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.