wish formally to second the motion proposed by Senator Hayes and I reserve the right to speak later.

I have not a great deal to say. It is seldom that we get an opportunity of speaking on this subject, and I would like to reinforce what Senator Hayes has said. I was Just thinking motoring in to-night after having had something to eat, how long I had been driving myself. I found that I had a driving licence for 38 years, so that I can remember quite a long time back. I would say, thinking from the early days of motoring until to-day, that the most noticeable thing that has changed is the behaviour of the people on the roads. In those days there was not only courtesy between motorists themselves, but also courtesy to other users of the roads—pedestrians, horses and all other users. We all remember how hard it was to be truly courteous in the early days when motor-cars made a lot of noise. In 1918 when horses were more extensively used in transport, the animals used to shy when meeting motor-cars, but there was a very high degree of courtesy amongst travellers. As I drove in to-night, I thought that the thing most lacking to-day, apart from ignorance of road conditions, rules, and other things, was courtesy, as Senator Hayes quite rightly said.

I have often felt that, in this respect. we in this country have not displayed very much originality. In matters, such as taxation, we have copied England very slavishly. I would say, as regards road behaviour, something will have to be done about it. If we could get hold of the English code, and read it. it would have a very good effect. We do not have to go and write it down: it is there for us readymade. It must be known in England like a catechism before people go through their driving tests. In this country, how can you have anything but the situation such as Senator Hayes spoke of to-night? Here anybody can get a driving licence merely by putting down the money.

I remember a man who came to me for a position as driver of a commercial van. He had actually only one leg, which was slightly paralysed, one eye, and had some fingers blown off in the war. Yet that man had a driving licence, and said he was capable of driving a delivery van. Of course the thing was laughable. Therefore, I suggest that the first thing we should do is to introduce a driving test which would involve reading the road code, understanding it, and at least knowing what should be done. After all, how are people to do the right thing if they do not know what the right thing is?

There is nothing in life that one learns instinctively. If you do not know the rules, how can you observe them? I venture to say that 98 per cent. of drivers in this country, good and bad, have never read the code of road rules. They have merely picked up knowledge by their experiences and by hurting people—I do not mean physically—though they injure them mentally, by fright. That is the way people learn to drive in this country to-day and if this is so, obviously we get the situation about which we have heard from Senator Hayes. One of the first things which require to be done is to enforce the present traffic regulations more strictly. Traffic regulations are not only for motorists; they are for everybody. Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians, are all road users. They have a duty to observe the rules of the road, and to make an orderly use of them.

There are a few points I should like to mention. One of these is the question of main and secondary roads. Senator Hayes is quite right when he says that people drive straight on to the main roads, and people using them every day know this is quite wrong. They drive straight on to the main roads and then find out what is coming; sometimes they are threequarters of the way across the road, at a most dangerous angle. Danger is created thereby, and cannot be mitigated by travellers on the main road. I would suggest that halt signs should be erected, as they are in England, and every motorist coming on to the main roads should be made observe them.

There is an idea prevalent that slow drivers are, in fact, good drivers. I think that slow drivers can be the biggest menace on the roads to-day, especially on roads which are narrow and carry a great volume of traffic. I have seen them driving at 20 miles per hour or less, using the middle of the road, obviously causing danger and inconvenience to all the other road users. It is no crime to hurry on the roads if you are driving properly. I have seen business men, morning after morning, being driven in to town, while the driver smokes a pipe in front, and a great political conversation goes on all round. A stream of traffic about a mile long comes behind them. I would again suggest that it is the slow driver who is a menace on the roads: he is discourteous, and completely careless. Slow drivers who are careful and who do not smoke pipes keep well in to the left-hand side of the road, and leave it free for other users who are quite legitimately entitled to go faster about their business.

Passing a slow driver is often taken as an insult to his vehicle, and he will not let you pass and he will keep out as far as he can on the middle of the road. Even at night, he will switch on the headlights, and blind you. These are the sort of things that are done. They are very great dangers on the road and anybody who drives in this country for the first time notices the slow driver on our main roads as a dangerous driver.

There is then the question of signals and the position in this country is that the circumstances are often more dangerous when a signal is given than when it is not. Very few people have any idea of what a signal is. One sees a driver twirling his arm around in a circle and one does not know whether he is turning right, whether he wants you to pass or whether he is going right. Usually, it is only a matter of a man knocking the ash off his cigarette. There is really no knowledge of signals here and it all comes back to a proper knowledge of the road code in relation to signals and courtesy.

One thing which ought to be dealt with immediately by the police is driving with headlights in the city. Headlights are a menace both in the city and in the country, if improperly used, and I suggest that, in our well lighted streets in Dublin and other cities and towns—but particularly in the cities— there is no need for headlights and their use should be prohibited. We have had reference several times in debates here to the necessity for dimming lights on our main roads. I not only agree with that, but I go further and suggest that we should adopt the Continental system of having coloured lights, yellow bulbs, in the headlights for use on main roads, because dimming on a main road can be as dangerous as not dimming, for the reason that one is taken from one extreme to another. You get a very bright light coming against you and then suddenly the whole thing blacks out, whereas, if everybody had a medium light the whole time, there would be no necessity for this abrupt change from brightness to darkness.

I heartily agree with Senator Hayes that there should be a complete prohibition on the use of horns at night, especially in the city. We all remember what Paris was like in the old days. The situation there was a joke and if they could do away with them in Paris, they could be done away with anywhere, and especially in Dublin. It is really remarkable to see the difference in the whole city of Paris at night. The traffic is able to move just as fast and just as efficiently without the use of horns—in fact, more efficiently—as it did in the days of horns. At that time, people thought that all they had to do was to blow the horn and everybody had to blow themselves off the road. Now people cannot blow them, so they have to use discretion and drive quietly and carefully.

One other matter is the special responsibility of bus drivers. A bus driver has a special responsibility for two reasons—the size of the vehicle he is driving which takes up so much space on the road and the lives of the passengers he is carrying. He has a very great responsibility, and, although we have very many bus drivers in this city who are good, there are a great number now who do not seem to carry out the signalling regulations and do not pull in close enough to the kerb when pulling up to take on or put down passengers. I know that driving a bus is very heavy work and that it is due to a form of laziness and tiredness. but, at the same time, bus drivers should pull their buses into the kerb every time they drop passengers or take them on, because they create traffic blocks and dangerous situations every time they stay out too far on the road.

I hope that C.I.E. does insist on every bus driver knowing the code of the road, the rules of the road, because it would be absolutely suicidal that men in their position should go on the roads without a full knowledge of how to drive and the need for consideration for the safety of their passengers and people on the roads. I agree that the solution of this whole problem is a test which involves a proper knowledge of how to drive with full regard for public safety and for the safety of the drivers themselves. The three things involved in good driving are knowledge of how to drive, courtesy, and people who are really courteous will naturally do the right things, and good sense.

In supporting this admirably enunciated motion, I should like to put forward a few points in relation to remedies for the conditions which the proposers and subsequent speakers have drawn to our notice. With regard to the suggestion that the present traffic regulations should be more stringently enforced, I do not think we require any further enforcement of the parking regulations, which seems to me to represent almost more than 100 per cent. efficiency. I feel that the various other matters can be met by an immediate expansion of the motor cycle patrols which are doing an extremely valuable service.

I believe that their institution was partly the result of representations made by our own Automobile Association of which, incidentally, I am not a member. An expansion of the motorcycle patrols would, I believe, meet a great many of the difficulties which have already been emphasised— cyclists, careless motorists and so on. It would be a tremendous help to us to have some of these people available at peak periods in certain parts of the city and country and a corps of these officers would be of immense value at certain times when police supervision over certain areas is required.

As to a driving test, the world is divided on the subject of driving tests, but I think the evidence is in favour of a driving test, using the word in a comprehensive sense. I would test both the driver and the car. Some drivers are very curious and some cars are very curious, and a car should be tested on the occasion of the initial driving test and subsequently when it is being insured. Certainly, the way in which braking efficiency can deteriorate and lights and so forth become neglected means that it is essential to have a car examined from time to time. You cannot carry on with it as you do with your own body, until something really goes wrong, because, in the case of a car, it will go wrong under sudden strain.

There is then this question of a driving code. We require an explicit specified driving code and a copy of that code should be available for the original driving test and the would-be driver examined in the code. He should also be examined in the rudiments of parking and a little bit of first-aid. A copy of that driving code should be presented to each motorist on renewing his licence every year, so that the excuse would not be possible: "I got a copy a few years ago but I left it in the bank for safety or I mislaid it." He should get a fresh copy every year. It is not going to cost very much but it will mean that he will have the thing in front of him as a code and will realise that it is his passport, if not actually to salvation, to preservation, while driving a car. I would certainly enforce the claim for a driving test.

Another point is in relation to assurance. I understand that some of the assurance companies are going to raise their tariffs. We are compelled by law to insure cars and is there not a rather curious situation arising here, in that, as a result of financial changes, we are compelled to pay more in this roundabout way for something we are legally compelled to do? I should like somebody to take that up and develop it with better knowledge of the subject than I have, but it seems to me to be very odd.

With regard to speed limits, there is a lot to be said for the argument about the slow driver being a dangerous driver, but I feel that we could learn a good deal from studying traffic conditions in other countries. The country I would suggest in this regard is a country, the people of which are so closely related to our own folk, people who, like us, are Celts—France. You do get the cyclist in France riding in three directions simultaneously and yet you find that cyclist going through the traffic of Paris and surviving. I think it would be very helpful if some of our officers went to study conditions in Paris and how to speed up traffic a little bit with safety, in addition, of course, to the study they are giving to the problem in America and in Britain. It is the wrong speed at a particular time which constitutes lack of safety.

One trouble in safety I attribute to the change in our car taxation policy. As a result of this curious change we have developed the very small car which can only be driven comfortably at a high speed. You have to drive at 35 or 45 miles an hour with some of these small cars and the result is that when I am crawling along in the morning these things are whizzing all around me. It is really most exhilarating to see them chasing themselves at up to 55 miles an hour. I suppose that every other day they collide and that when they do so they bounce. I am not quite sure how they survive. There is the danger of driving a small car that it has to go fast to get a comfortable range of speed.

With regard to safety areas and speed limits, I do not think that they will solve the problem. I think that an increase in the motor patrol system will help. As the law is at present there is quite sufficient mechanism available for prosecuting for dangerous and careless driving without this awful difficulty of deciding when a speed limit is exceeded.

Most certainly I think we ought to have pedestrian crossings. It is rather difficult for the traveller going to Belfast to proceed to cross the road. He sees a car or a bus coming towards him. He is at a corner, he stops, the bus stops he looks at the bus driver, and the bus driver looks at him. He raises his hat and the bus or the car raises its hat. Then the other driver realises that he comes from Dublin where there are no such things as pedestrian rights and waves him on. We should have pedestrian crossings clearly marked, but should bring them in only one by one and see how they work. If they do work you can have more of them, but let us begin with one or two.

Senator Hayes pointed out his particular bête noire. Mine is Westland Row, trying to get to the station and watching your train coming in and being unable to cross because of the stream of traffic. I often think that the safest way to catch a train in Dublin is to miss the one that is going before it. Let us have pedestrian crossings clearly marked for the motorist before he comes to them, beginning one by one, bit by bit, and working them up. If it is found after a few months that we cannot train motorists and people into the use of pedestrian crossings, abandon them. but let us make a proper trial in the matter at first, until people get to know what the characteristic marking means. It means that the pedestrian is the king, or, as we are a Republic, the President, at crossings.

I do not propose to say anything on motor horns, but I have had experience of both sides of the matter referred to by Senator Hayes—when my horn would not work and I certainly qualified for the description of a slow driver, and on the other hand when my horn would not stop blowing and people inquired if I was doing it deliberately or was deaf. I strongly support the motion and suggest that it should receive great consideration from the Minister.

If we had known that this motion was to be followed by discussion this evening, we would have given it more consideration, although we have to admit that it has been on the Order Paper for quite a long time. It seems to me that the discussion so far has developed along the lines of the solution of the problem here in Dublin City. No doubt the problem of traffic congestion and regulations here in Dublin is a very formidable one, so formidable that I would not like to attempt to deal with it here in any kind of constructive way. I do not think that I could. But we must consider this problem from the point of view of the country as a whole. I suppose it must be admitted that the time has come when it would be wise to have a re-examination of the traffic problem from the point of view of the country as a whole. I am however, afraid that in a discussion like this all we can do is to touch on the fringe of the problem. After all we must remember that the rights and privileges of the public are involved in this matter, and, that being so, it is a subject that should not be lightly dealt with.

I was thinking myself in connection with this problem that it might be a good thing to set up a committee or a commission which would examine it very carefully, the membership of which would be composed of people of long experience. After all we have been dealing here to-day and last week with a measure, the Factories Bill, where the rights and the safety of a certain section of the people were involved. In dealing with that the Dáil in its wisdom set up a Select Committee to examine it. I think it must be admitted that the problem we have here of road traffic, either here in the City of Dublin or on the country roads, is no less important than the problem of safeguarding the factory workers, because this problem applies to the community as a whole.

From listening to this debate and to the remarks of other people on other occasions it would seem to me that the motorist is always looked upon as the villain of the piece. At least it would appear that the greatest fault is ascribed to him in connection with the non-fulfilment of the road regulations. I doubt if that approach to the problem is the proper one, because very often to my own knowledge the pedestrians crossing the streets here in Dublin and sometimes crossing the roads in the country are more remiss than the motorists. While I know very well that there are motorists abroad who certainly, to say the least of them, are not careful enough, still maybe it should be admitted that the vast majority of those in charge of cars are careful enough.

That was admitted, I think.

As Senator Professor Hayes said in his opening speech, in a case like this it is always a small minority that creates the problem. But how to deal with that small minority is another question. Driving tests have been mentioned here. I do not know if I would be so much in favour of them. I would, of course, be entirely in favour of a driving test if I thought it would remove even a small proportion of the dangers with which the public are confronted.

In my view many of the accidents that occur in this country could be laid at the door of the experienced drivers who think that, because they are experienced, they can do what they like with their cars. The person who is not experienced is generally more careful and more circumspect as regards his own safety and the safety of the general public. I cannot for the life of me see how the application of a driving test would get over the problem we are discussing this evening. Of course, I know very well that they have this driving test in countries such as Britain, for example. I should like to know whether it would be asserted by the authorities over there that the application of the driving test has improved, the driving position there very much. We have no evidence of that here—no evidence whatsoever.

The question of speed limits has been mentioned and I am in agreement with those who say that in their opinion the enforcement of a speed limit would not remove the dangers.

Even in passing through cities or towns?

That is a different thing. I was about to come to that. Generally speaking, I do not think that the enforcement of a speed limit would improve the position very much, if at all, but I would be entirely in favour of a speed limit within a built-up area of any considerable size. We should bear these two things in mind, the enforcement of a speed limit generally or the enforcement of a speed limit for built-up areas in cities, towns and villages. Let us consider that.

I would be in favour of the enforcement of a speed limit as regards cities. towns and even villages. If we went as far as that for the time being, it would not be bad. As Senator Hayes said, parking regulations were not mentioned in this motion and I do not know whether we are at liberty to mention them or not. I daresay we are in passing. I suppose parking regulations would come under the general heading of traffic regulations.

You could not park en passant.

My experience is that there are no parking regulations in provincial towns. I am not speaking about Dublin. We have to get away from Dublin because there are other parts of the country besides Dublin about which we want to speak. It is a common sight to see in those provincial towns two lines of motor-cars on both sides of the street. Sometimes it is next to impossible for a passing motorist to make his way through. Quite recently I spoke to an officer of the Garda Síochána about that, and, of course, he told me he had nothing to do with the matter; that if he went to do anything an order would have to be made by the local authority.

I suppose that before any traffic regulations can be made an order to that effect has to be made by the local authority. This officer told me that in his opinion if he applied to the local authority for the making of such an order his case would be turned down. I do not know whether it would or not. The officer said that in any case no accidents occurred in places like that because the people have to stop. If the principle were applied in every case that in order to avoid an accident you would have to stop, that you could not go on, everything would be all right.

I think it was Senator McGuire who mentioned bus drivers. My experience of bus drivers is that they are the most careful people on the roads and if everybody in charge of a motor vehicle exercised the same care, the same diligence and the same patience as the bus driver we would have very few accidents but I am afraid that we cannot say the same about some lorry drivers. Some of our lorry drivers are in a completely different category in so far as the safety of the road is concerned. My own experience is that there are many lorry drivers on the road to-day who should not be on it. Because they happen to be in charge of a powerful vehicle, they think they can ride roughshod over everybody else on the road.

In regard to the rule of the road which is supposed to prevent people from coming out of a by-road or a secondary road on to a main road, the greatest offenders against that important rule of the road are the lorry drivers sometimes. I should like to draw a clear distinction between bus drivers and lorry drivers.

And motor-cyclists.

I want to take this opportunity of paying a compliment to the bus drivers of this country but I am afraid I must stop there as far as some of the lorry drivers are concerned. Senator Hayes referred, if I understood him rightly, to the inadequacy of the penalties that are sometimes imposed for breaches of the traffic regulations. I think he is right. Sometimes the penalties are too trivial and the drivers in question know they can do the same thing again with a certain amount of impunity.

Take the case of a person who is brought to court on a charge of dangerous driving. In the majority of such cases the charge of dangerous driving is reduced to one of careless driving. In fact, my experience has been that a charge of dangerous driving is hardly ever sustained unless there has been an accident. In the absence of an accident, the charge, as I have said, is almost invariably reduced to one of careless driving.

Reference has been made to drunken drivers. They are in a category all to themselves, and I do not think I should spend very much time on them because they are specifically dealt with in the Road Traffic Act of 1933, and in all cases under that Act their licences are suspended for 12 months.

A minimum of 12 months.

That is the law. I propose to make a statement which may be regarded as extraordinary. It is, that I regard the driver who is not drunk at all but who comes out from a by-road on to cross a main road, without any regard whatever for oncoming traffic, as a greater menace than the drunken driver. I had an experience of that myself. I was driving along a road when a man came out from a by-road on to a main road. He did not look either to the left or to the right, so that I was put to the pin of my collar to avoid him. I did not know whether to go in front of him or behind him. He was travelling slowly and I did not know whether his car was going to gather momentum or what was going to happen. There you had the case of a person doing the thing consciously, crossing a road and offering himself as a menace to oncoming traffic.

There is another point. Sometimes people, when they are about to turn at a crossing, will put out their hand. Other people have on their cars what we call trafficators. I think the time has come when there should be an obligation on everyone driving a car to have a trafficator because sometimes, when you see a person putting out his or her hand, it is done so halfheartedly that you do not know what the intention is. In the case of the trafficator, there can be no doubt whatever. That is a suggestion which I think is worthy of consideration.

We have been discussing this problem from the point of view of the motorist and the pedestrian, but there is another problem which seems to me to call for attention. On this I propose to refer to country roads and not to Dublin City. I refer to the problem of wandering animals. Some time ago that problem got great attention, but somehow lately I think there has been a little bit of relaxation as regards the vigilance exercised in the case of wandering animals. The greatest offenders are the itinerants who come along with a string of piebald ponies. Nobody seems to take the least notice of them, but they are a proper menace.

The Senator is on a very popular note now.

Whether it is popular or not, I think I should mention it in connection with this problem. In conclusion, I want to say again that this problem is so involved in its nature that all we can do this evening is to have a kind of rambling discussion on it. If that will do any good we shall not have wasted our time. I would suggest again that a Select Committee be set up—I would have to think over what the nature of it would be—to examine how and to what extent the laws as they exist at present should be amended for the further safety of the people of the country.

I should like to preface my remarks by saying how much I welcome a motion such as this. We have had a few such motions within the past few years. They are valuable I think not only because of the points of view expressed by those taking part in the debate but also because they focus the attention of the public on such matters. Road safety is something of which we should all be conscious. Discussions of this kind tend to focus the attention of the public on it. For these reasons, I welcome the motion.

We are very fortunate that, so far, the increase in the incidence of road accidents is lagging behind the increase in road traffic. We are all aware of the increased traffic on our roads, but, thank God, there has not been a corresponding increase in accidents.

Senator Fearon referred to the necessity for a traffic code, and said that copies of it should be distributed to applicants for drivers' licences so as to ensure that when they had procured their copies they would not lock them up in the safe for safety. I am afraid from what I have heard some Senators say here this evening that they have been locking up the traffic code in their safes. There is such a code which is known as the General Bylaws of the Control of Traffic of 1937 made by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. I might also mention that illustrated booklets have been published from time to time and issued to every licensed driver, setting out, in simple language, the main rules of the road. Every driver, at some stage or other, has got these leaflets. I think it was Senator Burke who said that he had never heard of them. I think it was in 1952 that the then Minister not only exhibited them in the Seanad but read extracts from them. Some Senators may have locked them in their safes.

Is a copy of that booklet issued to everybody who applies for a driving licence?

No, it is issued periodically.

It should be issued to everybody.

When there is a new publication of it, it is issued to all drivers at that particular time.

That is three years ago.

They should get it with their driving licences.

It is news to us all.

It is not for me to advise Senators as to what the law is. Senators must educate themselves in the law.

The first thing to advise all drivers to do is not to drink.

I agree with that —not while driving.

Would they all obey that?

Far be it from me to advise people whether they should keep the law or not. That is a matter for their own discretion. The booklets set out the rules of the road in simple language. Also, we have published films on road safety from time to time, excellent films.

About that booklet, I put down a motion some years ago and the Minister then presented me with one of those booklets.

I hope the Senator read it.

I did, but the burden of my remarks then was that everyone should be presented every year with a small booklet and then no one would have any excuse and could not say: "My lord, I did not know".

Ignorantia legisnemi-nem excusat—ignorance of the law excuses no one.

But the sympathy of the law means a lot.

Why not print something about it on the licence?

It would be worth it.

I suppose it would. We welcome suggestions. It is a good suggestion and one which will be considered. I hope it will not be like the conditions on the back of a railway ticket, which no one ever reads.

Make them sign a declaration at the bottom.

The first part of the motion and some of the second part deal entirely with matters in the province of the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána. All I can do is bring to his notice the suggestions which Senators have made—constructive suggestions from all sides of the House. I will bring them to his notice and no doubt he will consider them in detail.

It is not right to suggest that the traffic regulations and the Road Traffic Act are not being enforced. Any lawyer with experience of our courts of summary jurisdiction knows they are cluttered up with road traffic prosecutions. I remember a former Deputy informing the Dáil on one occasion that he knew a district justice in Dublin who was dealing with road traffic prosecutions at the rate of one every three minutes from 10.30 to 1 and from 2.30 to 5.

Were they not parking offences?

I am talking of prosecutions.

They were for parking.

They were not, I can assure the Senator of that. I have reasons to know—in my professional capacity, may I add. Out of 131,732 summary prosecutions in 1953, the last year for which we have statistics, a total of 102,982 were in respect of traffic offences.

It shows great disregard for the traffic laws.

I am not concerned with the motorist now but with the enforcement of the law. That shows vigilance on the part of the Gardaí. I live in rural Ireland and have had some experience of prosecutions in the district courts. I know the Gardaí are vigilant in enforcing traffic laws in rural Ireland. It is difficult to have a Garda stand at each corner in Dublin to prosecute people for breaking the law. There is an onus on the citizen himself when he sees the law being broken. There is a word I do not like to use but which we should accept, that of "common informer"—one should report cases and become a State witness. That is the only way we can protect ourselves, as we cannot have a Garda on every half mile of the Bray road or other main arteries.

Taking the second part of the motion, the first two proposals, regarding driving tests and speed limits, involve amendment of the Road Traffic Act of 1933. We would require to amend the law to deal with either of those things. Proposals for the amendment of the Act are at present being examined by the Departments concerned and I hope that in due course a Road Traffic Bill will be presented to the Oireachtas for consideration. When it is being drafted, I hope the suggestions made here this evening will be borne in mind and examined carefully and if possible incorporated in the Bill. It would not be proper for me at this stage to anticipate Government decisions on the question of driving tests or speed limits. Those decisions will be embodied in the Bill.

Some Senator referred to Press reports of prosecutions in district courts. As one with some experience of the courts, I can assure the House that Press reports are often very, very misleading and sometimes viva voce evidence is misleading and in contradiction of what actually is said immediately after the accident when the facts are fresh in the minds of the parties concerned.

May I tell the House, with your permission, a Leas-Chathaoirleach, a story which circulated in legal circles some few years ago when the Road Traffic Act first became law here? An old gentleman, a pedestrian down the country, was plaintiff in an action for damages against a motorist. He gave his evidence: he said he was proceeding along the road, driving his cow and on the proper side, when a car suddenly came around the corner, crashed into himself and the cow and so seriously injured the cow that she had to be destroyed and he himself suffered severe personal damages and pain. This story was a very convincing one as told to the court, until counsel for the defence got up to cross-examine him and said: I have only two questions to ask the plaintiff, my lord: "Did you have a conversation with the driver of the car immediately after the accident?" He said he did. "And the facts were then fresh in your mind?""They were." And did you tell the driver of the car that you were not injured in any way?""I did." Counsel for the defence sat down and his lordship immediately sat up and asked: "How can you reconcile the story you have told to-day with the story you told the Guard immediately after the accident?" He said: "My lord, would you allow me to explain? I was driving along the road with my cow, on the proper side. The car came around the corner very fast and knocked the two of us into the ditch. I was semi-conscious. I heard the driver get out and examine the cow and then say to his companion, ‘She is very bad.' They went back to the car and took out a shotgun and shot her. Then they walked to me and asked: ‘Are you all right?' and I said I was." One can readily understand from Press reports how evidence, on occasions, may be misleading, and it requires a very learned judge to find out on which side the truth is, and who is right.

I do not wish to go into the merits of the driving test. There may be a number of methods by which a driver may be examined. Somebody has suggested that, in addition to the driver being examined, his car should also be examined. One can imagine three or four members of a family who can drive a car, and every time, before one of them can get a driver's licence, he must present the old "tin lizzy" for inspection. Who is going to examine the car? Is it an official of the county council? Who is going to examine the applicants for a driver's licence? Is it a doctor? The applicant may have only one eye, or he may have poor vision in the other. Who is going to do the driving test? Somebody suggested a proper medical test, and a proper examination in the regulations laid down, and that the old "tin lizzy" should be annually checked over. I do not wish to anticipate the decision of the Government in these matters. As I have said, that decision will be embodied in a Bill. I hope that its introduction will not be too far away.

In this motion the making of speed limits is proposed. At present, I can fix a speed limit for a particular area only. I can fix it only for a particular area, after having held a local public inquiry. One can appreciate that it would mean considerable expense holding local public inquiries in every little town or village, as to whether there should be a speed limit, or otherwise. The motion proposes that this requirement of an inquiry should be dropped. To do so would spare local authorities a certain amount of expense, but would involve that persons and organisations vitally affected by a local speed limit would be precluded from having their case heard publicly and openly. A more comprehensive amendment of the law on the subject has been proposed on a number of occasions, namely, that there should be an automatic speed limit in all built-up areas, in the same way as there is in Great Britain. It is undoubtedly true that speed is an important factor in accidents, particularly in relation to their severity. The ideal solution is that vehicles should be driven at a speed appropriate to the circumstances.

Under Section 50 of the Road Traffic Act, 1933, it is an offence for a person to drive without exercising reasonable consideration for others and under Section 51, to drive at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous. Section 50 makes it an offence for a person who drives a vehicle in public to drive without exercising reasonable consideration for others. Such a person is guilty of an offence under this section, and is liable on summary conviction therefor, to a fine not exceeding £10. There is a section governing speed, be it fast or slow, so long as it is in a manner dangerous to individuals or to other vehicles using the roadway. Possibly it could be amended by an amending section in a new Bill. A man could be charged under Section 51, as Senator Kissane, I think, pointed out. He could be charged under that section, and the justice might convict on Section 50.

As to the second part of the motion dealing with pedestrian crossings and major and minor roads, the rights of pedestrians at crossings are set out in the general by-laws for the Control of Traffic, 1937, made by the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána, as are the rights and duties of vehicle users in respect of junctions between minor and major roads.

Familiarity breeds contempt. Every Senator who spoke this evening requested us to introduce legislation dealing with pedestrian crossings, and also with the major and minor roads. We have spent some time discussing anticipated legislation, but we have the law there since 1937. Whether it was that cars were laid up and were off the roads during the war, we appear to have forgotten what the law is. Regulations are laid down which distinguish major and minor roads. These were made in 1937, and they were published in the General By-Laws for the Control of Traffic 1937. If Senators could purchase that little booklet, they would find that out and it would save me the trouble of explaining it. I am afraid that I my self do not remember how they are distinguished, but it is set out in the regulations.

And we find it very hard to get professors to explain it.

We should familiarise ourselves with the law as it exists. Discussions such as this will do much good by focussing the attention of the public on points of law.

Can the Guards decide what the speed limit should be for traffic passing through towns and cities?

No. I can, by holding a local public inquiry to fix a speed limit for any village or town in Ireland.

I think it is time you did this.

There is the difficulty that it is expensive. It would mean holding local public inquiries for every village and town in Ireland, and this would be absolutely impossible. I have already taken steps to amend the law in certain respects. Senators will recollect that last week, or the week before, we spent considerable time discussing a Bill known as the Local Government Bill, 1954, now the Act of 1955. Section 36 of that Act, which has just been enacted, proposes to remove the various defects in Section 69, following which it will be open to the Minister for Local Government to make appropriate regulations regarding roadway markings and road signs. These regulations will be made as soon as possible, and there will be no legal limits on the Garda authorities in their efforts to enforce better order at pedestrian crossings, and at junctions of major and minor roads. That particular section was intended to amend the old section in the 1946 Act. I shall now be able to make regulations for the entire country, and that, in my opinion, will meet many of the points raised here this evening.

Including the speed limit?

Will the Minister be able to instruct county councils and city councils to mark all these major and minor roads?

I hope to instruct city councils and local authorities in as few things as possible after the County Management Bill goes through.

Will they be empowered to ask the Minister to do it? If they pass a resolution asking you to do it, will you do it?

I certainly will, after consideration, do what I can to help.

We have been trying to get them done for years.

The making of regulations in themselves will not supply the full answer to the problems which most of all require consideration. We must depend upon the individual road user to use his discretion. That is very essential. Courtesy is something which we cannot write into a regulation or an Act. Courtesy is something which we must practise and something which we must be taught. Having been taught courtesy, we must put it into practice, and the only place in which it can be taught is the national school.

As to the concluding paragraph of the motion, I think that reference to Section 13 of the Road Traffic Act of 1933, and, in particular, a reference to paragraphs (f) and (g) of sub-section (1), will show that there is sufficient legislation in regard to the use of motor horns at present. I wonder are we all aware of the law governing motor horns? Senator Hayes has described to us his drive from Dungarvan to Dublin without one. Every mile he travelled he committed an offence.

However, in the Road Traffic Act of 1933, there is ample legislation as to the use of horns. Everyone will agree that a motor horn is a very necessary instrument on a motor vehicle and sub-section (3) of the section I have referred to actually requires the Minister to provide in any regulations made by him for the compulsory carrying of such an instrument on every motor vehicle. What is objected to is the abuse of the motor horn, and I feel that that has been adequately dealt with in the regulations made. I cannot do better than quote Regulation 65, sub-section (2) of the Mechanically Propelled Vehicles (Construction, Equipment and Use) Order, 1934, which reads:

"No person shall use or permit to be used any instrument provided on a vehicle for the purpose of giving audible warning, whether the vehicle is or is not in motion, except when such use is reasonably necessary on grounds of safety."

I do not know what the experience in the City of Dublin is, but I know that down the country we very often have a number of prosecutions brought under these regulations and I will tell you a case in which one of these prosecutions arises. A hackney driver goes to a dance with a number of passengers and, when the dance is over and he is anxious to get home, one or two of the passengers cannot be found. He sets off then blowing the horn and keeps blowing until the passengers turn up, with the result that all the people sleeping in that village are aroused and have lost their night's sleep. The Guards are rather vigilant, however, in this respect now and a number of these gentlemen have been prosecuted in recent years, although the law has been in force since 1934. I may add that neither my Department nor the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána has received any representations which would suggest that the existing law is inadequate.

In conclusion, may I say that I welcome this discussion? Every suggestion made will be carefully examined by me when I come to make the regulations under the 1955 Act and I shall also put forward to the Commissioner of the Garda Síochána a request that he will carefully consider the suggestions made in relation to the regulations with which he is concerned.

While we welcome a discussion on a matter of this kind, I think there are very few Senators who will be prepared to support every item set out in this motion. The subject, of course, is a very important one and, while it is no harm to introduce a little humour into it, it is nevertheless a matter of very serious import for everybody. We have been told repeatedly by speakers here about how far advanced the British and people of other countries are in regard to the road code and in regard to regulations governing road traffic and motor traffic. Yet, at the same time, we read in the English newspapers that slaughter on the roads in that country is increasing year by year and has reached terrifying proportions, so I think it will be accepted that no amount of legislating alone will protect our people. What is needed perhaps more than anything else is a change of mentality in regard to this whole matter. I was particularly interested in a reference to bus drivers. Some Senator referred to them as being careless and discourteous and guilty of every road offence.

No, that was not said.

It was said that the bus drivers were exemplary.

The point I want to make is that my experience of bus drivers, and not alone bus drivers but the employees of C.I.E. generally, is that they are very careful——

Agreed unanimously.

—— in the use of their vehicles.

Their record is a praiseworthy one.

For the purpose of the argument I propose to use, I should be very anxious to hear the record, because my feeling is that we will never curb accidents on the roads until those who use motor vehicles become really safety-conscious. I believe there are no people using the roads at present who are as safety-conscious as the drivers of C.I.E., and particularly the bus drivers. If the record shows that they have fewer accidents in proportion to the mileage of road they travel than any other section of the community, it would confirm the viewpoint I hold that, if people were educated really to fear having an accident, we would be making some progress.

I think that if we could get a comparison of the number of accidents in proportion to the mileage travelled in the case of that section of the community—the drivers of C.I.E.—we would find that they have a better record than the average motorist, and that is not saying much. I think it would go to prove that the most essential and important thing is to create a spirit of safety-consciousness amongst those who use vehicles on the road, and I should say that the reason you have careful drivers of C.I.E. buses is perhaps not entirely because good drivers are recruited, but that every driver knows that he will suffer a severe penalty if he is involved in even a minor accident and even if he is not the guilty party. I have had the experience of seeing bus drivers on country roads violently angry because some foolish person pulled a horse against the side of a bus and damaged it slightly. The reason why the man was so angry in the particular case was that it was something he would have to explain and something which might be used against him.

Every driver of the C.I.E. buses is, therefore, particularly aware of that position, and particularly anxious to avoid even the type of accident in which he would not be by any means the guilty party. If the same attitude of mind was adopted by all other road users we would have a definite improvement. We cannot, of course, get away from ordinary human frailty or what might be described as the unguarded moment in everybody's life. We had a case some years ago, a very tragic one, of a bus driver in England who was to receive a medal for good driving for over 30 years, and who on the eve of receiving it was involved in a most deplorable accident in which a number of children were killed by the bus. No matter how careful we are, now and then there will be some unfortunate accident, but the percentage can be very greatly reduced if everybody is endeavouring to avoid such misfortunes.

What we should aim at is not so much to have a lot of penalties imposed which very few people can remember and which perhaps they might not wish to remember. It would be far better instead of that to try to build up a spirit of consciousness of the gravity and seriousness of driving a fast-moving vehicle on the road. In this connection it will be remembered that immediately after the emergency, when cars were coming back on the roads, the Department of Local Government initiated what might be described as a road safety publicity campaign. It was very widely publicised, I think, in 1947. An attempt was made at that time to build up a feeling of consciousness of the dangers of road traffic. If I remember rightly the person mainly responsible for that was Deputy Childers, who at that time occupied the position of Parliamentary Secretary. It was rather a pity that that campaign was not continued and intensified for at least a longer period, although sometimes arising out of it some amusing things did happen. I remember that at that time there was a slogan on the windows of cars: "I am taking care, will you?" I recall going into a garage and seeing a car which was battered almost out of all recognition and which hardly could be described as a car, but it bore this slogan: "I am taking care, will you?" Apparently somebody either did not see the slogan or did not observe it, whether it was the driver or somebody else I do not know. It would be no harm if that type of publicity and propaganda, if you like, was continued and intensified.

The Minister made one remark in particular which to some extent interested me. He said that steps are being taken in regard to the definition of major roads. He pointed out, I think to Senator L'Estrange, that there is a distinct regulation in regard to that matter. If you are travelling on a country road and come to a crossing it is always very difficult to know which of the two country roads is the major road. Both are of equal status. Both are county roads and there is no means by which anyone can define which is the major road. I think it would not be serving any useful purpose if some regulations were to be made by the Department of Local Government setting out certain roads as being major roads. The real solution would be for the county council or the local authority to put a sign on every crossing. It does not really matter which of the two roads is the more important. All that matters is that the county council or local authority has defined one of them as being the more important road.

Then it is up to the motorist to accept the road from Ballymacracken to Ballydehob, which might appear to be as important as the road from Ballygobackwards to Ballinamuck, as not being the major road. It would be impossible for the motorist to make up his mind as to which was the more important of the two roads, until somebody in charge such as the local authority will decide, and having decided it it would be necessary to have a clearly marked sign at the crossing. There would be no use in the motorist being aware even that there was a certain regulation governing this matter. It would serve no useful purpose if any cars collided for the driver of one of them to know that there was such a regulation. That is one matter which the county councils should take in hands. No matter where the two roads cross, one of them should be declared to be the major road and recognised as such, so that motorists would observe their obligation to slow down when coming out from the other road. At the present time there is a substantial change in regard to the matter of road making. Most roads are being resurfaced with tar and motorists are inclined to think that they are on a major road whereas in actual fact any other county road crossing such a road would be of equal importance. This is a matter which local authorities should be instructed to take up at once.

Another matter is the removal of blind turns. I do not suggest that big widening operations should be undertaken wherever two roads intersect. All that is needed is to remove the boundary or fence and give motorists a view of the other road so that at least they will see the traffic approaching the particular corner. It is strange in view of the many accidents which occur that there is not a greater outcry in regard to unprotected quays and harbours. Local authorities should be instructed to provide some protective boundary or guard wherever there is a waterway adjoining the road surface. There is no justification whatever for leaving quays and harbours unprotected. The cost of affording some protection by way of railing or chain or other barrier would not be prohibitive, and many lives would be saved. Anyone who has knowledge of such accidents knows that it is utterly impossible for a motorist driving at night to know where the road ends and the waterway begins. Thus in the case of canals and harbours many serious accidents are caused.

I do not think that the type of suggestion contained in this motion will solve the problem. I do, however, agree that there is need for greater improvement in vehicles using the roads and for a check-up on the braking system, the lighting system and the steering system of cars. Very many accidents are caused through defective brakes. Anybody driving a car should at least be able to pull it up within a reasonable time whether the car is being driven at a fairly high speed or not. But there are many cars which cannot be stopped in a reasonable time. Some cars, particularly of pre-war vintage, some of the old Fords, which cannot be worn out, never had a very effective braking system, and some of them even when driven at a comparatively low speed are exceedingly dangerous. That is a question to which attention should be given.

If you have a system of patrolling the roads by the Gardaí, attention should be given to the question as to whether the braking system on cars is sufficiently effective to bring the cars to a standstill within a reasonable time. We hear particularly from people with very good cars and more from city people than from country people complaints about the defective dimming lights on cars. I think that this is a matter more for the motor manufacturers and garage owners than it is for the actual motorists.

On many makes of cars the dimming system is very ineffective, particularly on lorries. Pressure should be brought to bear upon the manufacturers of cars to provide some solution to this problem. It may be that the suggestion in regard to the provision of coloured glass on cars would be a good one but certainly there are very many cars on which the dimming is completely defective. When the lights are dimmed on such cars, they are even more dangerous than if the full headlights were on. That is true also in regard to driving on a smooth surface on a wet night when the dimmed lights thrown against the road, are reflected and are just as dazzling as if the full headlights were on.

I think that the two solutions of the problem are to make our people more safety conscious and get our car and motor manufacturers to improve the lighting and braking systems on their particular type of vehicle. I believe that even more effective brakes should be provided if the speeds at present operating are to be sanctioned by law. I am not going to express any opinion as to whether there should be a speed limit or not.

I think it would be impossible to operate a speed limit on roads in general. It might be desirable to have such a speed limit in built-up areas. In this connection there are many towns in regard to which proposals for speed limits are considered but are turned down by the local people or the local representatives on the ground that it might to some extent deflect some traffic from coming through the particular towns if a speed limit was introduced. I do not think a speed limit alone will go very far towards a solution of this problem. It is a human problem and a mechanical problem and we have got to reform both the motorists and the cars in general.

This motion is rightly divided into two parts and I may say that I attach a lot of importance to the first part which expresses the opinion that the present traffic regulations should be more strictly enforced. I think the very fact that this motion was put down is symptomatic of the general uneasiness amongst the citizens at the present time in regard to the enforcement of traffic regulations.

Indeed, we have been told by the Minister that we, Senators, are particularly ignorant in regard to the traffic regulations; that there are plenty of laws enacted by us and our predecessors about which we know very little. That is quite true but I think the fault must he with the Department concerned. It is not very much use passing laws unless the people affected by them know of the laws and know that when they are transgressed there should be prosecutions as an example to the transgressors and potential transgressors.

In Dublin recently we had the introduction of the courtesy cops. Then we had those high-speed Garda cars cruising around. I may say that I, in common with most people, expected that we would see an improvement in, the traffic conditions in Dublin. I am afraid that, apart from a slight improvement for a couple of weeks, things have gone back to their original very low level.

I have often been a pedestrian and a motorist, in Belfast. I have often wondered, when I go to Belfast, what is the difference between the regulations and their enforcement in Belfast and in Dublin. I do not think that there are more R.U.C. men per head of the population or per motorist in Belfast than there are Gardaí in Dublin, but it is a definite fact—and Senator Cogan can be convinced of this— that courtesy on the roads, the enforcement and the recognition of regulations are at a far higher level in the northern city than they are here. I think the general unease in regard to traffic regulations is confined more to Dublin than anywhere else.

Motorists, cyclists and pedestrians are always criticising the chaotic traffic conditions in our capital city. It is said that when you become a motorist you automatically blame the cyclist for every offence, I am afraid I must express the opinion that the cyclists are the greatest offenders in Dublin. For some weeks I noticed a Garda standing a few feet out in the roadway directing cyclists to keep within so many feet of the sidewalk. That practice has apparently been dropped and cyclists again wander out over the roadway, cycling four and five abreast, to the danger of themselves and of motorists. Another favourite pastime of cyclists which, apparently, goes uncorrected is that of darting out from side roads and cycling for some time on the wrong side of a main road.

Nobody likes saying it, but I think it is the general opinion that the traffic regulations, apart altogether from not being well known, are not being enforced in this city and, to a certain extent, in the remainder of the country. One could hardly travel a mile along the streets without seeing half a dozen traffic offences. I am not speaking now of parking offences, which are more against the convenience of other road users, but rather of the more serious offences against the safety of a driver or the cyclist himself and other road users. The regulations are not being enforced, and I wonder why that is. We thought that, when the strength of the Garda Síochána had been increased by the new recruits, we would see a more general enforcement of the regulations. I hope I am wrong, but it is my opinion that we have not seen the improvement which we had expected and which I think we were all hoping for.

I hope the Minister will have regard to the points made about the enforcement of the traffic regulations. Despite what he says about all the laws that are there at the moment or the regulations which are going to be issued later or the point that he made that out of 131,000 prosecutions, 102,000 were traffic offences, I think that the fact that this motion was put down and has been debated shows that we are all convinced that there is not sufficient enforcement of the present traffic regulations. In my opinion the first part of the motion is the more important because it does seem a bit silly that we should call for more laws and more regulations if we cannot observe and have enforced the existing regulations.

A lot of the faults of road users have been stressed here this evening. I do not want to go over all that has been said, but I should like to stress a few points. The first is in regard to the driving and operation of road lorries. The point was made by various Senators that the bus drivers in public transport and the lorry drivers in public transport were careful and courteous, and were generally the best road users in the Republic. I think that is a fact, and that it is due to two things. First of all, the campaign in public transport for safety, with the co-operation, I think, of the Safety First Association, draws the attention of the employees concerned to the desirability of safety. The fact that they may get a medal, or some presentation, for so many years' safe driving, is not to my mind the real reason why they are safety conscious but rather to the fact that their attention is drawn to it, and that they take a pride in having a safe driving record. That is one of the reasons why they are amongst the best drivers in the country.

The second reason why they are amongst the best drivers is the fact that their vehicles are properly maintained. I want to say definitely that the same cannot be said about other lorries which operate on our roadways. They operate to the danger of other road users and to the expense, I would suggest, of other road users. Every Senator, I am sure, has had the experience of meeting these lorries on the roads overloaded, not mechanically maintained, defective in a lot of case and probably driven by men on duty since early morning and returning to the ends of Ireland well past midnight That is happening every day of the week. The drivers are to be pitied.

It is a fact that the lorries are generally overloaded and not properly maintained. Senators may have had the experience of driving behind these lorries. Usually, it is difficult to pass them. They must have seen them, by reason of the fact that the lorries are overloaded, churning up the roads. Some of them may be carrying road materials. I have often smiled at the contradiction of these lorries carrying road materials and at the same time churning up and breaking up the roadways already there. That certainly helps to keep them in employment. I think that the regulations already there in regard to the loading, driving and maintenance of freight lorries are not being observed or enforced. I would say that there is a need for a tightening up and probably for an improvement in regard to the regulations generally.

Another subject which was touched on was our old friend the drunken driver. I think I read a statement made recently by the Minister for Justice to the effect that anybody whose licence was taken away on conviction for driving while drunk need not appeal to him for its restoration. I think that all of us, on all sides of the House, would like to congratulate the Minister on making such a statement. We all condemn the drunken driver and would uphold the policy of declining to restore a licence to people condemned of these murderous offences.

There is another aspect of road safety to which I would like to refer. I had an experience of it myself lately. That is the practice of allowing animals to stray on the roads. I had the ghastly experience, lately, of coming on an accident on one of our main western roads. It occurred to a young girl who had been travelling as a passenger in a car. In the dark the car crashed into a donkey which had been left wandering on the road. The girl was unconscious and apparently nobody knew who owned the donkey. It was unfortunate for the donkey—he was dead. I would have liked to get hold of the owner. Too often donkeys and cattle are allowed to stray on the road. I remember that in my youth, when there were far fewer cars on the road, it was a very serious offence and the Gardaí were continually after people who allowed their cattle to stray on the road. I move the adjournment of the debate.

Debate adjourned.
The Seanad adjourned at 10 p.m. until 3 p.m. on Wednesday 25th May. 1955.
Top
Share