Vol. 54 No. 12
Section 4, paragraph (b), states:
A vehicle under seizure by a person in the service of the State in the course of his duty or a person using such vehicle in the course of his employment.
Does that mean in the course of his employment by the State? Presumably, it does.
Will these bye-laws be available? They will? I want to speak on another section but perhaps the Minister could tell us now what the validity is of a booklet like Rules of the Road, from the point of view of the law. Will the bye-laws made by the Commissioner be available anywhere to members of the House?
Yes, they will. Some of these bye-laws will in fact come before the House.
Because they have to be sanctioned by the Minister?
Yes, and they will come before the House in any case.
This section deals with the disposal of fees and fines. Would the Minister tell us whether it is intended to devote revenue from fines to educating the public in the rules of the road, the law and the proper use of the roads, with particular reference to safety? What I have in mind is that there seems to be a great need for propaganda to make the roads both safer and more convenient for the general public. While I would not be in favour of punitive fines, I do think that they might be made pretty hefty on people who disregard the law regarding the use of the roads and that that money should be devoted to encouraging the public and making them aware of the need for safety.
The income—if I might call it income—derived from this source at the moment does not actually meet the outgoings to which we are committed, the costs of the Commissioner and the Garda and so on and the various fees we are obliged to pay. What the Senator has in mind is that any surplus income under the section should be devoted to education in the proper use of roads. Whatever net residue there is or whatever net residue may arise goes into the Road Fund from which we now pay for such matters as educational films, booklets such as Rules of the Road, traffic signs or other things, leading towards, we hope, better usage of the roads. At the moment there would be no fund at all for the objects the Senator has in mind if we were dependent on these moneys, but education is paid for out of the Road Fund to which any such moneys as these will accrue and it will continue to do so under the Bill.
Fines are siphoned into the Road Fund?
Yes, that is the idea under the law as it is. We have the power and we do use the moneys from the Road Fund for these purposes and will probably be using more in the future.
Does the Minister then foresee that the income from fines will improve?
Yes: if there were never a change in the number of fines, by virtue of the amount of fines laid down under the Bill, we will probably get more money. That would be so if the number of prosecutions remained the same or were lower.
I have no objection to the section as it stands which enables the Minister to make regulations regarding the use of vehicles in public places. At the same time, the Bill itself in various sections—Sections 51 to 54 inclusive, I think—provides for a number of offences, some of which might be provided for under this section. I should like your permission, Sir, to raise a question on the subsection as I think it would be the most appropriate place.
The Minister, in his Second Reading speech, said he was assured by the Garda that these provisions would be enforced but it seems to me that taking the provisions in the Bill when it becomes an Act and the regulations to be made under Section 11, there will be a great deal of enforcement to be done. I wonder what steps it is intended to take to provide enforcement? I wonder what precisely is to be enforced? Here is a copy of Rules of the Road which was circulated by the Minister's predecessor in office. To what extent are these rules of the road law? Some of them are merely advice. I agree with all of them myself. Some of them are enforceable at law but one wonders whether we could be told which is which.
I gave some examples before. One is always supposed to drive with reasonable consideration. If a Garda sees that you are not driving with reasonable consideration, you are prosecuted and it is left to a district justice to decide, in the circumstances and in accordance with the evidence, whether you are driving with reasonable consideration or not.
There are other things which we are told. We are told to give way to the traffic on our right. Is it the law that one ought to give way to traffic on one's right? As I said before, the experience of all of us in Dublin is, I think, that that rule is not observed at all. I do not put myself forward as an expert on whether one should give way to traffic on the right or the left. If there is a rule, it ought to be enforceable and observed.
I constantly come into Terenure from the Templeogue Road. There is a considerable flow of traffic coming from what is a minor road on my left. A car comes fast and in such a way as to imperil traffic approaching on the right. Is that an enforceable rule? There are many other examples such as you would find at Harold's Cross Road and Harold's Cross Green. How far are these rules enforceable? What steps is it intended to take to enforce them?
I think that the only rule one sees being constantly enforced is the parking law. I would be the first to admit that Dublin has been made much easier to travel in as a result of these parking laws. They may be inconvenient for certain people but Dublin has been made easier to travel in. One can notice the police enforcing the traffic laws but nothing else seems to be enforced in any kind of systematic way. For example, at the traffic lights near St. Vincent's Hospital a policeman is very often on duty because there are children coming home from school. When the Garda is on duty, he is admirable and the motorists behave splendidly. When the children are coming from school, everything is splendid, but when the Garda is not there, it is very difficult for pedestrians to cross. The practice of all cyclists, practically without exception, is to go on through the pedestrian crossing and a considerable number of motorists do the same thing.
I am wondering whether any steps will be taken to ensure that more courtesy police will be put on the roads and I wonder what rights pedestrians have at crossings? It is not possible for a pedestrian who is not very active to cross in Dublin with the green light because motorists making a right turn with the green light drive at a very fast pace, very often without reasonable consideration for pedestrians using the crossing. I have seen a woman with a pram with one car going in front of her and another behind her which made her very nervous.
Similarly, you are not allowed to make a U-turn on the roads. What does one do then? There are cases where one must make a U-turn. I happen to live on the right-hand side of a road. Dublin motorists have a strong objection to allowing people to stop them for a second. Not only do people not facilitate you going to the right to your own house but at a considerable distance from you, they blow the horn. Would the Minister say anything on the question of enforcement and prosecution and whether and how far these rules are advice or law?
There is one matter I want to refer to but I am not quite sure whether it arises on this section. It arises in connection with the point made by Senator Hayes as to the behaviour of people when a Garda is present. The same thing could happen in regard to a road test. Some of the greatest cads could pass every road examination and behave deplorably when there was not a Garda sitting alongside them in the driving seat.
I think this idea of having the word "Garda" on the top of the police car so that everyone can see it defeats its purpose. I think the inscription should be put on the left-hand side of the car on what is known in motoring circles as the near side or kerb side. That would be adequate. I cannot understand why the public cannot be protected by having plain clothes Gardaí. After various sports, no matter what is the code, you see deplorable driving. A few plain clothes Gardaí could do a better job in one day than squads of cars bearing the caption "Garda" on top.
We all have great responsibility in regard to improving the education of the people who apply for driving licences. I feel that people who apply for driving licences ought to leave themselves open to examination on a booklet such as the one referred to here. If you ask 75 per cent. of the people what it means to give way to traffic coming from the right, they do not know. The booklet—Rules of the Road—gives an example.
The passage of this Bill will give the Minister and his officials an opportunity of putting the law into force in a very effective way. I hope the law will be observed and respected in the manner in which the new licensing law is being observed, respected and enforced. I should like the Minister to inform Senator Hayes and myself in regard to the points raised on this section.
A point that may arise on this section is one that is more or less at present a pressing problem, that is, that a number of passengers in cars receive minor and major injuries resulting from a crash or from whatever trouble the car runs into. It might be a good thing if it could be prescribed that motor car makers should fit standard equipment, or at any rate the bones of safety equipment in the cars whereby the use of safety belts could become more widespread and thus prevent a number of accidents within cars which should not properly arise if the proper precautions were taken of fitting those belts as standard equipment. Each and every one of us knows of cases of fractures of the skull and other injuries which arise from the shock of one car crashing into another or, for that matter, a car crashing into any other obstacle. For that reason, I should say it would be a good thing if car manufacturers could be induced to fit this equipment.
Tá pointe beag amháin go mba mhaith liom ceist a chur faoi. Baineann sé le hAlt 11, áit a bhfuil caint faoi "vehicle equipment" agus "the conditions subject to which vehicles and vehicle equipment may be used." Sé an rud atá i m'aigne agam ná go mb'fhéidir go bhfuil baint idir í sin agus leasú an tSeanadóra Ó hAodha faoin nglór agus an fothrom agus séideadh adhairce a bhíonn ar siúl. Tá sé riachtanach freisin go mbeadh rial nó dlí ann faoi "silencers" nó tostóirí a bheith ar charranna. Éiríonn sé sin as (c) agus (d) d'fho-alt (2) d'Alt 11.
Tá sé anseo chomh maith.
Má bhí an dlí ann, níor cuireadh i bhfeidhm é. Sílim go bhfuil sé rí-thábhachabh tostóirí a chur ar charranna agus gluaisteáin de gach gné. Bíonn an glór astu sin níos measa ná an glór flú amhain as na hadharcanna. Nuair a thagann inneall mar sin síos an tsráid i lár na hoíche nó i lár an lae músclann an fothrom gach aoinne agus cuireann sé tost ar éinne atá laistigh dáraon, agus is fada an raon é, faraoir. Ba mhaith liom dá gcuirfí fearais riachtanacha ar ghluaisteáin agus carranna, agus mar sin de.
There are two small points which I wish to raise in connection with the making of regulations by the Minister. Under paragraph (g) of subsection (2) of Section 11, reference is made to the use of loudspeakers. I hope the Minister will assure us that it is intended to make regulations to prevent this nuisance. If he can make the regulations by and before next September, it will be all to the good. We would probably be spared a lot of crying babies and nuisance as a result of the use of loudspeakers telling us how prosperous we are, or the contrary, throughout the country when the general election comes along.
And how poor the farmers are: the poverty of the farmers.
I shall not enter into a debate as to whether they are poor or rich. I refer to the nuisance of the loudspeakers. I think all Senators will agree that that nuisance should stop.
Whoever is rich enough can use T.V.
Paragraph (h) refers to particulars to be affixed to or painted on vehicles. I remember that the trade unions were interested in this matter when the Transport Act was going through in 1958. The view expressed by the trade unions was that lorries used for the carriage of merchandise should have clearly painted on the cab door the name and address and business of the owner, so that we should not have these anonymous vehicles going around with nobody knowing what they were doing or whether or not they were engaged in illegal haulage. We were told at that time, I seem to remember, by the then Minister for Industry and Commerce that the matter was more appropriate to the road traffic legislation.
I presume the Minister is asking for power to make these regulations for the purpose of having the names and addresses and business of owners of vehicles clearly painted on the vehicles themselves, as was pressed for by the trade unions in 1958.
Senator Hayes referred to the pamphlets issued by the Department of Local Government and the Safety First Association in connection with traffic offences. The general public obviously are not very familiar with the law, a lot of which is contained in the general bye-laws for the control of traffic issued in consequence of the Road Traffic Act, 1933. Article 9 (1) provides:
At a road junction, the driver of any vehicle shall yield the right of way to any pedestrian who is crossing the roadway at a pedestrian crossing.
Senator Hayes also mentioned the question of right of way of those approaching from the right. Subsection (6) of the same Article says:
The driver of a vehicle approaching an uncontrolled road junction by a road which is not a principal or major road shall yield the right of way to any vehicle approaching such road junction from a direction on the right of such driver by a road which is also not a principal or major road.
I feel that, as the Minister has already stated, the use of television will help to educate the public to some extent. I understand the Minister proposes to avail of that service when it comes for that purpose. It is obvious that an educational publicity campaign is essential in this matter.
The fact that under this Bill it is proposed that new applicants for driving licences will have to subject themselves to test will in itself ensure that these new drivers will become familiar with the law. I have driven a good deal through north-east Ulster. I feel that the courtesy and the capability of drivers in that area are much superior to ours, particularly among lorry drivers, because they have to undergo these tests. I think, therefore, that when these tests do take place, a considerable improvement should be effected, both in the knowledge of the law and in the competency of drivers. For that reason, the sooner this law is passed and these regulations are brought into being, the better for us all.
I notice the Minister stated yesterday that it is proposed that new applicants for driving licences will have to undergo the test. I take it that there will be a great run on new licences now, before these new regulations come into force, by those who propose to drive. I would hope that such people would be caught at the earliest possible date.
Senator Hayes mentioned the question of enforcement and the addition to the volume of law that is already contained in the Bill by virtue of all the various regulations that may be made. That is quite true. There will be quite a considerable addition to what is contained within the actual Bill itself. In all, it means there will be quite a wide field of coverage which, if it is to be effective, must be enforced. I have been most particular, and the Government in general have been most helpful in this matter, that in our approach to this question of trying to improve the situation in regard to the traffic laws generally we got full assurance from the Department of Justice that enforcement will be carried out to the full and that the law will be given full and due regard in so far as this measure is concerned.
There may be difficulties. I have no doubt new situations will develop. Again, I think that that assurance is all-embracing and that all these implications will, indeed, even at this stage, have been taken into consideration by the Garda authorities. They are making preparations whereby they can enforce these laws, and add to their detective members, traffic guards or whatever they will be called. It is only those charged with the responsibility of detail enforcements who could answer the question raised by the Senator. I am quite satisfied with the assurance I got—and I was most anxious to get it—from the Department of Justice that we will have their complete co-operation in the enforcement of these laws in the best possible manner.
Senator Burke mentioned, amongst other things, the question of Garda signs on cars and said that it does not seem to be a very bright idea. Candidly, I do not think it is either, but that is neither here nor there.
It is not the Minister's responsibility.
The point is that it is not my bailiwick. I can have my personal opinion but I can have no official opinion, because, as I say, it is not my bailiwick. I am sure the suggestion made by the Senator will be taken up in the proper quarter. Who knows, they may be there already. It may be that there are men in plain clothes circulating, generally unnoticed, and that the signs we see are the obvious signs but that these people are there already.
They are not.
Senator Carter mentioned safety belts. I opened an exhibition in the Mansion House yesterday, of the Safety First Association, and safety devices were one of the matters I particularly mentioned. I should like to see much greater use of them. There is no doubt that if statistics can teach us anything, there are available very convincing statistics as to the effectiveness of the safety belts and equipment which have been tried out in certain other countries throughout the world. It is my hope that greater use of these belts and harness will become the vogue and that many people will be saved from death possibly, and that certainly in a great number of cases, injuries will be less severe than they are now without this harness.
There is power to deal with that question in this section. As Senators will understand from reading it, there is power to make regulations, if we see fit at any time, to prescribe that at least some harness must be provided. That matter naturally was considered, but on the question of saying that we will in fact do so, I am not prepared to say yea or nay at the moment. We have the power to prescribe such harness as we feel is desirable and useful and regulations can be brought in quite readily.
Some car manufacturers, while not supplying the safety harness as standard equipment, are doing the much more costly and difficult job of fitting into the chassis or the car body, the attachment to which the harness may be fitted. If we could get that approach to the matter and have all our cars brought in to have these attachments fitted, the question of applying compulsion might be considered. Even when we have these belts fitted, they cannot be effectively used unless we can impress on car users the conviction that they are worthwhile. We cannot compel them to use the harness. There is very little hope of being able effectively to compel them to fasten the harness when they are travelling in their cars.
At least it would be a protection to those who would use it, if it were standard equipment.
The value of that equipment probably is not fully known but there is enough knowledge available to indicate its very great benefits. There is no doubt about that.
The next matter that was mentioned was the use of horns, defective silencers and so on. We have power in Section 11, subsection (1) and subsection (2) (a), (b), (c) and (d), to deal with the question of undue noise. On the question of the silent zones, I shall possibly have something further to say when we reach Senator Hayes's amendment to Section 56.
Senator Murphy talked about loudspeakers in terms of the benefit it would be if they could be banned, so to speak. It seems to me that he was not sure whether the next general election was the nuisance rather than the loudspeakers. Quite honestly, I do not feel like rushing this matter so that I will not have the benefit of loudspeakers at the next election. I find them of great assistance even though they may still be a nuisance to those who do not like to hear me in particular. We have taken note of that matter and we will be doing something about it, but whether before the next general election or the one after it, I am not prepared to say.
Would the Minister tell us whether that would be a local authority power or a police power?
We would have power in general.
Local authorities have made bye-laws. There is one in Sligo.
That is right, but we also are taking power. Senator Louis Walsh mentioned, amongst other things, the improvement in the efficiency and courtesy of drivers, particularly of heavy vehicles in the Six Counties, and said that probably stems from the fact that they have to undergo pretty stiff tests. In regard to our heavy vehicles on this side of the Border, we are geared in such a way that there are tests in our transport undertakings and other undertakings. I am afraid that courtesy is not always evident as a result of those tests. While the heavy vehicle drivers in the Six Counties are competent and courteous generally on the roads, I cannot say the same of the other road users in the Six Counties. When they get to the Border at a weekend, they seem to be let loose from somewhere and think they can do what they like.
However, that is by the way in case those who think about it might take the view that we offend only on this side of the Border. My experience is that apart from heavy vehicle drivers in the Six Counties, the others have nothing to crow about in regard to their behaviour. I am hoping that the general regulations which we intend to bring in will have a chastening effect on them as well as on our own bad drivers.
I agree with Senator Hayes about the horns, but motorcycles have not been referred to. They make a lot of what I regard as unnecessary noise, especially when going through towns. Something should be done about the roars of these vehicles at all hours of the night when people are in bed asleep.
That would be one of the matters I have already dealt with. There is power to control defective silencers and the nuisance they create.
Will the Minister refer to the matter I mentioned, about traffic coming from the right. When you have a right angle intersection, it is quite easy to understand and in fact it is obvious that you must give way to traffic coming from the right. If it is coming fairly quickly and you do not give way, you just do not live. When roads join at acute angles, the driver is unable to see oncoming traffic and in many cases the position becomes ambiguous from the point of view of drivers on both roads.
In such cases, there should be road signs showing the people that they have to give way. I have heard many people discussing that and even since I came into the House today, Senator Hayes mentioned it. In such a case, neither of the drivers knows who has priority. On an occasion like this, it is as well that we should mention it, and if a regulation is necessary, it should be made, or perhaps a road sign would deal with it. In the erection of road signs, the Department of Local Government, and the Department of Justice which has also a function, must know that they are empowered by law or regulation to erect them.
I suppose this section will also deal with the lighting of vehicles. I am sure the Minister has heard all that can be said about that, but there is one small point which the trade union movement think should not be overlooked, that is, the question of alternative rear lighting on lorries where the end of the lorry is lowered for loading or unloading purposes on the roads, such as cattle lorries where the ramp comes down and obscures the rear lights. That can be a very great danger to other road users. I hope the Minister will make provision for some alternative lighting on such vehicles. The Minister did not reply to a question I asked about paragraph (h) and perhaps he would do so.
One other point is that there are no cycle tracks in this country and we do not seem to be doing anything to provide them on main roads. In our firm, we fit all our road transport with spotlights down on the left hand side of the front of the vehicles so that they will pick up cyclists, no matter what the state of the oncoming traffic is or the visibility. Cyclists are being killed every night of the week, because drivers of vehicles are not aware of their presence on the road until they hit them. I do not blame the drivers of the vehicles for such accidents.
I notice on the Continent, and particularly in Holland, that nearly all major roads have cycle paths. Perhaps the Minister would consider the desirability of making it obligatory to have such a light as I speak of. I know it may be going a little bit far, but I feel it is very desirable. I cannot say I am a slow driver, but when I am driving at night, if I see lights coming against me, I always drop to about 25 miles an hour; otherwise, pedestrians could be in front of me and I would not see them.
I thoroughly agree with what Senator Burke said. Many accidents are caused by cyclists at night because they do not have reflectors and motorists are unaware of their presence. On wet nights, they are probably dressed in dark clothing and rubber boots and there is no reflection at all. The reason is that no attempt has ever been made to ensure that cycles are kept in a proper condition and equipped with reflectors. Motorists can be prosecuted if they have not lighted tail-lights at night time.
If the regulations are to be properly enforced the tests or the inspections should be made during the day and not at night time, both in the case of cyclists and motorists. Unless we are to have every fourth man a police man, we cannot enforce regulations. When people are in towns and villages, police should have the duty and responsibility to look at their bicycles from the point of view of their condition with regard to safety. That also applies to motor cars. The necessity for enforcement will have to be brought home to the people and to the police, in regard to these regulations for safety. In my experience, no bicycle after a year, or perhaps after six months, has a rear reflector. Reflectors are easy to break because of the way bicycles are treated and, when a reflector is broken, it is never replaced.
I know that the question of cars parked along the road at night time is covered in other parts of the Bill. In England, and in South Wales, where I had experience of parking recently, cars must have a red parking light. That system should be adopted here. There is on the market a light which gives a red light at the back and a white light in front. The Minister should incorporate an order that any car parked on the road should carry at least one red parking light.
As far as spotlights are concerned, all of us have experienced the teenage motorist who has a spotlight fixed in such a way that it shines right into one's eyes. It should be seen to that spotlights do not blind oncoming motorists. They are all right on buses, but with irresponsible people, they are a danger.
I do not think there is any other section on which we can discuss road signs. Instead of the many signs in use at present: "Major Road Ahead", "Junction Right", "Junction Left", and the simple crossroads sign, we should have one indication to the motorist that he is to stop, a sign which will be very much in use, "Stop". Have it in Irish letters so that it will be useful in the Gaeltacht or the Galltacht. It is the most effective road sign I know and has come into use much more than formerly. If it were used on a bye-road approaching a major road, it would eliminate all the difficulties in court about which is the bye-road and which is the major road. There should be greater use of that one indication, that circular notice with "Stop", "Stop" across it.
If you did put "Stop""Stop", they would be told twice.
It would be of great use and it would be a stop to people in the sense of informing them that they would not be stopped for all eternity.
With regard to road signs——
We shall be dealing with road signs on another section.
Yes; there are sections dealing with everything under the sun, and I have been remiss myself in discussing a number of things which were not relevant to this section at all and which will undoubtedly come up for discussion at a later stage. If they were not coming later, I would not mind discussing them now, but Section 95 dealing with road signs will give ample opportunity.
A discussion on the regulations will shorten the discussion on the other sections.
Except where the sections are related to a particular subject and Section 95 does deal with road signs and regulations.
Senator Murphy mentioned name plates on commercial vehicles. That is a matter with which we will have power to deal and consideration will be given to putting that power into force. The question of lighting equipment and tail-lighting equipment on cattle trucks and other trucks is a matter which will be fully considered in relation to ramps up or ramps down so as to make sure that there will be effective rear lighting on all trucks.
Cycle lanes have been suggested where cyclists and motorists use the same road. It would be an ideal way out and I could recommend it, but somebody would have to pay for it and I would be expected to pay for it.
The cyclist might pay for it and might live.
I do not think that we will, for a considerable number of years, reach the stage when we could do work of this kind, though we may ultimately come to it.
My wish is that the question of lights on cycles will be dealt with so that that part which shows from the rear will be visible in any kind of reasonable conditions from the point of view of protecting the cyclists themselves as much as anything else.
I shall leave the matter of stop signs and so on until we come to the section.
I have had the experience—and I am sure other Senators have had the same experience—of following heavy trucks which were visibly damaging the roads over which they passed. I remember one day in County Offaly following a heavy truck engaged in the business of carrying road materials and you could see the road being crushed under its rear wheels. I know that the tendency is to put bigger and heavier trucks on the road. I know it can be said that the road taxes are pretty heavy but no matter how heavy they are, I do not think they can adequately pay for the damage such trucks are doing on the roads. They are all right maybe on first-class roads built to take heavy traffic but, once heavy trucks are licensed at all, you cannot confine them to main roads. They will go over secondary roads and do a great deal of damage. While such trucks might be economic for their owners and for the country, they are quite uneconomic insofar as they do great damage to the roads. Will the Minister have regard to the fact that many of the secondary roads are not built to take very heavy trucks carrying very heavy loads on each wheel? Some control of them should be brought about as otherwise the damage will be a very heavy burden on the ratepayers.
Under the section, there is power to prescribe to a large degree axle weights for trucks and this has a very direct relationship to the damage done to the roads. The manner in which we can follow this up—the teeth of this, as one might say—is really in Section 17 by which we can go after those who do not comply with the regulations and stipulations. As well as this power of prescribing the weights, there is power under, I think, Section 94 to prohibit the use of particular roads.
It would be very difficult.
I agree, but you will appreciate that what we must do, what indeed we are endeavouring to do in this Bill, is to find a framework within which we can find ways of solving the problems. With the combination of Sections 12 and 94, we do have this power. How to apply it in a particular case might be quite a problem and one which could be solved only as the question actually arises, but that we will have power between the two to grapple with the problems I have no doubt. That is why these sections are in the Bill, so that such matters may be dealt with where it is at all possible.
In view of the fact that it is estimated that, by 1970, the number of vehicles on the road will increase to 550,000, it would indeed be desirable to have regard to the problem of heavy duty vehicles and I may say, in passing, that the worst offenders in this regard are people like the semi-State companies who use enormous trains, as I call them, on the roads. If the position arises as visualised and we have double the number of vehicles on the road by 1970, then something will have to be done.
But what I am trying to get clear is that we are providing means of dealing with these problems now as well as in 1970.
This deals with what Senator Murphy wants. The Minister has power here to make regulations to control extraordinary traffic, if it does damage to the roads.
I should like to point out that an extraordinary anomaly could possibly arise. Suppose a local authority is making a particular road and carting with heavy vehicles road material over another road, the road authority themselves may put another section of the road into such a state of disrepair that it might not even be reasonably possible to pass across it.
I saw such a case myself and many of us have seen cases of that kind. The worse case I saw was one where the county engineer, acting as an agent for the Special Employment Schemes Office, proposed to make an accommodation road to the dwellings of a number of people. Relatively heavy trucks were used to haul stone across a few miles of an unsurfaced soft road in the winter time after a frost. The road had no foundation. The result was that while the engineer, acting for the Special Employment Schemes Office, made a very good job of the accommodation road, he did so much damage in the operation to the county council's road that the game was not worth the candle at all. That anomaly exists in the section as at present drafted.
In regard to that matter, it is not unknown to me that councils spoil their own roads while proceeding to mend other roads. That is a matter which can and has been dealt with administratively through our Department with the local authorities in question. I would suggest that such matters should, if necessary, if they cannot be done locally, be referred to my Department and we shall try to sort it out. It is undoubtedly true that this happens and it may be that in certain cases it will continue to happen. It may just not be possible to avoid it, depending upon the materials. Administratively, these things can be dealt with. I hope they will be dealt with and they have, in fact, been dealt with.
I agree substantially with what the Minister said but in the long run the only way you can get administrative redress is by having a vigilant public prepared to create such a nuisance as to make sure this is done. That is the best solution. Nearly everything that has ever been done in the world has been done by disciplined agitation.
Or by an active county council.
Even where you have an active county council, as in Donegal, I think there should be room for disciplined agitation.
What about a little bit of wooing?
It is not easy to overcome the difficulty when a road authority misuses its own road to the detriment of the rights and privileges of the general public. I suppose the only real remedy is to kick up a row. As far as possible, this matter should be guarded against. Some directive should be given. There are quite a number of cases where engineers, acting as agents for the Special employment Schemes Office, do that sort of thing at the present time. The material has to be carted over a road which is not capable of carrying such traffic.
This is a very long section. I notice also that the Minister has power to make regulations as well as all the other things contained in the subsections. Would the Minister tell us briefly what he proposes to do under the regulations?
First of all, this is a most desirable section because we should not allow any vehicles on the road unless they are mechanically perfect in so far as we can ensure it. It is also important for competent people to certify the vehicles as perfect. I should like to have some idea as to the regulations the Minister proposes to make. I should hate to think that they would be too stringent. This looks to me like a section which has been very well considered and is very comprehensive.
I am rather sorry that in this case it is impossible for me to indicate here and now what I intend should be contained in any one of these regulations, for the simple reason that there are many of these regulations. Consideration is being given to quite a number of these matters at the moment and further consideration will have to be given to them. No final form of regulation has emerged in regard to this section. When it does, the order will be laid before the Houses of the Oireachtas. That is the safeguard. Should there be anything of an unduly repressive nature in any of the regulations, Oireachtas Éireann can finally annul any such regulation. I hope the House will appreciate my position in this matter. It is not my reluctance to give what we intend but it just is not possible at this stage to have available for the House the way we intend to draft the regulations. We are dealing with the matter on a broad basis by giving the framework here.
It is such a big section——
Would a short summary of what the actual section means help?
It might be in the public interest.
This is just an extract from the explanatory memorandum which says:
Section 18 enables the Minister for Local Government to make regulations requiring the testing of specified classes of mechanically propelled vehicles. The regulations will indicate the testing authority, the scope of the test, the fee to be paid, etc. When a vehicle passes the test, a test certificate will be issued, and it will be an offence to use a vehicle without its test certificate. The owner, as well as the person using the vehicle, will be liable in the same way as they are liable for not having insurance cover (see Part VI). The penalty is set out in subsection (2). Where a test certificate is refused there is an appeal to the Minister. The regulations will deal with other matters, such as the keeping of records, the inspection of premises used for testing, etc. Breach of a penal regulation will also be an offence, the common penalty (section 102) applying. This and section 19 are entirely new provisions.
I thank the Minister.
I remember dealing with a complaint from a trade union which alleged that its members on some occasions had to take out vehicles or lorries which were mechanically unsound or dangerous but that they felt they had to do so or face the prospect of being paid off on one excuse or another the following Friday
On first reading, this section seems to safeguard such people. It provides in subsection (5):
Where a person charged with an offence under this section was the servant of the owner of the vehicle, it shall be a good defence to the charge for the person to show that he was using the vehicle in obedience to the express orders of the owner.
In other words, if he is told: "You must drive it out and do not mind any of your questions", that is a good defence if he is subsequently charged; but the directions might not be given directly by the owner. It could be a representative of the owner, a foreman or somebody in that sort of position.
Is that not the same thing?
Can the Minister assure me on the matter?
It is the same thing.
I am happy then about that aspect of the matter. It seems to me, relative to Section 54, that a person can be charged for the driving of a dangerously defective vehicle. I wonder if the Minister would explain the difference between Section 18 in that respect and Section 54? In Section 54, there does not seem to be any provision such as that contained in subsection (5) of Section 18, which I have just read, of its being a good defence if it can be shown that the driver was doing so and so on the express orders of the owner of the vehicle.
Section 54 and Section 18 may be regarded in some senses as being one, but in fact there is a very distinct difference. In Section 54, it is the dangerously defective vehicle that is in question, not just a vehicle that has not got a current test certificate. With regard to the question of owner liability or otherwise, or agents, in issuing instructions to a driver of a dangerously defective vehicle, known to the driver to be dangerously defective, the driver will not have a defence in that case because he will knowingly have used it. Under Section 54, it is an offence.
I can appreciate the merit of what the Minister says. I should not like to advocate that the driver should be excused in taking out a vehicle which is a danger to other people and which might result in the deaths of other people. He might say he was only doing what he was told. It would be very difficult for a driver to distinguish between a vehicle which is not properly maintained or one for which a test certificate has not been issued and a vehicle which is an actual danger. There could be a degree of very fine judgment there as to whether it was actually dangerous. Would the Minister like to look at that again?
Sections 18 and 19 are entirely new provisions, I think. Would the Minister say if it is intended to introduce these tests all at once or in easy stages, or to apply the test to various categories of vehicles?
The mechanics of the test—the setting-up of testing machinery, for instance—would indicate, even in its starting off, whether we wished it or not, that we would have to start in stages. The general start-off would be probably, that vehicles over a certain age, taking the most obvious vehicles likely to be defective, would be tested. It would seem probable that we would take them first and gradually move up as we get the matter in motion. It will be done in stages. We cannot say we will test everyone or every vehicle next week: that would not be possible. The indication would be that we would start on the older ones first and work up the line.
Senator Murphy's point was the rather fine distinction that may be drawn as to whether or not a vehicle is in a dangerous condition and who should know it. I think the House will appreciate that it is impossible to legislate to the point where there will not be some dispute as to which side of the fine distinction any particular charge may fall. If it were not for that, the legal fraternity would not be in business at all. They will come in to determine it. Sometimes it will be the defendant, sometimes it will be the prosecution that will carry the day as to whether it falls on this side or that side of the scale.
With regard to the driver who might possibly be under some duress to take a vehicle which is dangerously defective, I think subsection (1) of Section 54 is fairly useful there. It provides as follows:
A person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle in a public place while there is a defect affecting the vehicle which he knows of or could have discovered by the exercise of ordinary care and which is such that the vehicle is, when in motion, a danger to the public shall be guilty of an offence.
Does Section 54 not more or less presume that the driver knows that the vehicle is dangerous before he uses it?
He is not completely and absolutely innocent of the fact.
This sort of complaint arises more with the small employer whose lorries are probably not maintained in as good condition as those of a larger organisation.
Some of them are much better maintained, as the Senator is probably aware.
Generally speaking. Again, consider the employee who is casual, on and off, and who probably would not have the strong trade union protection as in the case of a large undertaking where the driver can say: "That is not sound mechanically; it is dangerous" and refuse to take it out. If he does so, with the type of employer I am referring to, he is regarded as difficult and let go the following Friday. The type of complaint is, I think, in regard to such people and that type of employee who feels he is under duress, who feels he cannot risk his employment by being difficult about it and arguing that it is not safe to drive the vehicle. If he makes an issue of that, he is let go for some other reason.
I should like to suggest that the Minister may be able to cover this by regulation. He possibly will, but I wish to draw it to his attention. Reputable electrical contractors continually bring to the notice of their clients the fact that they would require to have the electrical circuits tested, and so on. I think it ought to be the responsibility of garage proprietors to bring to the notice of people whose vehicles they service that certain matters require to be attended to. Busy people are not always able to attend, even in a verbal way, to the servicing of their vehicles. It ought to be required in the regulations that garage proprietors would do so.
Then there will be the other sort of parsimonious individual who will say: "Do this to the vehicle", the very minimum. There may be some protection there. Reputable electrical contractors continuously point out that there may be a danger to the building or to the people working in it, if the electrical apparatus is not properly serviced. I think the same responsibility ought to come back to garage proprietors with regard to road vehicles so that they also will have the very definite responsibility of informing a person of certain major works requiring to be done to a vehicle before it becomes truly roadworthy. That is altogether outside the scope of the regulations dealing with vehicles over a certain number of years old which must be brought in for testing.
Senator Burke has said most of what I intended to say. There should be co-operation between the people and reputable garage proprietors. They are the best people to advise their clients. The regulations should be used only when the vehicle owner refuses to make good a serious defect.
Senator Murphy seemed to be worried about the individual who may become disemployed as a result of driving a vehicle which is dangerous to drive, or that a part-time man might not know it is dangerous. I am not prepared to agree that any competent driver would be in any such doubt. A competent driver of any vehicle, be it a motor car or a lorry, knows all the possible defects. There may be bad tyres, defective steering or brakes, or possibly defective lights at night, but any competent driver knows that those defects exist.
There is always one case out of a hunderd where a tyre which appears to be sound is in fact unsound, and it may blow out, but that is not usual. If Senator Murphy were to achieve his point in protecting the individual under this section, he would destroy the value of the section in regard to the protection of the general public, because he would draw the punishment out of the section. The Senator should take the wider view. There are always cases of hardship. Under any human order there cannot be an absolutely perfect system, or legislation to cover every contingency.
Is it clear from this section that if a person is disqualified from driving for any period he may not resume driving until he has taken a driving test? Is that the position? He may be subjected to a test? Is it "maybe" or "must be?"
This is the section which deals with unfitness, not in the sense of having been disqualified because of an offence. It implies mental or physical unfitness. He would have to be cleared and re-tested. This is a test of fitness as distinct from a test of driving ability.
What section deals with driving tests?
Section 33.
It is clear in this section, I presume, that where a person is convicted of any driving offence he will have to have a driving test. Is that clear?
That does not follow in all cases but only where the court so prescribes.
That leaves a great deal of discretion to, shall we say, district justices.
Under the powers given to me for the making of regulations, I can so prescribe.
It is very desirable that, if a person is convicted of any driving offence, the public should be convinced that, before he is allowed to go back on the roads, he has passed a test of competency to take charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle. The trouble is that if the court directs it there may be a feeling that a person could go before a lenient district justice. The public interest might be best served by making it a requirement. It is not any undue penalty for a person to be required to pass a driving test. If a person is convicted of an offence he should prove to the Garda authorities that he is competent to drive a mechanically propelled vehicle.
I support Senator Burke on that point. I think the whole purpose of this section, which I regard as one of the most important in the Bill, is to require a test. To leave it to the discretion of a district justice would nullify the whole purpose of the section. Certainly I think no one would be out of sympathy with the requirement that a person convicted of a serious driving offence shall thereafter be required to submit to a driving test. That should be made mandatory in this section.
Under the Bill as proposed, driving tests in a general sort of way will be applied category by category, until we have reached the point where every driver will have been tested and have passed the test.
I understand that.
In the interval, while that process is proceeding, there may arise, and I have no doubt there will arise, cases of convictions in court, where a test is indicated as a necessity by the justice. He may say, in addition to fining an offender, that he should also undergo a test. He may not have been tested up to that. He may not have belonged to a category to which we had applied the regulations as of that date. I think it is right that the courts should, in addition to fining him or letting him off under the Probation of Offenders Act, have the right to say that he should undergo a test. The next point is that the Minister for Local Government may, particularly at the outset, before general tests will have taken place, by regulation, prescribe that every person convicted of one of any number of stated offences must undergo a test, if he has not already been tested and not leave it to the courts.
The Minister has that power?
Yes. It is additional to discretion on the part of the courts. Where they think the circumstances merit the test, in the interest of the defendant or the public, they may make that addendum
There might be another modus operandi also. The Attorney General might issue instructions to the State solicitors or to the Garda that in certain types of offences, they should press for a test. I saw the section as leaving it to the discretion of the district justice who could say: “This is a particularly bad case and according to the new Act, I am entitled to order that this man should undergo a test before he can drive a mechanically propelled vehicle.” Some district justices may not use that section. I think it would be desirable if the Guard handling the case, or the State solicitor, or whoever is acting for the Attorney General, could point out to the district justice the desirability of a test for the person in question, just as in licensing cases, the Guards say it is undesirable to do this or undesirable to do that.
As I said, the Minister has power to say all persons convicted of such an offence must undergo a test, so that I think it is fairly well covered.
I need not go any further. If the Minister felt the district justices were not using the power, he could bring in an overriding regulation to compel them.
It will not be a question of waiting. We might consider it desirable that such a regulation should be brought in in respect of particular offences.
I feel I cannot press it any further. The Minister has adequate powers.
I should like to refer back to Section 32 in regard to disqualifications on health grounds.
We have disposed of Section 32.
I was waiting to ask the Minister a question.
Very well—a question.
I presume that disqualification on the grounds of health refers to the time of the initial issue of the driving licence. If a person holds a licence and suddenly becomes sick and has to go to hospital, would he be disqualified and have to requalify when he comes out of hospital? Or does it mean disqualification at the initial stage when the licence is issued and his health is such that he will not be granted a licence? The danger I see is that a man may become subject to some disease which in the ordinary way would disqualify him. He would go to hospital and he would get better and have to reapply for a licence. I did not think that is what the Minister means.
I do not quite understand what the Senator means.
Perhaps we will come to it later.
I raised the question of speed limits on the Second Stage and reading Section 44 carefully, I see that it specifically prescribes speed limits in respect of all public roads. Subsections in Sections 45 and 46 refer to night travel. The point I want to put to the Minister is a point which I mentioned on Second Reading. It is that in regard to fixing general speed limits on any road in the country, there should be a difference in the speed limit applying to hours of darkness and the hours before lighting-up time. The Minister, in the Mansion House, referred to the fact that something like 70 per cent. or 80 per cent. of fatal accidents occurred during the hours of darkness. I am convinced from reading the newspapers that it is during the hours of dusk and darkness—I do not know much about daybreak hours—when lights have to be switched on, that the greatest percentage of accidents occur, and particularly of fatal accidents.
My suggestion dealing with Part IV of the Bill is that the Minister, when making regulations, should apply restricted speed limits for driving during the hours of darkness. The terms of Section 44 apply to speed limits in general and indicate that the Minister can make this specific speed limit on all roads. In Section 45, it is restricted to particular roads for particular periods of the day and night. I have read the explanatory memorandum on Section 45 which defines a built-up area but that is the next section. On Section 44, all I can raise is the question of the different speed limits over the country when a person is driving during the hours of darkness.
I want to take a different line. Has the Minister power to make regulations covering a weekend? I noticed recently that in France a speed limit was imposed during a bank holiday weekend. There may be difficulties here in making regulations to cover a specific period like that because here regulations are laid on the Tables of both Houses. I might also envisage speed regulations for people going to or returning from various sports meetings, regulations for that occasion and that occasion only. Is the section wide enough? This is somewhat a departure from the ordinary method of making regulations which are meant to deal with something on a long-term basis.
Section 44 deals with a general speed limit and its application to, say, buses all over the country, no matter where or in what circumstances. Sections 45 and 46 deal with the special occasion and the specific road in a specific way rather than in a general way. The three sections, particularly Sections 45 and 46, provide a wide variety of means to deal with almost every possible or conceivable situation.
This is practically the only section in the Bill where a specific legal speed limit is imposed by the Oireachtas. All the other sections provide for regulations, rules, orders, etc. Section 45, however, indicates that in a built-up area, the speed limit will be 30 miles an hour and a built-up area is defined as a county borough, borough, urban district or town. I feel we will be facing quite a lot of difficulty in this regard. The village may be the most dangerous section of a journey but that is excluded. I fear that the interpretation of "built-up area" in the courts, by the Minister and his staff or by the Guards will give us trouble subsequently.
We had some discussion on the Second Reading of the inner sections of cities. It was suggested that in Dublin between the canals, the limit should be 30 m.p.h., with a higher limit outside. The Minister will be faced with endless difficulties in trying to cover one district within a built-up area and exempt another. From Dalkey or Killiney right into Dublin, you would be driving within a borough or a county borough and could not exceed 30 miles an hour. I just cannot see the Irish people complying with that. From Howth, the other extremity north of the Liffey, nobody could exceed 30 miles an hour.
There is power to grade the limit up or down. Everybody might be out of step but my Johnnie, but I think these limits will lead to a lot of difficulty, particularly if you can drive at 35 miles on one road within a built-up area and must keep to 30 on another in an area which is only partly built-up. Instead of keeping his eyes on the road, the driver will have to keep his eye on the indication on some post by the side of the road of the speed limit. That is what happens in the North. I had difficulty there in seeing where the 30-mile limit began and ended.
I would ask the Minister to review these three sections. I think the speed limit of 30 miles is too low. The Minister said the last day that it would be better to grade it upwards than downwards. We can travel at unlimited speed at present and we are jumping from that down to 30 miles and then as a result of experience, we grade it up. Personally I would prefer a limit of 35 miles. Then, when you come to the real centre of the city which is indicated as within the canals—there will be no canals after a while—or inside the Dodder and the Tolka, you can specify a lesser limit.
The Irish people will find difficulty changing from what amounts to a speed of 50, 60 and 70 m.p.h., which they can attain in portions of built-up areas at present, straight away to 30 m.p.h. If everybody else thinks otherwise, I have got to submit.
I want to repeat that there should be for the whole country a lesser speed for night time than there is for the day because the majority of accidents occur through speeding at night when there are lorries and cars parked without lights and where the danger of being blinded by approaching traffic is much more likely than in the day time. Sections 45 and 46 refer to the different speed limits during the hours of darkness. Section 44 does not refer to the hours of darkness.
Section 46 refers to day and night.
I referred to the fact that in Section 44 there is no reference to night time. It is a general section which deals with the fixing of a speed limit anywhere. There is reference in Sections 45 and 46 to the difference between night and day. Sections 45 and 46 deal with the restricted speed areas. That is not in Section 44.
These are the two points I wish to press on the Minister in connection with my idea and my experience of driving. At night time, there should be a restriction on speed in general, whether in the city or outside the city. Speeding in the city is done during the night hours, more so than in the day time. The difference between night and day in the city is not as serious as the difference between driving at night time and day time on the roads from Cork to Dublin or to Donegal.
I heard Senator Ó Donnabháin on Second Reading. He made reference to the speed limit as it applies to Fairview and Clontarf. I agree generally with the Senator. I think the Minister must himself get elasticity in that phase of the Bill, that is, the speed section. The Senator referred to the fact that 30 m.p.h. might be too fast or too slow in Fairview.
Too slow.
Fair enough. Coming down Grafton Street, one could not do 30 m.p.h. The Minister must allow himself that amount of elasticity. Heretofore, there was no limit whatsoever outside built-up areas. You drove at any speed you liked. I am hoping that, when the general survey of the roads is completed, the Minister will see to it that here and there on the journey from Dublin to Cork, there will be signs telling me that I cannot exceed 40 m.p.h. or 50 m.p.h. I believe that this section is designed to give him that elasticity over the whole field. If he said that in Grafton Street you could go at 30 m.p.h., I do not think you could achieve that, but the Senator is right in so far as Fairview and the roads we know of are concerned, where you can do 60 and 70 m.p.h. The Minister is stipulating a speed of 30 m.p.h. in built-up areas. I hope he will extend that to allow me to go at 50 or 60 m.p.h. on certain sections and curb me to 40 m.p.h. on other sections which are not built-up areas.
I heard Senator Ó Donnabháin on this matter on Second Stage. Quite honestly, I cannot appreciate now on Committee Stage, any more than I did on Second Stage, where the shortcomings are in these three sections taken together in regard to the matter he raised here and brought to our notice. I feel that under Sections 44, 45, 46, and the various ways and means provided under these sections, all sorts of variations and special treatments are possible in so far as speed limits and speed limit areas are concerned. In fact, they are designed in that way to give flexibility and at the same time, not to leave out any vital power required to cover the various eventualities that could be foreseen without spelling out each suggested situation or circumstance.
In so far as the 30 m.p.h. limit is concerned, if I gave the impression that I believe we were starting at 30 m.p.h. designedly too low and that we were going to move up, I should like to retract that impression. What I intend to convey is that I believe 30 m.p.h. is the proper speed limit. In a general way, the only experience which we can gather is from other countries and it has never been above 30 m.p.h. in these countries. We have no indication that general speed limits are, in fact, bound to go higher than 30 m.p.h. Since we have no such experience ourselves how can we come to the conclusion that in this country the limit should, in fact, start at a higher level?
I think the point we are starting at is the proper one. If we have to go up, it is better that we should have to go up than come down if we started at 40 m.p.h. I am not suggesting that we are starting at 30 m.p.h. to ensure that we are too low and that we are going to go up. I am starting at 30 m.p.h. because it is the proper figure to start at. Experience elsewhere shows that 30 m.p.h. is the commonly accepted figure. The experience was not that the general speed limit should be higher. I think it is preferable that we should go upwards rather than start at too high a figure and have to come down.
A suggestion that people travelling, as people may now travel, at 60 m.p.h., 70 m.p.h. and even 80 m.p.h. should be suddenly brought back to 30 m.p.h. is regarded as being too severe a change. I believe it is a very good thing that the change should be a jolt rather than that it should be a gradual weaning of these people away from overspeeding. I think that if we were to come down from a general run of speeds of 50 to 40 m.p.h., we would never get anybody down to 40 m.p.h. but we will get people down from 60 to 30 m.p.h. There will be an awareness that they must change; they will be conscious of it. I think they will be jolted in that way into an awareness of the fact that when these limits come in they will have to keep their eyes open and not proceed as they seem to proceed now with their eyes closed or only half open, so that they do not see half of what is in front of them.
I am quite satisfied that in Sections 45 and 46, and particularly Sections 45 and 46 used together, with the background of Section 44 in relation to the general overall limit, we have the powers of variation by regulation to such a degree that we can cover almost everything that can be foreseen. That is what I feel about it. I hope the Senator can come to see that also.
Does the Minister agree to any extent that there should be a different speed limit in the country at night time? I think Section 44 covers it. Would the Minister consider a different speed limit at night from that for the day, if that position is not provided for in Section 44? The fact that night driving is indicated in other sections and that nothing is detailed in Section 44 in that regard may be significant. If the authorities thought there should be a different speed limit at night time may we take it that there is provision for that in the section, as detailed?
Consider the position of a village. It does not come within the definition of "built-up area". Take a village on the road to Cork. According to the definition of a built-up area, it is excluded. Therefore, I could drive at 80 miles per hour through a village in County Tipperary because it is not defined as a built-up area. On the other hand, I must drive out the whole way from Dún Laoghaire and Dalkey within a limit of 30 miles per hour.
The question was raised about a village down the country that would not come within the definition of a built-up area and would seem not to be included and therefore a driver might career at 80, 90 or 100 miles an hour, or whatever the best he could do. That particular type of situation is envisaged and is covered. By application from the local authority or the Garda Commissioner to the Minister, that situation may be brought within the conditions of the speed limit. Take the road going from Ballsbridge to Dalkey or Dún Laoghaire. Take any particular stretch of that road which, in the ordinary way, is an overall global built-up area. A particular stretch or stretches of road may by special deletion be taken out of the general speed limit provision.
We can actually add the areas that would not come under the heading of built-up but still are a traffic hazard such as a roadside village in the country with a direct through road. We can add them to the general speed provisions where we have a recognised built-up area so qualifying to be brought under the speed limit. Again, by special provision, we can take certain roads or parts of roads out of the provisions and therefore not have the speed limit apply. If it is a fact that the speed limit in a certain case is nonsensical or is not adhered to, we can delete certain roads for any good reason, as well as add in the type of case talked about.
I do not understand what Senator Ó Donnabháin says. Take for instance, 1 a.m. in the country when one has the road to oneself. I am not speaking of the city. There are no lights and there is no oncoming traffic. If anybody happens to be at a road junction, he will see the lights of an approaching vehicle. One is safer then than at any other time in the 24 hours.
That is when all the fatal accidents occur.
I should like a further right that a driver may exceed the 30 miles per hour restrictions, and so on, at that time because no one would be out but himself.
What time of the night is that?
Famous last words.
The statistics prove that more fatal accidents occur at that time of the night, according to Senator Ó Donnabháin. I am not aware that that is so. I am inclined to question it. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us? Senator Ó Donnabháin repeated a few times that that is the time most fatal accidents occur.
Of course.
I think it is at dusk. We would need a whole table of statistics to guide us in this matter. When people speak of speed limits, I would point out that nobody has talked of a maximum speed limit——
We are talking about maximum speed limits.
——in all areas, since speed is regarded as the dangerous element. I have heard talk about bad, dangerous and drunken drivers. In the long run, speed is the element in driving which brings about danger. We cannot trust ourselves—maybe we cannot even trust the Minister—to drive within the regulations. I have had experience of driving on the Minister's tail on occasion along a very bad road in County Mayo. I found it very hard to keep up with the Minister.
This is not fair.
Whatever about being fair, it is not relevant.
Probably the Minister has got old and wise and respectable. Ministers do that. The overall position is that the danger element is speed. If we decide that a certain speed should be the maximum speed, let it be 60 or 50 or 65 or even 70 miles per hour, we should then have some device to ensure that no matter where it was made, a vehicle could not possibly exceed that maximum speed. Then we could have an overall view of speed, which is the danger element.
I disagree entirely with Senator Burke's statement. I think people drive at midnight and at 1 a.m. and 2 a.m. I am out very often at that late hour myself. These people seem to think nobody is on the road but themselves and they take far too many chances. I have nearly been killed five times in my life.
Is that all? The Senator was lucky.
It was between 1 and 5 a.m. or 6 a.m. The mentality of such people at the present time is that there is nobody on the road but themselves and that they can do 70 or 80 miles an hour, hold the middle of the road, take turns——
I did not suggest that.
Is this the section on which the Minister gave way with regard to the jail sentence? Is this the section which originally contained the compulsory jail sentence?
Yes.
I think there was a great deal to be said for the Minister's original view on this. I know of the liberal principles which can be put forward about the matter, but to the ordinary person reading the newspapers, in cases of persons charged with drunken driving, it would appear that a great deal of what is said in the courts is very far from the truth. I will put it in the mildest way possible. A person charged with drunken driving is driving his friends in his own car. He is charged with drunken driving. His friends who were drinking with him are the people who are called upon to give evidence of what he drank. The people in the public house or the hotel in which he frequently drinks are also called upon to give evidence of what he drank. Speaking for myself, reading the newspapers and allowing for the fact that very often they do not give a complete account of what happens in the courts—I do not want to use a harsh word—I remain extremely sceptical about many of these cases. It appears to me that there is a conspiracy very often in the matter of getting the truth in court.
It is all very well to state fine principles, but a great many people die, I think, because there is not sufficiently swift punishment and clearness in regard to these offences. Three months is too short a penalty. All kinds of ingenious excuses are made: the man was under the influence of drink but he was not drunk, or he suffered from a strange disease and a medical man is called in to give evidence of the strange disease he has, and that one half whiskey made him unfit to drive a car. He should know about that strange disease and not drive. I do not want to move an amendment on this matter but I should like to go on record as sharing the Minister's doubt about whether he was right in giving way in the other House.
This may be an appropriate time to say that a commission will be set up to deal with this matter, and the deliberations in court on these cases, of which Senator Hayes is sceptical, may, in fact, become a thing of the past. I hope the commission will come to the point where they will lay down an acceptable formula under which all will accept a law that will indicate that a certain fixed percentage of alcohol in the blood will indicate drunkenness from the point of view of driving offences, beyond yea or nay. That should get rid of the friends and other people who are called in to say what they had drunk, when they had drunk it and how long since they had got it. That should all disappear.
Will the test be made at the earliest possible moment, and not four hours after the man is arrested?
That will be a matter for the commission which we are setting up. It will have full authority and all members of both Houses and other interested parties will be welcome to submit their views for consideration.
I move amendment No. 1:
Before section 56, but in Part V, to insert the following new section:—
"( ) A person who sounds a horn on a motor vehicle between the hours of 11 p.m. and 8 a.m. in built up areas, save in cases of gravest necessity, shall be guilty of an offence."
I move this amendment for the purpose of drawing attention to what seems to me to be a very important matter. I am not completely wedded to the form in which my amendment appears, but I put it down to draw attention to this matter which I regard as very important. I might point out to the House that the Bill is drafted in very great detail in some matters. For example, Section 18 covers two pages and we have just passed long sections dealing with dangerous driving. There are powers in other sections under which the Minister may make regulations with regard to other offences.
Some things which are regarded as of major importance are put in the Bill itself and penalties are prescribed for those offences, parking, for example, defective vehicles and so on. I regard this question of noise caused by motor vehicles as of major importance. I suggest that we should put in the Bill provision about the improper use of motor horns and that the matter is worthy of discussion here. I want to urge that it should be regarded as so important that we should insert a provision in the Bill, without prejudice to the Minister's powers under Section 11 and elsewhere, to make special regulations.
I have been told by lawyers, and, I think, by the Minister's predecessor in Local Government on a motion here, that there has been a general provision for years which prescribes that the unreasonable use of horns which creates a nuisance is punishable by law. We all know and every member of the public knows that that provision has been in existence for a considerable number of years but has been of no avail.
We all know that in the built-up areas not only in Dublin but throughout the country, the night is made hideous by motor horns, by motorcycles, and by cars, as has been said by Senator Ó Siochfhradha. Since I put down this amendment, I have had letters from a number of people in Dublin, and in many country towns, drawing attention to the noise in the country towns caused by the use of horns by people passing through the town, or sitting outside dancehalls and using their horns as signals. I have heard them myself in Dublin.
It seems to me that a good case can be made for putting in the Bill a specific section which forbids the use of a motor horn within certain periods of the night. If there were a general provision of that kind, it would get wide publicity. I think it would be observed and it would be easily enforceable. This is not a novel idea. It is enforced in Paris at present. Anyone who knew Paris—I have not been there for some years myself—would say that it was the home of noise day and night. Paris drivers seemed to be wedded to the use of the horn. They drove everywhere on the horn in what appeared to the outsider to be swirling traffic. I understand it was not as dangerous as it appeared.
Not only have they forbidden the use of the horn at night in Paris, but they have gone so far as to forbid it altogether, except I presume in a case of emergency. That gives relief to the ear and to the nerves and considerably more comfort, and I should like to suggest to the Minister that it makes for better and safer driving. Driving on the horn, whether by day or by night, is dangerous because a driver who sounds his horn goes ahead on the basis that someone else will give way, but the other person may not give way, or may be unable to give way in time.
I quoted previously an experience of my own. I was in Ring which is some 140 miles from Dublin. Something went wrong with the car and I could not use the horn, or, indeed, the lights. A very honest motor dealer in Dungarvan told me I should bring the car to Dublin. I had to drive from Dungarvan with a full car, and with no horn. My experience was that I drove better, and it was just as safe and that I could make the journey just as quickly. It was a journey I was used to, and I knew the road well. I made the journey in daylight.
We all know that a horn is not necessary at all at night. The proper manipulation of your lights will give notice of your approach. The matter is of such importance that it should be put in the Bill. If the Minister accepts this amendment, I know he probably will not accept my draft which was not done very exhaustively but put down so that the matter could be discussed. I suggest it should be put in the form in which the speed limit clause occurs in Section 45, that is to say, that a time limit for a period during which no horn can be sounded should be put in the Bill and the Minister given the same power as in Section 45 to increase or reduce the period and to make such other regulations as may seem fit in the light of experience.
I would strongly urge that it be put in, in the public interest, and we are all at one on this Bill and anxious to make it the best possible Bill. We all recognise the problem and it would be a step towards its solution if there were inserted in the Bill provision for a silence period, with power to modify it as it may appear necessary by experience. I am sure the Minister knows as well as I do, that every good professional driver does not drive on the horn. Every professional driver to whom I ever spoke always gave me the advice: "Do not use your horn". I know there are particular occasions when you must use it. The person who uses his horn continuously is a bad driver. I would like the Minister to agree to this amendment which is of such importance that it should be in the Bill in the appropriate form from 11 p.m. to 8 a.m. I suggest.
I live on a major road which leads out of Dublin and in winter and summer people use their horns unnecessarily. I have done a fair amount of night driving, both in Dublin and outside it, and there is little or no necessity to use a horn. A beginning could be made with a silent zone, or rather a silent period, as it refers to time rather than to place, in which a horn should not be sounded except in a case of grave necessity. I think the result would be immediate and would not only make for greater comfort and peace for people and for invalids, but would make for better driving. I recommend this amendment very strongly to the Minister and to the Seanad.
Cuidím leis an leasú a mhol an Seanadóir Ó hAodha. Baineann daoine óga ag filleadh dhibh ó rinncí agus neithe den tsaghas sin an-phléisiúr as oiread fothraim a dhéanamh agus is féidir leo. Ba chóir deireadh a chur leis an ngleo sin go léir mar ná fuil aon ghá leis. Molaim don Aire glacadh leis an leasú.
I do not think this problem would arise at all if consideration were exercised by road users. Many of the problems we are trying to deal with would not arise if there were that consideration by road users for other road users and for the general public, but unfortunately there is not that consideration. I had a somewhat similar experience to that of Senator Hayes when the horn on my car went out of order recently and I found I was quite capable of driving with safety and without accident without using the horn. I have also had experience of sleeping in places adjoining main roads and having a very disturbed night because of the indiscriminate use of horns.
We also have experience in the city of the very bad manners of people when leaving houses where they have been visiting. Having said goodbye a hundred times at the door, they then go to the car and as they drive away, they sound the horn as another farewell signal. One can imagine the curses of parents of young children who have been wakened up by that disgraceful and unmannerly conduct. I appeal to the Minister to accept the principle of this amendment. I am sure the Seanad and the general public would support him in any steps he could take to deal with this problem.
I suppose that noises of any description should be included. The motor cyclists mentioned by Senator Brady who have not got silencers attached to their machines should be included. Recently I slept for three or four nights in London in a noiseless zone and there was not a horn blown in that district. Cars were parked there by people going to the West End, and I am sure each car had 15 doors to be closed. I think we should include all sorts of noise here.
I want to endorse what has been said in regard to noise. There are many other ways of making noise. I thought people who live in Dublin like Senator Hayes got so accustomed to noise that they did not hear it, just as painters do not get the smell of paint or people in tanneries do not get the smell of the hides. Now I learn that they do not get accustomed to noises. There are so many other ways of making noise, apart from blowing a horn.
He was down in Leitrim recently and he did not sleep, either.
It is not the first time a city man introduced de-horning.
On our main roads, we have traffic lights and the unfortunate people who live adjacent to them hear heavy lorries with improper silencers stopping at the lights, getting into lower gear, revving up and creating a terrific noise. Then there is the small two-stroke engine which we all know makes a bigger racket than the four-stroke engine. The small one-and-a-half horsepower two-stroke engine can make more noise, in my view, than most motor cars. They stop at the traffic lights, rev up and it is more like the firing of an automatic gun than anything else. All that problem is involved, I suggest to Senator Hayes. If the traffic lights along the main roads could be switched off from 11 p.m. to dawn, there would be less noise along the main arteries of our city. That may not be a feasible suggestion but it may be worth trying.
Since we sat down in this House, a number of jet aeroplanes flew across the city and that also takes place at night. It was one of the things Mr. Khrushchev objected to in Paris because he understood they were of American manufacture. I do not know where the ones here were made but certainly they make a terrific noise, like constant distant thunder. All the problem of noise which is not dealt with by Senator Hayes's amendment falls ultimately on the Minister's shoulders under the Bill.
I wonder are we making a mountain out of a molehill? I am out as late as most people and I live in a built-up area but I have not experienced anything as bad as the picture which has been painted here by various speakers.
He is a good sleeper.
He has a good conscience.
They are well behaved in the Senator's area, very select.
I am in complete disagreement with what has been said.
The Senator is probably a cyclist.
Is it not the law that any driver approaching a junction must give audible evidence of his approach? I remember when a man who was charged by a Guard in court said if that were so, he would have to blow the horn all the way home. That is the law, I think, and if that is so, there is no use in trying to have silent zones.
The accepted way of giving evidence of approach to a junction is to dim one's lights.
The law is not that you must blow your horn but failure to do so might be evidence of negligence and place you in difficulties, if you were involved in a collision. If a section of this kind is introduced, the fact that you did not could not be used in evidence against you. I think there is something to be said for the amendment and the Minister should look into the possibility of introducing a section on these lines.
I should like briefly to support Senator Hayes's amendment on two grounds: one, less noise and two, greater safety. He made the point, and it is worth underlining, that people who are not relying on the horn have to rely on their own eyes and ears. There is the type of driver who thinks that if he sounds the horn, then everybody must get out of the way and if he cannot use it, he will drive more carefully. That certainly has been the experience in Paris, where prohibition of the use of the horn led to more prudent driving because a lot of people there felt that they had only to sound the horn to get the right of way and I am afraid that there are people like that in this country, too.
I should like to support the amendment but I have difficulty in supporting it as it appears on the Order Paper because it is far too restricted, and, as we have heard from the debate, this problem of noise is only beginning. As I see it, the Minister should deal with the whole problem of noise and I do not think the amendment is adequate in a practical way. I could not disagree with anything which has been said about the nuisance of noise here in Dublin, and not alone in Dublin but in the villages and towns of the country. It is a source of irritation and I do not think the amendment should be so restricted. Consequently, I do not think that insertion of a section so restricted as the amendment would go anywhere near providing a solution to the problem. Could we expect something contemplated in the very near future—as it should be—to deal with the abatement of noise generally and the friction which flows from it?
I would support all those who have supported Senator Hayes, if there were any necessity for the amendment. Under Section 11, there are adequate and much wider powers whereby regulations can be made and I can assure the House that those powers were not merely put in to satisfy somebody who might think those things were needed but because there is a general belief they are needed and they will be used. Why should we write in the question of horn blowing or noise or whatever you like to call it? It is true that Senator Hayes probably has got something about horn blowing in his own place but others also, for good reasons, could dislike other noises: the noise of jet planes, two-stroke, four stroke or whatever-stroke-you-like engines.
What is referred to here is the sounding of the horn. I am much more concerned about general overall undue noise created at hours when the general population wish to sleep and are in fact trying to get to sleep or remain asleep. I know that not only the sound of a motor horn can wake a light sleeper. If you blew all the horns in Dublin, they would not wake me, thanks be to God, but not everybody is like that and that is why there is power to make regulations not only to prohibit the use of the horn but to make silent zones and I am more interested in that.
Silent areas or silent periods?
Both. We can have a silent period in a particular area and general over-all silent zones. Take the case of hospitals or homes, where people are very ill, along heavily trafficked roads. Even if they were not in a zone, even if it were still daylight, it could be very desirable to have silence in and around those buildings. That can be done under the section and you can get all the other variations of times and zones and combinations of them for the abatement of noise.
The reason I am saying that we should not put in this amendment more than any other is that we are also tied to the fact that we have not written in or spelled out every particular offence in the Bill. We have general categories and cover many by regulation but we do not spell out the fact that you may not drive through a pedestrian crossing or crash traffic lights or 101 other things. I think no one would dispute that they are worthy of mention but if in fact we mentioned the point raised by Senator Hayes, we would put one thing in, while leaving out all the others. What is the reason for putting in one item of a general type if you are not going to spell out all?
I am in agreement with the views expressed by those who supported Senator Hayes and with Senator Hayes's own view because personally I do not like noise at all. The fact is that I am of the same mind, but I am completely satisfied that the conditions and terms of Section 11 are adequate for the various problems mentioned by all the speakers and I do hope to see some of them in operation in the not too distant future.
Some day, when I get time, I am going to write a book about Ministers.
There is one being written at the moment.
A book on all Ministers, irrespective of politics. Ministers as distinct from political parties, Ministers as distinct from experience.
He died last week.
The Minister has not been very long in office but he has most skilfully—I should like to say I admire him—put across the Ministerial line. Some of his arguments are quite ridiculous. Even the Minister, in spite of his skill and his advisers, must know that it it quite ridiculous to say that if you put in this, you must put in a proviso about crashing traffic lights. There are certain things in this Bill already as offences. The fact that certain things are in the Bill merely denotes their particular importance. This is so important that it should be put in. The Minister takes the line, which is not a political line but a Ministerial line, of saying that he has the power and he can do it.
We cannot provide for Senator Carton's cars of 15 doors. I spent a month in Ballybunion one time and I shall never forget it. The recollection I have of Ballybunion is of motor doors banging all the time, all through the night.
There were other doors banging, too.
I did not hear the other doors.
The Senator did not go there to sleep?
I did not get any sleep at all. The Minister makes the case that if he puts this in, he will have to put other things in as well. That is not so. He makes the case that he has power under Section 11. If he put this amendment in his own form, it would not take from any power he has under Section 11. The suggestion I make to him is that he should consider the matter. He should put into the Bill a provision about noise and take the same power as he has in Section 45 with regard to speed limits.
We learned a number of things during this discussion. I knew Senator Ó Maoláin had a hard heart but I did not know before that he was hard of hearing as well. There is no use in saying that if this amendment is put in in some particular form, it will compel the Minister to put in other things. It will not take from the Minister's power.
There is this difference between motor horn and other noises. You cannot remedy door closing until you compel manufacturers to make a particular kind of noiseless door. I yield to nobody in my ignorance of mechanics and mechanical apparatus. I do not know whether that can be done but until it is done, there is no use in making regulations.
You can, however, control the blowing of horns. It is entirely within the control of the driver. It has worked in other places. In spite of the Minister's point, it has worked in places which are more populous than this city. It has worked in Paris and Rome which are more populous than this city. I cannot see why it could not work here.
What the Minister should do—I think it would put this problem in its proper perspective; it would help to remedy what is a very vital problem; it would lead to the solution of, perhaps, other problems—is to put into this Bill a section or a subsection prescribing that the blowing of horns at particular times is an offence. He should have power then—he may have it already under Section 11—to vary these particular times. I suggest in all seriousness that that is what he ought to do. He should take an original line and not the standard Ministerial view which is: "I can do it all: I do not want anything in the Bill."
I will have another look at it certainly before the next Stage.
Fair enough.
One hears many comments from time to time about the obstruction of traffic at fairs and markets. A number of people pull up with trucks and vehicles and display and sell all sorts of goods on main streets that are defined as trunk roads. Has the Minister any power to deal with this? They come along with a big van. Then they get a number of stands. They take up an area maybe half the size of this chamber. Then maybe another competing hawker comes along with one or two vehicles and it is the same thing all over again. Is that an obstruction? It is certainly an obstruction to the person outside whose premises they put up this display. It might be classified as a market.
There is a later section under which the Commissioner may make bye-laws in regard to obstruction of the roadway.
It would be well if they did not obstruct on main streets and along trunk roads.
I think they have to have a licence.
A fellow driving a motor car has to have a licence, too, but he may not obstruct the road.
Does that cover matters in relation to making highways wide, and so on? Does the Minister mean that? I should like to see the Minister take power unto himself, in relation to dangerous bends on roads, so that he has some means of forcing the local authority or the occupiers to lower hedges and in that way preserve a clear view of dangerous spots along the road. I want the Minister to keep that observation in mind. If that section refers——
It does not. Local Authority Acts would come in there.
Would the Minister please ascertain the position, under whatever section it may fall?
The purposes of this Bill will be nullified if the Department or the local authorities do not sufficiently signpost the various danger spots throughout the country, in addition to the speed limit signs they intend to erect. Furthermore, I understand that the roads of the country are numbered but there is nothing on the roads to indicate that they have a number. It simplifies traffic, particularly as it affects tourism, that the roads be clearly numbered at periodic intervals. Travel in other countries is simplified to a great degree by the fact that each road has its own number and one is periodically reminded, as one progresses the highway, that he is on the right road to where he is going.
One may be going, let us say, to Cork. One has to travel a long distance along the road before it is indicated to him that he is going to Cork. Various intermediary towns are referred to but Cork does not loom up in name until one is 20 or 30 miles from the city. I think that actually the roads are numbered. If signs are effectively placed along the roads at intervals, indicating the number of the road, it would simplify getting from place to place within the country.
There is one more point. Signs which are erected all over the city and probably in Cork City, also, can become very puzzling. In point of fact, at a one-way street you see a black arrow telling you that you may go down the street and, at the other end, a red arrow telling you that you may not go up the street. There ought to be a clear "No Entry" sign, where applicable, instead of "Stop." It should clearly be indicated that a street is a one-way street. There is plenty of reason for that.
If one wants an experience of arrow-puzzledom all one has to do is to go down Abbey Street as far as the Liffey Street intersection. The traffic signs there are most confusing. Only a person who knows the street well can get out of that puzzle at Abbey Street. Surely it would be simpler to put up a "No Entry" sign or a "Turn Right" sign, and so on.
The same thing applies in other cities. There is a certain amount of stupidity in telling a person by means of a black arrow that he may proceed and that a red sign means he may not go ahead. Whether in Irish or in English it should be clear that there is no entry to a certain street or that it is a one-way street. If I desire to get on to a main road, the signposting should clearly indicate where the road is which I ought to take to lead me to my destination. I was always doubtful about where I was going in the past but fortunately the Minister will now guide me directly.
I remember some years ago the Clonmel Association were presented with signs bearing the words "Fáilte to the Borough of Clonmel". We were told we could not erect them on the public road although we hoped people would be driving slowly there. In every town and city we see every form of obstruction particularly since the introduction of Scotchlite. I wonder if the Minister would consider the desirability of examining this matter in a very full way. The day we were precluded from putting up the Arms of the town of Clonmel and the greeting "Fáilte to the Borough of Clonmel" certain questions arose in our minds. There are all sorts of signs of every conceivable description, neon signs, Scotchlite and reflection devices. Some of them are erected as far out as two, three and four miles from a town. That must be a form of distraction. I should like to hear is there any official view on this matter in regard to the horrors or the pleasures of the road.
The practice of putting up such signs is becoming fairly frequent, and it is very welcome. I have seen places where four roads meet. In regard to three of them, it would be very difficult to decide which is the main road, but there is no doubt that one is a very minor road. One "Stop" sign was put up on the minor road but the other three roads, from which it would be very dangerous to come out, were left without a sign. A sign was put on the minor road from which one would need to be an absolute fool to come out without taking great care. Is it the Garda who declare a road to be a main road, and who is responsible for putting up these signs? It seems they are being used on the very minor roads and that the dangerous crossings are being neglected.
On numerous occasions in Cork, we have asked questions regarding these signs and it was pointed out by the officials that there is a legal point with regard to some types of signs or their placing at dangerous crossings. I wonder is that correct?
There are many of these signs. There is one of a scantily-dressed lady on a mattress outside Dublin Airport.
Is there some legal point with regard to the erection of certain signs at dangerous turns?
I do not understand the Senator.
There are white lines at dangerous bends and there are signs which say "Stop" or "Drive Slowly." I want to know is there a legal point about placing those signs.
I wonder is this a matter on which we should get counsel's opinion? Is it that type of problem or is it a genuine problem? There is authority to put down white lines. With regard to placement of signs indicating dangerous crossings or otherwise, the local authority in question would have to have the permission or the consent of the Garda. Possibly the Senator would let me know his problem more specifically and I shall have it looked into.
Senator Burke mentioned the question of a "Welcome to Clonmel" or "Fáilte go Cluan Meala" sign and said they were prohibited from erecting such a sign.
The town clerk told us it was contrary to the regulations.
I should like to see a welcome being extended to me when I went to the Senator's fair town.
The Minister would like to see it?
Certainly. It is the welcome I should like to see and not the sign. However, I am sure that if the local authority consulted with the powers that be, they would get advice on the matter.
Excessive advertising signs are one of the banes of our existence. I think that all of us who have any regard for the general appearance of our countryside and the approaches to our towns and cities are very much concerned about that matter. It comes under the Town Planning Acts and it will also be the concern of the new Town Planning Bill which will be coming along. In that way, those signs will be properly controlled.
May I repeat what I said when we were discussing traffic signs on another section? If there is a traffic sign with the word "Stop" on it, no matter where a person comes from or what language he speaks, he will know what it means. In regard to Senator Carton's reference to the arrows and the lines crossing them out, every one knows that means that you should not turn into that street. The less diversity of signs there is, the better. I am enamoured of the simple sign "Stop." I should like to see it mass-produced and it could be understood by anyone. I think it should be put at every corner and at every crossing.
If that were done, no one could go anywhere.
I was just coming to that point. Some one might say that we must be told how long to stop and when to start again. I was in an accident which caused me to lose my no-claim bonus after 20 years. I stopped and looked to my right first and naturally when I was crossing, I kept my eye on my left. When I was halfway across, I was hit by a motor cyclist and everyone, including a legal member of this House, said that I was wrong and that if I had given way to traffic coming on my right, he would not have hit me. I think the signal "Stop" covers most dangerous positions and that we should stop long enough to see that we can cross.
There is a lot to be said for a signal telling us to yield to oncoming traffic because at a very busy intersection, it is very difficult to get traffic to slow down and stop. A yield sign would give priority but that in itself would not be sufficient. A number of the signs that have been erected are very effective, particularly on roads which are not very busy.
These signs are admirable but may I suggest to Senator Ó Donnabháin that much as I should like to see one mass-produced sign, I do not think it would solve all the difficulties. For the benefit of those who do not think much of the signs we are using, I would point out that there are not so many of them. You may count a score of them but they are international signs, recognised by international conventions and eventually will be in use throughout the world. Surely we can learn them off and get to know them. Indeed, we have got to know them——
Nevertheless, the "No Entry" sign seems to be——
We shall try to fix that.
I think this is really the section that covers obstruction by hawkers with vehicles.
Yes; this is the section I referred to when the Senator raised the matter earlier.
I welcome this section and the provision for what are wrongly termed "fines on the spot". I suggest it would be good practice that the fines paid by a person who goes along to a Garda station instead of being brought to court should be lower than the fine imposed in court. I say that because we could have a situation in which there would be a lack of co-operation and the whole thing might fall down unless there was encouragement. I was once prosecuted for parking longer than 20 minutes and when the prosecution was finished—I did not defend it —and I had been fined and the Guard came along to collect the fine, I tried to estimate the cost of fining me 10/-or whatever it was. It must have been collosal. Surely the amount I paid did not pay for the Guard taking particulars from me in the first instance, the issuing of the summons, going to court and having the summons dealt with, and then having another Guard come along to collect the fine. It was certainly very wasteful and surely people who do make mistakes should be encouraged to avail of this service and save the taxpayer or the Road Fund extra expenditure. I think the amount charged should be lower than if the person disputed the matter and did not bother going along to the station but eventually went to court and all the processes had to be gone through and the fine collected eventually.
On this point, I would say that the amount of this fine will really be the whole kernal of the problem as envisaged by Senator Murphy. The House can take it, and I think I am quite free to say, if a case were brought to court through the Guard or at the option of the defendant the court would be empowered to impose a much more severe fine. Of course at the same time, it will be able to dismiss the case if it thinks fit, but assuming the person is guilty, as we might if he is prepared to pay his fine on the spot, then the fine in court would be very much in excess of and much heavier than the actual fixed fine.
This is a clever way of getting around the Constitution.
I should just like to make a small point which I think is important. This section authorises a Guard to stop the driver of a vehicle. It is common experience that at any traffic stop where there are white lines, the vast majority of road users stop at the white line but there are always a few, many of them cyclists, who filter up and get ahead of the queue and beyond the white line. If that happened in France, the culprit would become the focus of all eyes in the street because the traffic policeman would blow his whistle and wave him back. Here the Gardaí have no whistles and in fact what they do is tolerate these minor offences which can be extremely irritating to the law-abiding citizen. These offences should be stopped. I made a point before, and admittedly it would add to the noise but it would be a worthwhile noise, that is, to equip the traffic policeman with the type of whistle his French counterpart has, which enables him quickly to call to heel the minor transgressor in this way.
In regard to the stopping of cars, it is assumed that the Guard will be in uniform. Coming along the road at Fairview some years ago, a Guard stepped out in front of my car waving a flash lamp, but he was in civilian clothes. It is assumed that a Guard stopping cars will be in uniform.
I want to express an opinion on the section and to ask a few questions. I want to express the opinion that continuous driving for 5½ hours is too long. This was debated at length in the Dáil, but on modern roads with big trucks, 5½ hours continuous driving is too long and I am sorry that the Minister is maintaining it in the Bill.
The first of the questions is about subsection (2). I am afraid I cannot possibly understand it or construe it. We would want some lawyers to do that. The end of subsection (3) is phrased "or two or more such vehicles successively." Does that mean that the section covers one driver driving two vehicles? In other words, he drives one vehicle for two hours and another for another two hours. Does the section provide that to drive different vehicles for three two-hour periods would be excessive? I presume that is the intention but I should like confirmation.
The whole period is considered for this purpose, although there are two vehicles.
Subsection (4) deals with regulations which may be made by the Minister for Industry and Commerce. Will these regulations be made in the near future, and, if and when they are made, will they be enforced? We all know what is happening at the present time. Lorries are coming from the furthermost corners of the country to Dublin, doing their business in Dublin and starting off again at five or six o'clock that evening to drive maybe away down to Kerry. We have seen, and I am sure the Minister has, too, lorries coming from Donegal, for example, and driving back from Dublin late that evening. Obviously, the drivers of these lorries are driving for an excessive period and are a danger to themselves and to other road users.
If these regulations are made, can we have an assurance that they will be enforced, that owners and drivers of vehicles will be made to keep records of the hours they drive, that there will be some check, some indication that for the future this dangerous driving will cease?
I should like to support Senator Murphy on this. I think 5½ hours continuous driving of any vehicle is grossly excessive. In practice, I do notice that drivers of lorries, even if they are travelling only 60 or 70 miles are allowed very long rest periods. All of us as consumers have to pay more later for the produce these people carry, in view of these long rest periods. The Minister, however, should definitely consider this 5½ hour period. I would feel that four hours sustained driving of a heavy vehicle is adequate and I have driven hundreds of thousands of miles myself, not in heavy vehicles but we do employ reasonably heavy ones, and I say that 5½ hours is more than onerous on a driver.
In reply to Senator Murphy, I cannot speak for the Minister for Industry and Commerce, but I will bring the comments made here to his attention and I can assure the Senator and the House that I am fully assured that this in keeping with all other regulations will be enforced by the Garda and the appropriate authorities.
Five and a half hours?
Five and a half hours.
