Skip to main content
Normal View

Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 15 Jun 1955

Vol. 44 No. 19

Traffic Regulations—Motion (Resumed).

Debate resumed on the following motion:—
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 has been so long on our agenda that I must apologise if the resumption of the debate on it has come as somewhat of a surprise to me. When I moved the adjournment of the debate on the 11th May last, I had been dealing with that part of the motion which refers to the enforcement of the present traffic regulations. I had pointed out to the Seanad (a) that there seems to be an ignorance of the law at present in regard to traffic regulations and (b) that there seems to be rather a looseness in the enforcement of the regulations as they stand at present. I pointed out that we had expected an improvement in the enforcement of the regulations by reason of the recruitment of new Gardaí. I referred to the introduction of the "courtesy cops", as they were called, and to the putting of the Gardaí in high speed motor cars. Some of my friends have pointed out that these high speed motor cars of the Gardaí seem now to be rather the most dangerous type of vehicle to meet on the road. It might be no harm if, sometimes, the courtesy cops, who are very seldom seen, paid attention to their colleagues in the big black cars. However, my point was that the recruitment of additional members to the Garda Síochána and the putting of the people concerned on wheels has not meant any improvement in the enforcement of the regulations. I compared the position as it exists in Dublin with the position in Belfast and I showed that the comparison was not in our favour.

As we all know, the principal transgressors are the cyclists, secondly the lorries which are not properly maintained and thirdly, to a certain extent —and they are probably the most hated people—the drunken drivers. There is the additional factor—particularly in rural areas—that one of the greatest dangers on the roads are animals which are allowed by their owners to stray. They avail of what is called "the long acre" and in spite of the apparent prosperity of agriculture some of our people still will not forgo the advantage of "the long acre" and, accordingly, animals are allowed to stray with very grave danger to the users of the roads.

The second part of the motion calls for amendment of the law. It calls for a driving test. I must declare myself in favour of such a driving test. At the moment, we have the position that anybody can purchase a licence and, by doing so, is entitled under the law to drive a car. We usually refer to physical defects. We say that, even if a man has physical defects, he can get a driving licence. Even people who have not physical defects are also incapable of driving a vehicle with safety either to themselves or other road users. In my opinion, and in the opinion of a lot of people, good driving is a craft which has to be acquired, and some people can never acquire it. That is the position—they never seem to be able to learn. It would seem to me to be sensible that people, before they are allowed to go out on the public highway using a dangerous weapon, should have to satisfy the competent authorities that they are able to control that dangerous weapon and so will not be a danger either to other road users or themselves.

In my opinion, one of the reasons for the higher standard in Britain is that one must pass a driving test before one is allowed out on the road. Not only must one know how to drive properly but, more important still, one must know the rules of the road. That is to say, one must be able to drive with safety and know when one has to give way to traffic as well as what one is supposed to do when approaching major road junctions. Here we never learn the rules of the road. The Minister, when he intervened in this debate, told us about the traffic regulations and said that the Department had issued a booklet. We here in the Seanad, and I am sure we are no different from the bulk of other road users, knew nothing about that. We have ideas of our own as to when one is supposed to give way to another driver. It is something which we acquire by hearsay and probably by reading of reports of prosecutions in the newspapers. Unfortunately, we have no knowledge of the rules of the road, and that is one of the reasons why I think a driving test should be enforced. It would ensure that not only would we have to satisfy the competent authorities that we could drive a car properly, but that we knew the rules of the road and could drive with some degree of safety.

I know that the objection to the introduction of a driving test would be the cost. I would like to draw the attention of Senators to the cost of the present position in another direction altogether. I should like to refer to the fact that, according to the statistics published in the Irish Trade Journal, and in the Statistical Bulletin for March, 1955, there were some 8,332 accidents in 1954, an increase of 757 over the previous year. Those accidents resulted in the cost of 267 killed and 4,769 injured, a total of some 5,000 persons between killed and injured. These figures represent an increase of some 300 over 1953, while the increase in 1953, as compared with 1952, was another 300, so that we have a mounting cost, not on the financial side, but in life and in limb to persons on our roads. When people argue against the introduction of the cost of a driving test, they should bear in mind what the cost is in the number of people killed and injured as represented by the figures which I have given. We find that the cause of accidents is divided up. Some 45 per cent. of the cause of accidents was attributed to drivers. I was somewhat surprised to find that the percentage was as low as 45 per cent.

I referred on the last occasion to the danger of pedal cyclists. I find that my information is confirmed in that the cause of accidents, rated at 19.5 per cent., is attributable to pedal cyclists. We find that children under 14 years of age account for 13.5 per cent. and other children over 14 years for 10.4 per cent., and the surprisingly high figure of 4.8 per cent., due to defects in vehicles. That figure, I think, underlines what I said previously when I referred to the fact that there were so many heavy lorries careering along the roads of the country which were obviously mechanically unfit to be on the road at all.

The motion also calls for the imposition of speed limits. I must confess that I have some mixed feelings in regard to speed limits. I think that a speed limit is necessary and desirable in built-up areas. I feel, however, that where we do take action in regard to enforcing a speed limit we tend to go too far. We look for a speed limit which is obviously too low and it only encourages people to break it.

Perhaps the speed limit fixed in some cases would be more appropriate to pedestrians or cyclists than to the modern car. It is quite ridiculous to say that a speed limit of 20 or 25 miles is a proper speed limit at the present time if you have a competent driver and a properly maintained vehicle. It is ridiculous, as I say, and will only be broken. However that does not counteract the general argument in favour of a speed limit as such through built-up areas. The law should be amended so as to provide that a speed limit can be enforced in those built-up areas. It would in my opinion help to reduce the terrible toll on the roads, particularly the deaths and injuries caused to children under 14 years of age, who, as we saw, have 13.5 per cent. of the accidents attributable to them.

The third call for further legislation is that dealing with major and minor roads. I do not think that any Senator would quarrel with that particular part of the motion. There have been indications in Dublin lately that the authorities are waking up to the desirability of marking clearly some junctions and indicating that you are approaching a major road. They have only done so in some places and there are quite a few important junctions taking a lot of traffic where there is no indication whatever as to which is the major and which is the minor road. Naturally then it is the case of an argument at the junction, to drive ahead and hope that the other fellow is not going to do so, and the strongest usually gets away with it. The weaker gives way—either his nerves or his car give way.

In talking about these major junctions, I think the condition should be enforced that people approaching a major road should stop and should not be allowed to take chances as they are at the present time. Too often it seems to be thought proper and quite a reasonable thing to slow down for the junction and come around the corner prepared to jam on your brakes if danger threatens. That is quite wrong and the Gardaí should strictly enforce the regulation that cars approaching a major junction should definitely stop before going on to the major road.

That is all I wish to say on this motion. May I again apologise for being taken rather unawares with the resumed debate? I trust that Senators have not been too bored by my rather rambling speech.

I, too, like Senator Murphy, am glad to see this motion coming to the surface again. I was beginning to feel that the pilots or drivers of the motion were guilty of rather slow driving; and the motion itself was beginning to look as if it might constitute a sort of traffic block. I am glad, therefore, that it has come up again for discussion and I regard it as a valuable motion. I should like to make some remarks, I hope at not too great length. There was some talk on the last occasion when we mentioned this motion—some months ago now, I think—of high-powered cars, and of small cars, fast cars and slow cars. I stand here as a representative of the not negligible majority, those who are cyclists rather than drivers of big or little cars on the road. I can say, too, that I have had experience of cycling here, and of rather more exciting and adventurous cycling in the traffic of the City of Paris. In France the traffic, particularly in the big cities, tends to run at a tempo which rather frightens us when we go there first, but this is due I think to the fact that they have certain organisational advantages which might be copied here, as was mentioned by Senator Hayes and one or two others earlier on. I propose to mention those in a moment or two.

While speaking, nevertheless, of cyclists, and in a sense on behalf of cyclists, I am bound to recognise that in this city of ours there are many thousand careless, negligent and indeed grossly ignorant users of the pedal cycle. Many of them cause accidents both to themselves and to others. I do think that the major proportion of those accidents derives rather from ignorance than anything else. I feel that perhaps if they are not educated in the rules of the road some of the blame for that might attach to the authorities in charge.

One must say, nevertheless, of car users that while the big majority behave well on the roads there is a small minority—I should place it at something like 3 or 4 per cent.—of car users of the roads who consider that the size of their car is sufficient in itself to give them priority over any other user of the road. That is an attitude of mind. It is a psychological thing which is increasingly to be feared and consequently increasingly to be deplored.

I saw figures quoted to-day that by 1958 we may hope to have on the roads of Ireland something like 180,000 cars. That is a frightening prospect, in view of the fact that our roads are not in fact wide enough or sufficiently well organised to carry this quantity of traffic, and the sooner we set about implementing the suggestions indicated by this motion the better.

There is a regular feature in the popular motoring column of the Irish Times which I think most of us read with gratification. That is the last paragraph which attributes a “black mark” to a nameless road user arising out of an incident which has happened in Dublin or elsewhere. We read it, of course, hopefully, in the hope that we may recognise the registration numbers of some of our friends, or better still, of some of our enemies. I think myself that the focussing of public opinion in that way upon bad manners on the road is a useful thing, and might quite well be copied in a more general way.

The question of road tests is mentioned in the motion. It is quite obvious that the application and inauguration of road tests for drivers is long overdue in this country. We must have them, and we must have them quickly. The question of cost arises. I do not think we should hesitate to say to people who want the privilege of getting a certificate that they are able to drive that they should be prepared to pay a reasonable proportion at least of the cost of organising such tests. It is obvious that in the beginning there will be considerably more numbers applying for these tests than at a later stage when it becomes a routine matter. That is all the more reason for tackling it quickly.

I should also favour in relation to this problem the inauguration of very simple public propaganda by the traffic authorities for the teaching of the simple rules of the road. I believe that the Department of Health has set a headline in that way, and has succeeded in putting over to the public elementary rules of health which some people knew, which others thought they knew, by means of vivid posters and simple propaganda. I believe that sort of thing done by the Civic Guards, for instance, through the medium of the Press and by posters, could be extremely useful for educating people and reducing the ignorance upon which many instances of the misuse of the roads depend.

There is another point in this—our duty in the international field. Anybody can walk into an office here, as Senator Murphy has pointed out, and buy a driving licence. The same person can go around to the A.A. offices and for the expenditure of another £1 or £2 buy an international driving licence giving the Irish driver the right to drive a car abroad in many countries where the most stringent tests are applied to the natives of those countries—I am thinking particularly of France. We are failing in our duty to the other countries of Europe by allowing people who may know little or nothing about driving to obtain in that way an international driving licence. It is necessary, therefore, for those various reasons, to improve the organisation and the application of the rules, and the understanding of those rules at present obtaining. Much has been done, particularly in Dublin and in the other cities, fairly recently, but I think a lot still remains to be done.

I think that dealing with traffic at busy crossings in the city could be greatly improved. We are sometimes confronted with a Civic Guard, sometimes with traffic lights, but there are many people who deplore the fact that we have no system such as they have in Paris, for instance, whereby a Civic Guard in such a place as the centre of College Green could have his stand on a platform and from there control the traffic lights at quite a distance from him. We have no system whereby pedestrians can be controlled at the narrowest point of the road, and frequently, as, for instance, in College Green, the pedestrian crossing is at one of the widest points and causes a far longer hold-up of traffic than need be if we had a better system.

There is also the question of road surfaces. We have done a great deal in this country during the last 20 or 30 years to improve road surfaces. Would that we had progressed as much in other fields! But I would draw the attention of the Seanad to a practice in France of a deliberate refusal on the part of certain towns and villages in the north of France to improve the road surface going through the town, for the reason that they found that notices put on the roadway asking motorists to slow down and saying "thank you" to them after they had gone through the town, were not enough. Some of those towns said: "Right. We will bring back the old cobble stones and any motorist going through here fast will run a serious risk of breaking his springs." That, of course, appeals to the sentiments of the motorist, and he tends willy-nilly to slow down in such towns. I would suggest that possibly such a consideration might be applied where other means of getting traffic to slow down have failed.

I should like to make another suggestion, again based on French practice, which may seem trivial or absurd, but which, in my opinion, is extremely efficacious in France. That is the possession by the traffic policeman of a loud and shrill whistle. Anybody who has had any experience of traffic in Paris will know the effect upon the motorist, the pedestrian, or the other users of the road, of the shrill pursuing whistle of the French policeman. He commands attention by it, not only from oncoming traffic but from receding traffic. He commands the attention of the whole street, and draws the eyes of everybody upon the motorist or road user who has been at fault. He makes longer "the long arm of the law" by this capacity to draw attention to himself, and to what he wants to implement, by this shrill whistle. He succeeds, also, in speeding up traffic where necessary. I suggest that this apparenty trivial item of accoutrement for traffic police is one reason why the control of traffic in Paris and France is far more effective and instantaneous than it is in Ireland.

There is just one final danger to which I should like to refer. That is the danger of the drunken driver. We have in this country evolved a system of licensing public houses for the absorption of intoxicants known as the bona fide system. You have to be a bona fide traveller in certain circumstances in order to get drink. I wonder do we ever pause to wonder what do those words mean—“in good faith,”“genuine”. You have to be a “genuine” traveller, but of course we know that in fact and in practice the words have become a mockery, or a symbol of hypocrisy, because to rank as a bona fide traveller all you have to do is to travel a few miles. Obviously those rules are bad. Obviously they force people to travel by car when they want a drink, when in fact they would be far safer drinking without travelling by car. It is high time we dealt also with that matter, as adult people and not as moral children, who have to make believe we are “genuine travellers” when we want only to get a drink within the city precincts.

The question of children brings me to what Senator Murphy said about the incidence of accidents caused by children. One of the reasons for that is our failure as a society to provide adequate recreational facilities for children, who are forced all too often to play in the streets for lack of playgrounds, swimming pools, football grounds, and so on.

Finally, I should like to say that I think we have one very precious thing in this country, and that is natural good manners. Perhaps the road is one of the places where that attribute, which I believe to be a fundamental Irish attribute, is least visible. I think we could do a lot by simply encouraging upon the roads the use of what I would call natural Irish good manners.

My intervention in this extremely interesting debate will be very brief because all the speakers so far have covered every aspect of road traffic control that exists. We have heard speakers referring to major roads, minor roads, pedestrian rights at crossings, motorists' rights, cyclists' rights and cyclists' wrongs, and I would not have intervened in this debate at all, when the subject has been so well covered, were it not for the fact that when the Minister intervened he informed the House that an amending Traffic Bill was in contemplation. It is with that end in view that I make my humble intervention. Senator McGuire in the course of his speech referred to lights and lighting, and this is just one aspect I would like to comment on. Because motor cars are fitted with very powerful headlights, other road users are quite under a misapprehension that the motorist's range of vision is far greater than it actually is. Various factors such as weather, etc., tend to narrow his field of vision very considerably although his lights appear to be just as bright. In this respect, and as this motion is intended primarily to bring about the better safety of all road users, I bring up this question of cyclists' lights. The law as it stands at present compels the cyclist to carry a light in front of his bicycle and I think to carry a reflector on the rear.

First of all, might I say that within the City of Dublin anybody approaching any of the main approaches to the city between the hours of 5.30 and 6.30 on a wet winter's evening by motor car will find himself running a very grave risk of picking off hundreds of persons, who are on their way out from their work in the city to their suburban homes riding bicycles? I say without fear of contradiction that you will meet them in groups of anything up to 30 or 40 and, in that group of 30 or 40, there will only be one or two bicycles actually carrying a front light. I do think that the police authorities have been extremely remiss in the City of Dublin in not enforcing the law in that respect.

I shall pass from that point and in conclusion make my final point, which is—again referring to the interference with the motorist's visibility which may come about through conditions outside his control—that in my view, if there is to be a new Traffic Act, a reflector on the rear of a bicycle does not fulfil the conditions which would provide for adequate safety of the cyclist himself in certain conditions at night.

Business suspended at 6 p.m. and resumed at 7 p.m.

When the House adjourned, I was dealing with the question of lights on bicycles. I was pointing out that under certain conditions the field of vision of drivers of motor cars becomes extremely limited. I want to make a point with regard to what is likely to happen, and what in fact does happen all too frequently, in the case of motorists who are overtaking cyclists at night in conditions of bad visibility, brought about either through weather or through the glare of the headlights of oncoming cars. In these circumstances, the fact that a cyclist has, by law, a reflector on the rear of his bicycle is of very little assistance and all too frequently cyclists have been run into by motorists, through no fault of the cyclist himself. Although the cyclist is obeying all the rules of the road, riding his bicycle on his proper side, well in on his left-hand side, that kind of accident has taken place quite frequently.

I speak on this subject with a certain amount of feeling—a feeling of gratefulness—as I had personal experience of such an accident in these conditions —a feeling of gratefulness that the cyclist on that occasion was neither injured nor killed, as he quite easily might have been through no fault of his own. In view of the fact that we have been promised that there is to be a new Traffic Act, I want to make the point that that Traffic Act should contain a regulation that, in addition to a lamp on the front of his bicycle, a cyclist should be compelled to carry a lighted lamp on the rear of his bicycle.

It may be said that this is throwing an added expense on the cyclist and it has often been pointed out that the bicycle is the vehicle of the poor man, but I do not think that is a sufficient answer, because a bicycle lamp costs very little, a few shillings, and an extension from the front lamp to the rear of a bicycle would again cost only a shilling or two, so that it would be no hardship to enforce such a regulation and it would be in the safety interests of the cyclists themselves.

I should like to refer, in conclusion, to this question of a driving test before a licence is issued. It was suggested here that the introduction of such a test might entail too much expenditure. I do not think that argument is valid. It would not be necessary to have all the holders of licences tested. When a driving test was introduced in the United Kingdom, it was not retrospective; it was for the future and people who already had licences were not subject to it. The same procedure could be adopted here. You would then be faced with the comparatively small task of year by year testing only those who were coming newly into the field of motoring.

I trust the Minister will do all in his power to speed up the introduction of the new Traffic Bill. Despite the fact, as he said here on the last occasion, that a great number of the points raised were covered under the Traffic Act, there is still a feeling in this House that there is a certain vagueness about certain road regulations. If I, as a motorist of many years' standing, were to offer any advice to motorists, it would be this—that under Traffic Acts or regulations you may have certain rights in theory, but in actual practice when you take a motor car on the road you will find that you have nothing but a vast series of liabilities. If everybody were to drive with that in mind, we would have fewer accidents.

This motion is of such importance that some of the points raised deserve repetition. The motion is in two parts. The first part suggests that the present traffic regulations should be more strictly enforced. With that I am in wholehearted agreement. I maintain that there is a great deal of laxity in the enforcement of the existing regulations. I listened to the Minister when he commented on the motion earlier and, quite frankly, I was not impressed by his insistence that all the abuses referred to in the motion are catered for already in existing legislation. I am sure the Minister is perfectly right, but the fact ought to be stressed again and again that, while it may be all to the good to have these abuses covered in existing legislation, there is not much point in that if it is not being strictly enforced.

The experience of the majority of motorists is that there is wholesale abuse of the existing regulations. I would like to quote one instance, one of the most glaring I know of. We have within ten miles of Dublin a town which, supposedly, has imposed a speed limit on traffic passing through the town. I am referring to Bray. I pass through Bray quite a lot and I can truthfully and honestly say that seven out of any ten motorists never recognise that speed limit. I have been passed myself in the main street of Bray by people who, according to any test I could apply, must have been travelling at 40 miles an hour; and I have seen the Garda authorities standing on the footpath witnessing that sort of driving in a town like Bray. A great deal more should have been done in providing speed limits through every provincial town—but more important still is the enforcement of those limits.

The second part of the motion suggests that there should be a driving test. I would be in complete agreement with the suggestion that there ought to be a very severe test, not alone of the driver but of the car. I heard it said here that it would be impossible for the Department to insist on the production of a certificate of road-worthiness before a driving licence could be issued in respect of a particular car. I would like to point out that in practice some of the insurance companies, if not all of them, have overcome this difficulty in recent years by a very simple insistence on the production of a certificate of road-worthiness before they will agree to insure a car. If it can be produced for the insurance company, it should be possible to produce it within six or nine months when a man goes to renew his licence. There certainly ought to be some test. It seems wrong that any citizen is entitled to a licence regardless of whether he is maimed, crippled, deficient in eyesight or hearing or in some other of his faculties—that it is in order for him to go into the office of any local authority and demand a driving licence on production of a statement that he is over 16 years of age.

A strong case exists for saying that the minimum age limit should be raised and I would suggest it be raised to 21 or certainly to 18 or 19. I recognise the difficulty that would confront the Department and I admit that it might not be altogether feasible to insist that everyone holding a driving licence at the moment should undergo now a driving test, but I maintain that it should be feasible to insist that for the next generation of drivers we should be satisfied that they are capable physically and mentally, according to some reasonable test, and that they are fit persons to have in charge of a car under traffic conditions as we know them in our towns and cities to-day.

In regard to driving licences, I do not think the authorities are strict enough in their checking of those in charge of mechanically propelled vehicles. I allude particularly to motor cyclists and other forms of vehicle, apart from motor cars. I can illustrate my point by quoting briefly an instance I experienced personally not long ago. Driving out from Dublin on the way to the West of Ireland, I was on a particularly good straight, level stretch of road. I had travelled the same road frequently. I knew it pretty well. On this particular stretch of it I had a perfectly clear view for at least a mile or one and a half miles ahead. I was aware that there were no intersections either by way of by-roads or laneways. Fortunately for me, I did not take any gamble, so to speak, on my knowledge of that particular stretch of the road. As I was proceeding along what appeared to be nothing more than a long high hedge skirting the side of that road for the best part of a quarter of a mile, suddenly, right out from the middle of that hedge, a tractor swung out on the road in front of my car. The tractor was drawing a trailer and it emerged literally from the centre of that hedge. There was no laneway or roadway there. What had happened, obviously, was that the farmer had cut a gap in the hedge a day or two previously for the purpose of enabling the tractor to be taken in or out of his field.

There were two young fellows sitting on the tractor and one of them was trying to wrestle the steering wheel from the other. They emerged on to the road at a speed of not less than 15 or 20 miles per hour. Because of the nature of the vehicle and of the particular type of opening through which it emerged, leaving a sharp fall to the road itself, they could do nothing but bring it well across the road and make a wide are in order to get the vehicle on to its proper side of the road. Fortunately for me, I was able to get my car on to the offside of then and save myself. I shudder to think what would have been the case if it had been a bus load of people or even if I had been travelling at an extra ten miles per hour, as I would have been entitled to do in the circumstances.

I stopped my car and asked these two young lads if either of them had a driving licence. One of them told me that his age was 16½ years. He said he had a licence but when I asked him to produce it he told me he had not got it with him. The other young lad told me he was 15 years of age and said he had no driving licence. In my view, the authorities ought to be in a position to prevent that sort of thing from happening. I feel that people of that age should not be permitted to take charge of vehicles of that kind. I should like to see a stricter enforcement of such regulations as we have and perhaps we could improve on them then.

There seems to be a lot of laxity so far as pedestrians are concerned and that is particularly noticeable in the city. Anybody who has had experience of walking in cities in England and even in Belfast and who then comes back to Dublin cannot but notice the manner in which motorists and others ignore the rights of pedestrians. It is really shocking to see women and children having to stand indefinitely while motorists and others pass them by without the slightest consideration. Generally speaking, they ignore them, despite the fact that pedestrians have a perfect right to use the crossings. I feel the Garda authorities could do a lot to educate motorists as to their responsibilities to the public in this matter.

Throughout most of the country and certainly along most of the major roads adjoining the city we have a system of major road signs which the local authority go to a lot of trouble to erect, in the first instance. Any motorist who knows his job should realise that, in his own interests, he is expected to pay attention to these signs. However, even though thousands of these signs are erected, we know that they are much more frequently ignored than they are recognised by motorists generally. Again, I believe our authorities are lax in not insisting that these very definite and reasonable requirements are complied with a lot more strictly than they are by motorists generally. If, as the Minister says, existing legislation is adequate to cater for all these contingencies or hazards, then it is high time that the existing regulations were enforced and enforced strictly. Some of us might not care for the regulations to be enforced very strictly but it is in the interests of the community at large that it should be done and we have to think of and legislate for the community at large. I have great pleasure in supporting the purpose and intention of this motion.

Mr. Douglas

I welcome this motion and share with the Senators who have spoken before me the desire that, in the very near future, the Minister will bring in a Bill which will not only summarise the existing laws but also cover the suggestions which have been made by members of this House.

The motion, as proposed by Senator Professor Hayes, falls into two sections, as the last speaker has remarked. I think that the first section, which deals with the present traffic regulations, should be more strictly enforced. The Minister says that he will deal with it in a future Bill. A great deal has been said about a compulsory driving test. I think every member of this House would welcome some form of driving test before a new applicant is granted a driving licence. As well as an actual test in ability to handle a vehicle, I think it is equally important that the new driver should have a full knowledge of the road code. I understand a booklet is available which sets out briefly a road code for this country. I think the Minister should consider examining the English code and modifying it to suit our requirements.

In my view, an adequate knowledge of the road code is even more important than a driving test on the actual handling of a vehicle. It is most desirable that an applicant for a new driving licence should have some actual knowledge of the working of the engine of the motor car or vehicle which he proposes to drive. During the war, I was quite horrified to come across a bus standing on the side of the road with its engine over-heated. The driver and conductor were standing beside it and were apparently doing nothing. I might say that the engine of the bus was still running. I remonstrated with them and eventually I said I would walk to the nearest Garda station and report them for sabotage. I pointed out that they were destroying the engine of the bus at a time when it was exceedingly difficult to get replacement parts. I told them I would report them to the Gardaí if they would not go to the nearest house and get a jug of cold water, which was all that was required. The driver refused to do it, but the conductor said that, while it was against union regulations, it might be the most feasible thing to do in the circumstances.

The Minister or possibly Senator Professor Hayes mentioned that there is a speed limit for buses. I think he said the speed limit for a double-decker bus is 20 miles per hour and that it is 35 miles per hour for single-decker buses. If these speed limits do exist then I fear they are generally ignored by the driver. On many occasions I have followed double-decker buses doing well over 40 miles per hour, and I have seen them driven at excessive speeds even in towns. On one occasion I was following a single-decker bus in the country in my own car. I was not able to keep up with it at 60 miles an hour, and that bus was loaded with passengers. If there is any method by which we could impose a speed limit on buses it should be done without delay. I believe it is possible to fit a regulator to the accelerator to prevent their going over a certain speed. I think that, as far as public vehicles and lorries are concerned, some regulation is necessary.

Some Senator asked, when referring to pedestrians, if they had got any rights as road users. I often feel on occasions that they would seem to have no rights at all. On many of the streets in Dublin they are taking their lives in their hands if they attempt to cross, but, as far as the law is concerned, the pedestrian would seem to have more rights than any other road user. Not long ago I heard of a case of a messenger boy who specialised in being knocked down. He was knocked down by my sister-in-law and duly got a settlement from the insurance company. He confided to her subsequently that it was the second time that day that he had managed to get knocked down, and on each occasion without serious injury.

Cyclists were mentioned by Senator Sheehy Skeffington. I have a great deal of sympathy with them, particularly those employed in the city who very often are in a great hurry going home to lunch from their place of employment. While I say that, I think they have very little knowledge at all of the traffic code. I think that they are probably the worst offenders in ignoring the traffic lights. It was suggested to me some time ago, judging by the number of cyclists who ignore the traffic lights, that we have a greater number of colour-blind people in the City of Dublin than in any other city in the world. I think something should be done in the way of educating road users in our cities with regard to obeying the traffic lights.

When driving into town this morning, at Harcourt Street corner I noticed a large group of children waiting patiently to try and cross over to Adelaide Road. It is quite impossible for a pedestrian at a busy time of the day to cross there in safety. One of the arrows points left, and the position is such that it is impossible for anyone to cross with safety. I consider that during certain hours of the day a policeman or a traffic warden should be on duty there to see that the large number of children going to the local national school will get over in safety. The situation which I have described is to be witnessed there every morning. This morning I stopped my car and waved to the children to cross. Immediately the drivers of three cars behind me started to blow their horns. A good deal has been said about the importance of giving some indication as regards major and minor roads. Someone should take the responsibility of deciding which of two roads constitutes a major road.

Drunken driving was one of the matters dealt with extensively by a number of previous speakers. I think we shall have to face up to what is done in the Scandinavian countries where they have very strict rules with regard to drunken driving. I believe that they have a medical test. If there is an indication that a driver has consumed even a small quantity of alcohol his driving licence is suspended. In Sweden, when people are going to a party, they draw lots as to the man who is to drive the car. The only thing he is allowed to drink at the party is milk. I am not advocating that we should go to that extreme, but I do think that the penalties for drunken driving should be much more severe than they are at present.

In Belfast they have a system of pedestrian crossings similar to that which exists in London. I had an opportunity not long ago of testing that system for myself. At these pedestrian crossings you press a button. The light turns green, and you can cross with safety. That is a system which I think might be introduced at the pedestrian crossing which we have at Merrion Row. I referred a few moments ago to cyclists. I wonder would the Minister consider it desirable to introduce some form of licence for cyclists? In most countries in Europe there is a small licence fee charged on bicycles. That means that there is an identification number or a disc provided for the bicycle which is a great help to the police in the case of accidents or breaches of the law.

The question of the number of heavy vehicles which are on the roads and are mechanically unfit was referred to by Senator Murphy. I agree with him that it is most desirable that some form of test of the running capabilities of vehicles should be introduced before an owner can renew his tax. Lorries are probably more guilty in this respect than motor cars. The insurance companies insist, I think, on a certificate of fitness in the case of vehicles which have been in use for four or five years before they will renew the insurance policy. Perhaps it would be possible for our taxation office to operate a system along that line.

Lastly, I would put this suggestion to the Minister. It is one which I have made on a number of occasions at meetings of the Dublin Corporation where, I am afraid, it was not received with any great favour. In pre-war Berlin, and it may also be the case in post-war Berlin, the police were entitled to impose a small on-the-spot fine. On two occasions I was guilty of breaking the traffic regulations in Berlin. On each occasion, the policeman when he found that I was a foreigner—by the way he spoke excellent English—explained to me the mistake I had made, and asked me to try and avoid doing so again. He refused to impose the fine on me. It was one mark at that time or about sixpence, but I insisted on paying as I had been guilty of an offence.

I believe that if our police were allowed to impose small fines on the spot for breaches of the traffic regulations it would help to bring home to people more quickly than in any other way the seriousness of their offence. The fine should not be big enough to make it difficult for a man in the street to be able to put his hand in his pocket and pay it. If a person was unfairly fined there should be adequate protection to enable him to appeal. I believe that if pedestrians could be fined up to a maximum of 2/6, cyclists 5/- or 10/-, and motorists £1, it would help in no uncertain way in the observance of our traffic regulations. I welcome the motion, and hope that the Minister in his Traffic Bill will introduce provisions to enable an improvement to be brought about in the present very unsatisfactory situation.

I shall be very brief. I have been listening to practically every Senator who contributed to the debate on this motion, and while I find no cause to differ with the suggestions made as to the necessity for enforcing traffic regulations and laws and for having driving tests and setting up speed limits I think that in this matter prevention would be better than cure. To my mind one contributory cause, if not the greatest contributory cause, to the accidents to-day on the highways are the local bodies, encouraged by substantial grants from the Local Government Department. Huge sums of money involving thousands of pounds' expenditure are devoted to the cutting of hills, the removing of what are called dangerous corners, and giving wide open spaces to the speed merchant. The result, as many Senators know, is that at present some of the most serious accidents take place on the straight. I really think that if the Local Government Department paid more attention to representations made by local bodies to devote some of the thousands of pounds expended on improving those roads to the county roads instead it would be better, because these roads were never built to carry the traffic that has to go over them at the present time, and if these roads were improved many very serious accidents would be avoided. I hope that the rather exhaustive discussion of this motion will lead to something being done to meet with the requirements of the motion and to make conditions of travel for the ordinary pedestrian safer than they are at present. As many Senators have pointed out, pedestrians have gradually been driven off the highways as a result of excessive speeds indulged in by motorists. Those who manufacture cars are out for speed tests, and all this is an encouragement to speed which can only be carried out with danger to the ordinary user of the road. Perhaps the debate on this motion may be responsible for bringing about improved conditions, and if that happens it will be well worth the time spent on it.

As the joint mover of this motion, I propose to be brief because it has been very fully discussed. I think that every possible point, or almost every possible point, that could be made on it has been reiterated. I shall try to stress just a few of the things which I think are of importance in the debate. I believe that one of the virtues involved in putting down a motion of this sort—and it has not been the first discussed in this House: the late Senator Douglas and myself had a very similar motion here some two or three years ago—is, as the Minister stressed when he intervened earlier, that it wakens the public conscience to the seriousness of the toll on our roads.

I noticed that during the week the Minister for Justice was invited to the annual meeting of the Safety First Association and it was a shock to me to learn that five people were killed every week on the roads of this country. Nobody seems to think that there is anything wrong about the matter. I remember a clergyman speaking some time ago about the moral question involved in the case of a man on a roof taking off tiles. The clergyman stated that if that man threw them down on the street and killed somebody he would have the same moral responsibility as if he aimed them at the person he killed. I believe the man or woman driving a motor car on the roads is driving a guided missile, a lethal weapon, and that such people should be competent to drive to the extent that not alone will the car not kill somebody but it will not cause any harm to anybody. We have a duty to see that adequate safeguards are taken so that the public may be protected from those who want to use this lethal weapon on the roads.

The first thing we must do is to encourage people to know their duties to the public, and we can only do that by propaganda. It was suggested here that we should have some newspaper propaganda. I believe this could be done through many of our places of education where children are being instructed in road safety and what to do. They ought to be instructed that accidents on the roads are a blot on the 20th-century public conscience in view of the number of people who lose their lives every week. It is a sin against society, if you like.

Are you suggesting a speed limit?

I am not. I think the suggestion of a speed limit is very difficult because five miles an hour might be too fast in one case and, on congested public roads, it might sometimes be better for people to drive fast to relieve congestion because where you have a big number of cars trailing after one another, it is often the most fruitful cause of accidents.

I am far from suggesting five miles an hour.

Maybe I was a little bit unreasonable in hoping that anybody might slow down to five miles an hour. I do not think that the Minister and his Department should seriously consider the issue of a well prepared book drawing to the attention of everybody who buys a driving licence the basic things that ought to be observed and that everybody ought to know. I know that there is a difficulty in the matter. If I were brought up before a justice for some offence, I could say that I did not see it in the little book I got when I got my driving licence. Still it is better that people should have a considerable amount of knowledge than that they should have none. It is a bad argument to say that we will not give them information when we cannot give them all the information. We ought to have as much propaganda as we can.

I was very interested in some of the suggestions made by Senator Douglas and several others that the Gardaí ought to be able to impose a fine on cyclists and such persons. I think the suggestion is very important because these people do not carry identification and it would be a very difficult problem, having regard to the way development has taken place in this country, to license cyclists. It was suggested that the system that appertains in the United States and in Germany ought to be considered by the Minister.

Senator Sheehy Skeffington spoke a great deal about the regulations in Paris. I have been in Paris several times and I was always rather frightened by the traffic there. A friend of mine who has driven all over Europe said to me that the way he drives in Paris is to wait at one of the streets leading to the boulevards until he sees a large bunch of taxis coming. Then he gets out quickly into the middle of the taxis and feels like a battleship or an aircraft carrier protected by a number of destroyers, they are going so quickly, but he has adequate protection. I am sorry that Senator Sheehy Skeffington is not here to hear what my friend tells me about Paris conditions, but I think it is a very good way to get around Paris if one can happen to do that.

A driving test has been mentioned. I think it would be an impossible problem to test everybody in this country who is driving a motor car, but we could start off by having a test for every new applicant for a driving licence. I do not think there is anything against charging anyone who wants to drive a motor car around for a driving test. My daughter has just begun to drive a motor car and I insisted that she would go to a properly approved motoring school to learn to drive a motor car and the basic things that people ought to know about the courtesies and the reasons for them on the road, giving away to traffic and those other various things which many of us may not have impressed as adequately on ourselves as we ought to.

The Minister ought to consider having a driving test for all new drivers and I suggest also that those who drive heavy vehicles, such as lorries—any vehicle with a carrying capacity of over one ton—should not be allowed to drive, unless they have had a driving test. I think it is obligatory in the case of hackney drivers, which is a very good thing. I discussed this question with one hackney driver who told me that he had to do a test and he said that it was very beneficial because all the things that are of importance were stressed and he had to go through the course and read the manual to prepare himself for it. It made him aware of many of the things that one should do on the roads and the educational value of the test was very great. I further suggest that the licences of all persons convicted of any offence whatever on the roads, no matter how trivial, should be held until they have had a driving test. Perhaps I should qualify that and say that they should be given a month, or some such period, to qualify by having a driving test, and if they do not pass the test, they should not get back their licences.

The suggestion made here that there should be a certificate of mechanical fitness of a vehicle is an admirable suggestion. Senator Crowley made the suggestion to-day and other Senators made it on the previous day on which we discussed this motion. It would be a very simple matter, because, for driving safety, what is needed is an assurance that the steering joints are in good condition and the brakes in good condition, and I believe a competent mechanic would be able to give such a certificate of fitness after not more than half an hour's examination of the vehicle. If, at a later stage. that car meets with an accident and if it can be shown that it did not measure up mechanically to the required standard, it would be a stigma on the garage and a garage like that might then not be allowed to issue such a certificate. A further safeguard would be if it were made obligatory on insurance companies to get a certificate from an approved garage of the fitness of the vehicle before granting an insurance certificate. I understand that, in the case of cars over ten years of age, the insurance companies will not give a certificate until the car is examined by a garage and a certificate given by the garage.

With regard to the marking of major roads, in travelling on the road from Cork to Dublin, one sees along the road, "Junction on the left", "Junction on the right", and so on. All these things are told to the motorist the whole way, so that a person driving on the principal highway in the south of this island from Cork to Dublin is constantly being made aware of every junction on the road. I should say, however, that people travelling on 90 per cent. of the roads running on to that highway are not made aware of the fact that they are entering a main highway. I remember five or six years ago approaching the City of Dublin when a cyclist came straight out in front of me from a by-road. I was able to avoid him with a great deal of good fortune, and I said to him after that he should not have cycled out in that fashion in front of a car. He replied: "Did you not see that there was a turn there?" How could I possibly slow down to let everybody drive out on to the main highway from every by-road? But he thought he had as much right to drive out on the main highway as I had to drive along it.

There was a lesson in that for me. He had never been made aware that, as a cyclist, when he was approaching a major road of that nature, the main Dublin-Cork road, he was not entitled to run straight across the road. That is why I think these roads ought to be properly marked and the Minister should arrange for some sort of liaison between the Gardaí and the local officials with regard to a uniform system of marking our roads. I should like to see the roads running out on to our principal highways having a white line across them to show people that they are crossing into a danger zone, if you like. At the particularly dangerous points, as Senator Murphy suggested, there ought to be a "stop" sign. In parts of the North and in Britain, where narrow by-roads enter major roads, people are compelled to stop to see if there is oncoming traffic. The Guards and local authority officials dealing with the problem will know where these ought to be put and the application of a little common sense would be of enormous benefit. I think it would do away with accidents.

There is one final point I should like to refer to, though it is largely a matter for the Minister for Justice as it applies to traffic control. I refer to the use of horse policemen. The horse policeman is used in Britain for controlling crowds on the occasion of football matches and at points where there is a large pedestrian problem. For that work, I think he is unique, because, being so high above the ground, he can see what is happening and can see where the congestion is. A man on a horse commands a great deal of respect. Ireland is more the home of the horse than any other country, and, if these men could be fitted in, for the controlling of crowds on the occasion of hurling or football finals in Croke Park or international rugby matches at Lansdowne Road, not alone would they be useful, but they would be an advertisement for the country as the home of the horse.

I suggest that the Minister should see to what extent he can have the suggestions made here put into force immediately, because the Minister for Justice spoke this week at a meeting of the Safety First Society and he shocked me by the announcement that every week of the year in Ireland five people lose their lives. When we sit into a car to drive, we might ponder that and ask ourselves if enough precautions are being observed and enough consideration being given by the public—it is the courtesy of the public that is going to save us more than anything else—and we might also think about whether we are doing enough to see that the holocaust of the roads is reduced so far as it is humanly possible to reduce it.

I think the Minister wishes to intervene.

If the Minister wants to intervene, I presume there will be no objection.

I should like to thank the Seanad sincerely for permitting me to intervene briefly, and I do mean briefly. I have already spoken on this motion and given my views, and I am delighted indeed to hear so many constructive suggestions put forward by various Senators on all sides. Unfortunately, I will not have an opportunity of replying to them all, but I should like to refer to a few of them. It was suggested by Senator Douglas that bicycles should be licensed. The bicycle is the poor man's motor car and I sincerely hope that there will never be a licence imposed on the poor man for the riding of his bicycle.

Senator Douglas also suggested that we should have school wardens and he instanced cases in Dublin, no later than this morning, where he had to pull up his car to let school children pass. I took steps already, no later than two weeks ago, to permit Dublin Corporation to appoint school wardens. I have no doubt that one of the first acts of the new corporation will be to appoint them, to protect the lives of the children on the way to school and coming from school.

Senator Crowley mentioned that insurance companies sought certificates of road-worthiness for cars in some cases. It is true that they do, but I question the legality of it. Insurance companies have a monopoly of business and in my opinion they are bound to accept a proposal for the insurance of a car, irrespective of its condition. They may repudiate liability afterwards on the grounds that the car was not of a certain road-worthiness, but in my opinion they cannot refuse to insure it. They would go a long way towards assisting safety on the roads if they granted bigger bonuses for "no accident claims". I think the maximum bonus one may procure after 40 years is 33? per cent. If they gave an annual and progressive reduction, many people would be more careful than they are. That is a suggestion which might be worth consideration by our insurance companies.

Another Senator suggested that police should be given an opportunity of imposing fines. I certainly hope that will never occur in this country. I had the experience myself of being fined once, though not the driver, for a breach of a parking regulation in America. If you can get away by paying a fine, there is a tendency to pay it and admit an offence, although you may not have committed one at all. It is a very bad thing. One can imagine a young policeman fining a driver of the fair sex, for parking in a wrong position. One can imagine these little abuses; I will not go into them in detail, as I am sure the House appreciates what I mean.

We have here what are vulgarly described as "courtesy cops". I think they are doing very good work, facilitating strangers to the city. They are on the road, not for the purpose of detecting traffic offences but to assist visiting motorists, either from the country or from outside the country.

Most of this debate, as far as I can gather, comprised suggestions, not that we should amend the law but that we should insist on the present law being enforced. This is not a police-ridden State and I hope it never will be. We have an example of that in another part of this country at the moment. We have not got sufficient police to man every by-road, but we can act in another way. I appeal now to the citizens of this country to assist the police in the detection of misdemeanours or breaches of the Road Traffic Act. I was disappointed to hear Senators instancing cases where they saw glaring breaches of the law. What did they do? They admonished the culprit! There was an onus upon those Senators and citizens to go to the nearest Garda barracks and report the incidents and, if requested, to attend court and give evidence against those who committed them.

If we could instil into our citizens a spirit of citizenship, on seeing a breach of the law they would not connive at it and just criticise it afterwards; they would do their duty and report it. Only last week a driver of mine followed a motorist through the streets of Dún Laoghaire, procured a uniformed Guard, and eventually tracked down a motorist who had committed a serious breach of the Road Traffic Act. If every other motorist did the same thing, if we reported the lorry owner who has not got his mirror adjusted properly, who has not got a number plate clearly illuminated on the rear, who has not got his lights properly adjusted or a proper tail light affixed, and if these people realised that each and every one of us was a policeman to enforce the Road Traffic Acts, we would be doing something constructive to assist in the enforcement of the traffic regulations.

I am quite satisfied with the results that have accrued from putting down this motion. I would like to thank Senators who took part in the debate and the Minister for his attendance and his contribution. The motion is not an attack on motorists or cyclists—or on bus drivers, as was suggested here at one time. I agree entirely with the Minister, that we are more concerned here with the enforcement of the present law than with the amendment of that law.

In his first contribution, the Minister told us that an amendment of the law was contemplated and that, of course, ignorance of the law was no excuse for anyone. We know that. I wish to stress as strongly as I can that we should have no amendment of the law until some better effort is made to enforce the law that exists at present, whether that is done by the Guards or by the public generally. In Dublin, when a Garda is on traffic duty, the observance of the traffic laws is simply magnificent, but sometimes one gets the impression that the members of the force who are not on traffic duty are more neutral than ordinary citizens about breaches of traffic laws. That may not be so, but that is the way it looks to me, from observation of traffic at particular places.

What we need is a clearer definition of the present law, a wider knowledge and a more strict enforcement of it. I do not particularly mind what the rule is, as long as it is a rule. For example, the Minister told us that the rule is that you give way to traffic on your right. That depends on what are major and what are minor roads. The money the Dublin Corporation spent on putting up signs is completely wasted, as no one minds them. In fact, the sign on the road "Go Slowly" induces a great many motorists to blow the horn and go faster, as it gives them notice of an intersection and they want to make sure that no one can come out of the intersection to interrupt their speed. Anyone who drives a car or rides a bicycle in the city can give many examples where, on the main road, if there is a road coming from the left, no one gives way and you insist on your rights at the peril of your life. I do not think that is necessary. There should be some clearer definition of major and minor roads and it should be an offence not to stop on reaching a major road—and that regulation should be enforced.

There has been some talk about the "police State". I am not in favour of "police States", but I have been a pedestrian in Belfast as well as in Dublin and I know that the pedestrian is far better off in Belfast. There is not the slightest doubt of that. I know one road in Dublin where there is no way of crossing it anywhere from Rathfarnham to the quays, for anyone but the expert, agile youngster. If you are older, or if you are a woman with a pram, there is no way of crossing the road, as the motorists do not want to let you cross it. I suggest that very drastic regulations should be made to the effect that when you step on to the road, even if you are wrong, you are let pass. In other places you are let pass. You are not killed. You are fined. Fining, however, is a much less drastic punishment than the punishment meted out here.

This is a very difficult motion to discuss. You are never sure, so to speak, what particular Minister is responsible. Certainly, something will have to be done in Dublin to give pedestrians some rights on their own streets. At present, they have none. Anybody who has to cross the road constantly at places where there are traffic lines knows that he is risking his life every time he crosses. If there is a Garda present then, of course, everything is grand, but the position is very serious when the Garda is not there. For example, there is a Garda present at the traffic lines at Leeson Street when the children are leaving the schools: there are a number of schools there. When the Garda is present everybody behaves magnificently. I keep different hours from school children and I know that when you have to cross there, without a Garda being present, you have to be very slick in order to save your life.

May I interrupt the Senator for a moment to mention something which he said and which perplexes me? The General Bye-laws for the Control of Traffic, 1937, provide that the driver of a vehicle must give the right of way at a pedestrian crossing—Section 9 (1). Do we need new legislation or is the present legislation not being enforced?

We do not need new legislation. The legislation we have is not being enforced. In Belfast it is not enforced; it is observed. It is not observed here. If you are half way across the road in Dublin and the light changes the motorists charge upon you. I do not know what can be done about it, but certainly that is what happens in Dublin. I know the regulations. I have studied these regulations which Senator McHugh has quoted. He is right about the regulations, but they are not being enforced.

I come now to the question of the speed limit. The objection to a speed limit is that it is difficult to enforce. You are quoted a particular section of the law which says that you must not drive at unreasonable speeds. If we are not going to have a general speed limit for built-up areas of even 35 miles per hour, then we should have a more rigid enforcement of the law where there is unreasonable driving. I submit that there is unreasonable driving on the roads very near Dublin and that very often it is done by the same people. If you live on a particular road and go out that road, say, at five to one or five past one, every day you will see the same car and the same person at the wheel speeding along—and that same person has the habit of always blowing his horn. I know it is confined to a minority but it is that minority which makes life very dangerous. I suggest that if we have not got a speed limit we should at least have a more radical enforcement of the law as it stands.

The bicycle is said to be the poor man's motor car. I know a particular man, the father of six children, who was knocked down by a cyclist and the cyclist went off and left him. That man was out of work for six months as a result of being knocked down by the cyclist. There was no remedy against the cyclist and there was no way of discovering who he was. I know that some people will say that the cyclists are poor but, incidentally, they are not all poor. The fact of the matter is that the cyclists can do what they like on the roads and get away with it. Some consideration must be given to a law which would enable one to identify a cyclist who knocks somebody down—and cyclists do knock people down sometimes. If a working man or a working woman or a child, particularly a bread winner, is knocked down by a cyclist the position at the present time is that the cyclist can go away and there is no remedy of any kind and no compensation. Indeed, if the cyclist stops there is no compensation either because the cyclist has nothing to give.

With regard to the blowing of motor-horns, Paris used to be famous— perhaps "infamous" might be the right word—for that. However, they remedied the position. They found that there was certainly no greater danger when motor-horns were silenced. I think it would be well worth while experimenting in this city to silence motor-horns at particular times—say, from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. Every motorist knows that in the dark he can use his lights as effectively as a horn. Unfortunately, there are people in this city who have a habit of blowing the horn and they cannot be stopped.

Another point, which is not mentioned in the motion, but which was alluded to during the course of the debate, concerns bona fide traffic. That should mean that people are travellers in good faith. The only genuine thing about the bona fide traffic in and around about Dublin is that people have a bona fide genuine thirst. They go to get that thirst satisfied and come back unfit to drive cars. Everybody who has ever spoken to a Garda knows that those drivers make life almost intolerable for the police. I agree with the Minister that we have not enough police—if that is what he said. Perhaps we should not have any more than we have but we should not impose on them intolerable burdens—and an intolerable burden is imposed on the police by that particular type of traffic. It has no reality at all in modern conditions and, from the point of view of safety on the roads, it should be abolished.

I urge the Minister to urge upon his colleague, the Minister for Justice, to make sure that, when new legislation is being considered and before it is introduced, it is enforceable. There is a small booklet circulated in England which is subsidised by the Government. It can be purchased for 1d., I think. There is no comparable booklet here although there is something rather like it. This is a matter of very great importance. I agree with one thing said here this evening—that the majority of motorists are quite reasonable citizens. However, there is a minority causing death on the roads. I think that that minority should be dealt with in the most drastic fashion possible and until we can arrive at that stage there is no use in making more laws or more regulations.

I ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The Seanad adjourned at 8.20 p.m.sine die.
Top
Share