Seanad Éireann debate -
Wednesday, 19 Jul 1961

Vol. 54 No. 13

An Bille Toghcháin (Leasú) 1961. - Road Traffic Bill, 1960: Report and Final Stages.

Professor Hayes

I move amendment No. 1:

In page 44, between lines 12 and 13, 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 grave necessity, shall be guilty of an offence."

This amendment was put down for Committee Stage and discussed on Committee Stage and the Minister then said he would take another look at it, but apparently he has decided that he is not able to do anything about it himself. I do not want to go over the ground covered on Committee Stage, except to say that the Bill is framed on the basis that it states certain general principles, gives power to the Minister in Section 11 to make regulations— very wide and very varied powers—and goes on to prescribe certain matters as offences and to prescribe penalties.

For example, Part IV is concerned with a speed limit and as well as prescribing a speed limit, the section gives power to the Minister, after experience, to vary the speed limit with regard to the number of miles per hour as well as to times and places where the speed limit will apply, that is to say, certain matters, such as the speed limit, have been considered of sufficient importance to be put into the Bill and I consider this question of blowing motor horns at night in built up areas, and indeed anywhere, of such importance that it would be better to have it in the Bill. I would suggest, as I suggested before, that it would be possible to frame a section prescribing that the sounding of motor horns should be illegal during certain hours and at the same time, leave the Minister the same power as he has regarding the speed limit to vary matters if, on experience, it should seem right that a variation should be made.

Everybody is concerned about these matters and I have been very interested to find letters coming from many places, not only from Dublin but from the country, adverting to this amendment about blowing motor horns and also to other noises made by motor cars at night which are considered unnecessary and which apparently are regarded by many people as a nuisance. A great deal of this noise is quite avoidable. The use of the horn is in the very great majority of cases quite avoidable and it seems to me therefore that this provision should be put into the Bill. It in no way takes from the Minister's power and it would help to bring to the public notice that this House, the Minister and the Oireachtas generally are alive to the gravity and the urgency of this problem. If you were to put this provision in the Bill, I think it would naturally lead to the making of regulations for the abatement of noises such as the noise of motor cycles without silencers which is quite common in my area—many people, I think, at night take off the silencers probably in order to do certain speeds—and unnecessary noises generally.

If the provision I asked for were put into the Bill, it would make for a great deal of comfort for a great many people, not only the invalid, the old and the very young, but for everybody, because quite a number of people on the main roads of the city, the suburbs and the country towns at night blow motor horns quite unnecessarily, when, as we all know as motorists, the use of lights would be quite adequate. It would mean more comfort for city dwellers and a great many rural dwellers, better driving and fewer casualties. It would be easier to enforce it if it were in general terms such as I have given.

As has been stated by the Minister and agreed by most Senators, what we require are police patrols, not so much to enforce the law but to indicate to people how they are breaking it and what the courteous procedure is. I realise that would be a very desirable thing, but I am afraid we will have to begin with police whose main duty is to tell people what is right but after a short period we will arrive at the situation when the police will be enforcing the law and bringing about the imposition of penalties.

I regret very much that the Minister is not doing anything about this as it is a matter of such importance that it could very well be put in the Bill. There is nothing in the way the Bill was originally framed to make this kind of note discordant. It could be put into the Bill quite easily with the resources open to the Minister and I regret very much that he did not see his way to do so.

Mr. Barry

I want to support Senator Hayes. I think the Minister should take this power. It would be a very civilised thing to do. There is no safety factor involved. When car lights are used, the horn is completely unnecessary and I think you will put an end to what can be described only as suburban bedlam such as we have all experienced after the hours of darkness. Old people have come to me and grumbled about this. They have also asked me, in the naive way of people who think that by being a member of Parliament, you can get anything done, to do something to stop the revving of cycle engines by young riders. I do not think I can do anything about it but we can talk about it. Young people express their youth by removing the silencers from their cycles.

An Cathaoirleach

I want to draw the Senator's attention to the fact that the amendment deals with the sounding of horns

Mr. Barry

You would not regard the noise made by exhausts on the same lines as the sound made by horns?

An Cathaoirleach

It does not come within the amendment.

Mr. Barry

I do wish to recommend the amendment to the House. It gives a power which the Minister should have.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I am curious about the phraseology. It refers to "...built-up areas save in cases of great necessity," I wonder what the interpretation of "built up area" would be and in what circumstances the sound of a horn would be considered a case of grave necessity.

Professor Hayes

Would I be allowed to answer that? Is that question addressed to me?

Professor Stanford

I should like very briefly to support the amendment. There is no doubt that there is a great deal of unnecessary noise at night made by cars on main roads and side roads. I understand that in Paris the blowing of horns is completely banned, day and night. The result is not more accidents but greater care. People look where they are going instead of driving blindly around corners blaring the horn. I think this is a most reasonable amendment and any effort to mitigate the noise on our roads now is desirable and very necessary. I hope the Minister will accept this very modestly-phrased amendment, even at this late hour.

Mr. Louis Walsh

Like Senator Ó Maoláin, I feel the words "built-up areas" require to be defined. There is no definition of built-up areas in the interpretations. There is a reference to built-up area speed limits which would not cover the amendment. I also agree with Senator Ó Maoláin in regard to "cases of grave necessity." What would be regarded as a case of grave necessity on the part of the driver might not be so regarded by a person who decided to prosecute and it would be difficult to get sufficient evidence to satisfy our courts that there was not a grave necessity.

Dr. O'Donovan

I am not surprised at Senator Ó Maoláin asking the question, which looks a very proper one, but I am surprised at my friend, Senator Louis Walsh, not reading Section 45 of the Bill.

Mr. Louis Walsh

I have read it.

Dr. O'Donovan

The expression "built-up areas" occurs there.

Mr. Louis Walsh

Only with reference to speed limits.

Dr. O'Donovan

"There shall be a speed limit of thirty miles per hour in respect of all public roads in built-up areas". This is the expression you want defined. If it should be defined in the amendment, it should be defined all the more here. I do not mind admitting that it was instinct that led me to find this in the Bill or rather led me to get Senator Hayes to find it for me. This business of speed limits and built-up areas is extremely well known. What a built-up area is is also extremely well known.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

What is a built-up area?

Dr. O'Donovan

It is an area in which there is a continuous series of houses built——

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Like O'Connell Street.

Dr. O'Donovan

Any objection raised by Senator Ó Maoláin or Senator Louis Walsh on this score can be raised equally in regard to Section 45 of the Bill.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

I only asked for information. What is a "built-up area" and what is "a case of grave necessity"?

Dr. O'Donovan

I am now going to look at the definition section which says "‘built-up area speed limit' has the meaning specified in subsection (4) of Section 45". Subsection (4) of Section 45 says: "In this Act ‘uilt-up area speed limit' means the speed limit under this section". If the Department of Local Government and the draftsmen are going to get around some difficulty in local government law, or whatever it may be, in that way I see no point in Senator Ó Maoláin raising the matter in this way. This is a piece of legalistic cod. What is a built up area?

Tomás Ó Maoláin

Why does the Senator talk about something about which he knows nothing?

Dr. O'Donovan

The Senator was able to get his nose on to this trail and catch out Senator Ó Maoláin also. I do not believe there is any necessity—I can only express a layman's opinion —to define "a built-up area". This expression is well known. It is quite common in Britain to see the words "built-up area, speed limit 30 m.p.h.". I presume this is a "cog" from the British legislation and if you want a definition á la this system, built-up area is an area in which a speed limit operates, in which a built-up area operates. Adopting this system, I am home and dried. I have bridged the great gap, crossed the canyon, or anything you like. There is no trouble at all, no difficulty. I am home once more in my helicopter and just jumped into the built-up area.

The other question is perhaps a more important one, "save in cases of grave necessity". There is no difficulty if a man makes a noise with his horn and a policeman asks him why he made such a racket and the person replies: "This person who is slightly under the influence of drink came on to the road in front of me and I had to blow my horn and stop and you can see that he went back on to the footpath." The policeman will say: "All right." On the other hand, if a man drives through an area hooting his horn and he is held up and can give no reasonable explanation, he should be prosecuted under this amendment.

I have considerable sympathy with this amendment because nobody ever comes back to the city of Dublin from the country without being aware of the continuous noise. I think it should apply everywhere. We all know that in summer time in the tourist areas in comparatively small towns when people come out from dances, there is a good deal of "revving" of engines and very often people drive off tooting their horns as a method of saying goodbye. We all know that is true. We are really discussing the principle of this amendment. The Minister and his Department had an opportunity to consider it. They did not accept it but they could have accepted something like it and I think it would have been reasonable for them to have accepted something like it.

Mr. L'Estrange

This is a very reasonable amendment. We all know that when people in cities and towns in built-up areas go to bed, especially after 11 o'clock, they want to go to sleep and it is wrong that they should be awakened by the noise of motor car horns. The same applies to hospitals. The majority of hospitals are in built-up areas. The greatest culprits are the road hogs who drive at 40 or 50 miles an hour and who keep sounding their horns because they want everybody to get out of their way. You also have people after dances trying to collect their friends. I have seen it happening in Mullingar and other places, where they keep blowing their horns to attract their friends. The Guards can do very little about it and they can be sounding their horns for as long as half an hour, wakening up half the locality. The Minister may smile. Other culprits are people outside public houses who also try to collect their friends by blowing their horns. There is no necessity for that. This is a reasonable amendment and I can see no reason why the Minister should not accept it.

Mr. Carter

Senator L'Estrange is very much exercised about blowing his horn. I trust he will refrain from doing so down in Westmeath during the coming election campaign.

Mr. L'Estrange

Why? Does it annoy the Senator?

Dr. O'Donovan

It is a lot to expect.

Mr. Carter

He is a dab hand at blowing his horn.

Mr. L'Estrange

Is that so?

Mr. Carter

I was exercised by Senator Hayes's amendment. I think I said to him previously that I should like to hear himself and the late Professor Joad in an argument about the relative merits of "save in grave necessity." I was also exercised to know what would constitute "grave necessity." There is no doubt it is an amendment which we would all like to see encouraged, that people would refrain from sounding the horns of cars near hospitals. I do not know if the amendment could be put into legislative form and be enforced. That is what is exercising my mind about the matter. I think that a motorist could say: "I sounded the horn in case of grave necessity." Therefore, who is to be the judge, if I may so, of what would constitute "grave necessity"?

Mr. L'Estrange

The reason Deputy Childers left Longford-Westmeath would be grave necessity.

Mr. Carton

It is from one built-up area to another.

Tomás Ó Maoláin

It will not affect Senator L'Estrange one way or another.

Mr. L'Estrange

Nothing seems to affect me.

Mr. Brennan

I find myself in a bit of a difficulty, like Senator Ó Maoláin. When am I to advise myself, as the judge sometimes says, on "grave necessity"? If I am to drive from Dublin to my home without sounding a horn unless I am satisfied there is grave necessity, then I must pass through Santry, Swords, Balbriggan, Drogheda, Castlebellingham, Dundalk, and so on, without sounding my horn. If we do away with the word "grave" and make it "necessity," so that no one may use a horn unless he considers it to be a necessity, it would be better. I think the most objectionable noise one can possibly hear in the city today or anywhere for that matter is the screaming of the brakes of C.I.E. buses. Would anybody contend for a moment that we should stop them from using their brakes in that way? My information is that that is the most effective and proper way to use the brakes for safety purposes.

Senator Carton, speaking last week, said that you could give warning of your approach to a crossroads by dipping and undipping your lights. Most of the corners or crossroads on my way home from here are lighted. Mention has been made of built-up areas and the imposition of a speed limit. In places where a speed limit is imposed by the Garda, it should be easy enough to find out the position. I would not back any legislation that would impose on me the necessity to refrain from blowing my horn or that would mean that I would be breaking the law if I used it in approaching all the different junctions I must pass through. Are there not accident cases reported in the papers every week and the drivers of the vehicles are asked whether or not they sounded the horn? If I am involved in an accident, I shall be asked if I sounded the horn when approaching the junction. I shall have to produce very strong evidence to the court to show that I did or else I will find myself in trouble with that court.

Minister for Local Government (Mr. Blaney)

During the Committee Stage of this Bill, we discussed the matter at some length. The same amendment as is before the House now was before the House then also. I promised at that stage to reconsider the matter and I have since done so. Unfortunately, from Senator Hayes's point of view— how he read my mind I do not know— he is aware that on that reconsideration I do not feel there is reason to agree to this amendment. The reason, as I pointed out earlier, is that there is no necessity whatever for this amendment, in the first instance. Under Section 11, there is ample power, designedly, to cover not only the sounding of motor horns but the suppression or abatement of all other noises in any special circumstances in any particular places at any particular hours that we think would be in the interest of the general public.

The purpose of that section and the power of that section, I think, are accepted by Senator Hayes. That being so, one might ask: What is the purpose of the amendment? If I am to read what he said properly, it would appear that by putting it into the Bill and spelling it out, as he proposes, in the section, added importance would appear to be given to the intention and that, as a result of that appearance of added importance, more cognisance would be taken of the law as so stated. If this were so and if we could follow that line right through, then there is nothing that it would not be worth our while to state in a measure such as this even though it would run into volumes of words, phraseology, subsections and sections.

To get across this idea, to get it accepted by the public in a general way, the most effective way and the only way I think it will be got across is by propaganda in the sense of publicity of what we intend to do, of the end we wish to attain. Over and above that, and in conjunction with it, there must be at the same time, a rigid enforcement by the Garda in the areas in question. To state it here, to spell it out here, would not, in my estimation, add to the hoped-for success in the abatement of these noises in any way whatever.

Also, the Senator has stated that we deal with other matters specifically, and asked why not this one, when we spell out certain things in other sections. In Part IV, the Senator pointed out we dealt with speed limits and actually made the speed limit and defined built-up areas to which he refers in his amendment. It is true that we dealt with speed limits separately and outside of Section 11 but it is not done for the purpose of bringing out the importance of a speed limit. It is done really because we are advised that this type of thing would be better not dealt with and should not be dealt with merely from a drafting point of view under Section 11. Therefore, not being dealt with under Section 11, it would come to be dealt with elsewhere. As the Senator pointed out, it is dealt with elsewhere, spelled out.

There is also a general observation I should like to make on this matter of spelling out the various details, that is, that where it is possible to spell out in an accurate, concise way any of these details, it is one thing but to deal with this matter as suggested in this amendment, or, indeed, in any other form of amendment hoping to achieve the same result, will not be so easy. The stating of the hours is a matter upon which we might agree. If we did agree, we would find that the hours stated or any hours stated could not be the most suitable and might preclude us from taking action in other appropriate cases which did not fall within those hours.

In regard to built-up areas, the amendment does not really cover the matter. The fact that the same phrase is used in Section 45 does not add any weight to its interpretation under the amendment. Used in Section 45, it relates to Section 45; in other words, it relates specifically to speed limits under that section. If the same interpretation were to be used for this purpose in this amendment, then we would have to refer to the interpretation and the definition in Section 45 or in some other way repeat what is in Section 45 in order to give it any weight at law.

With regard to the question of "grave necessity," I am not going to put forward the arguments for or against or the necessity for that phraseology. It is my advice that the use of these words in this section or in any other section and the use of the words in this amendment would, in fact, give such a let-out that the section would be inoperative and could not attain its end at all, for the reason that if we put it on the books as we have it here now, we would find that the Garda would in the courts be under the obligation to show that the horn was blown or used in a case other than a case of grave necessity. If we were to deal with this matter in the regulations, we would be prohibiting, I think, totally the use of a horn or any other matter of noise.

Professor Hayes

Am I to understand that the Minister has that intention—that he is considering such total prohibition?

Mr. Blaney

The House will appreciate that there are many matters we have to deal with in very great detail under these various regulations. If we are to deal with this matter, it will be in terms of total prohibition rather than stating it as an excuse in exceptional circumstances. We will not use it in that way. We are advised that the words as used in the amendment would be a let-out to such a degree that it would be as well not to have them at all. When the Senator asks whether it would be a total prohibition, I would not go all the way with him. It may be a total prohibition within specified times and areas. It will have to be total in that restricted sense and it will be for the courts to determine whether or not exceptional circumstances arise.

I am in agreement with the various expressions of the people who supported the idea. Nobody has spoken against the idea of trying to reduce noise, particularly at night time and in or adjacent to hospitals and nursing homes where people are sick and where noise would be quite annoying. All of us would go along with that idea and some more so than others. I am saying to the House that these matters were in my mind while we were drawing up these provisions. In Section 11, I am quite satisfied we have all the power and authority required to deal with noise or nuisance noise. It is my hope that it will be dealt with under the section. I do not agree that we should accept the amendment for the reasons I have given.

Professor Hayes

I think this amendment and the two discussions we had have done good. I am satisfied enough with the results. I should say, in the first instance, that I did not read the Minister's mind. I merely concluded that because the Minister had not put down an amendment of his own, he was not going to yield to me. It is quite plain that, in the absence of something from the Minister, he was not going to agree with me. It was also quite plain from the behaviour of the people who sit with the Minister that the Minister was not going to agree. While some thought I was right on the last occasion, on this occasion, they devoted themselves to splitting hairs about the meaning of particular words in the amendment, ignoring what I said about the framing of this amendment on the last occasion.

As everybody knows, I am a modest and humble person. I did not profess to frame this amendment so that it could go into a Bill and become law at once. I stated that I put down the amendment so that it could be discussed. If the Minister agreed with it, he could get it drafted. In spite of my humility, I have plenty of experience of Ministers. I know that when they are putting something into a Bill, they want it, and quite rightly, in the words of the Parliamentary Draftsman who is the appropriate official for that.

I put down the amendment to establish a principle and I can congratulate myself and be grateful to the Minister and the House because that principle was generally accepted. While the Minister did not make any specific promise, he made it clear that he will do something about it. There is nothing at all in the quibbles about what "built-up areas" mean and what "grave necessity" means.

I think the Minister's point is correct, though the advice he got I heard before, when I come to think of it. If you are going to do this, you do it by way of general prohibition and that would not preclude the courts from considering that a person could not avoid blowing the horn at a particular moment. That is correct. That means that the words "in the case of grave necessity" are not necessary. All I was doing in framing the amendment was showing that I wanted a prohibition.

At the same time, I was aware that cases—they have occurred in my own experience; Senator Brennan gave an example—in which it might be necessary to use a horn do occur at times.

I am satisfied that the Minister will make regulations about this whole matter but he need not have gone to the trouble of arguing that if he put this in, he would have to make the Bill as big as a library. He knows that is not so. In any event, I am glad for what has been done and I hope that what is a very genuine evil in our community, that is, too much noise, as far as motor cars are concerned, will be obviated by regulations under the Bill. I hope the Minister's optimism about enforcement will come to fruition. I am grateful to the House for the manner in which it received the amendment and I withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Agreed to take the remaining Stage today.

Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."

Professor Stanford

I want to add a very brief word to emphasise, if possible, what Senator Hayes said about the necessity for firm and strict enforcement of what is in this Bill. Many of us are very pleased at the way in which the clear definitions and regulations in the Intoxicating Liquor Act are now being enforced. The Minister will do a very fine service to the country if he sees that these regulations are enforced, too.

I should like to add that, at the moment, there are the most flagrant breaches of the traffic laws, especially in regard to parking, all around Dublin. If the Minister had to drive in from Dalkey in the morning, afternoon or evening, he would see in many of the suburban centres the most flagrant breaches of the law. I hope this Bill, when it becomes an Act, will strengthen the hand of the Civic Guards in seeing that they do not recur.

Throughout all the debates in this House and in the other House, the Minister has rejected the acceptability of tests for drunkenness. He has had good reason to do so in many ways, but I would urge him to keep actively in mind the possibility of introducing such tests as soon as certainty, or near certainty, can be achieved.

I should like to end by congratulating the Minister on the production of this comprehensive and effective Bill, and to urge him to see that every jot and tittle of law is enforced in future.

Mr. O'Dwyer

I should like to congratulate the Minister on the Bill which I think will prove to be a very good Act. The Minister has very strong powers with regard to regulating speed and other matters. I suggest he should use his powers with regard to regulation of speed very strictly. I have no doubt that the majority of road accidents can be traced back to the high speed of motor cars. That speed is increasing every day. High speeds in built-up areas are very dangerous but they are even more dangerous on country roads. Everyone is on the lookout in the cities so it is even more dangerous on the country roads. I suggest to the Minister that the time will come, perhaps very soon, when it will be necessary to put a speed limit of perhaps 40 or 45 m.p.h. on all cars, in view of the increasing tendency towards speed in high-powered cars. Every day people are killed on the roads or have their limbs broken. Nothing which will stop those accidents would be too drastic.

A great deal of accidents occur also by reason of the failure of motorists to dim their lights. I have experience of that and I think regulations should be made which will compel motorists to dim their lights. If there were such regulations, there would be fewer accidents.

Professor Hayes

I should like to say one word on the question of enforcement which was raised by Senator Stanford. The present law is not enforced. If you drive your car out of town any night, you will find that the absence of lights on bicycles is the rule and not the exception. There is no doubt about that. For example, in the city, you are supposed to drive on your parking lights, but you may hit a cyclist on the Rathgar Road because the cyclist has only a reflector on the back of his bicycle, and you cannot see it unless you have strong lights turned on. So far as bicycles are concerned, lights are the exception and not the rule.

Another thing which it is quite common to see, in Dublin, at any rate, is two people, very often two children, on the same bicycle. That is a most dangerous practice but no one ever takes any notice of it apparently. I agree with Senator Stanford who said there are flagrant breaches of the law. This morning I saw two breaches of the law in relation to traffic lights. The traffic light laws are broken all the time. When a Garda is present, everything is grand, but when a Garda is not present, the law is broken flagrantly. One of the most dangerous people in Dublin is the man who races for the lights to make sure he will get through before they change, or the man who goes around a corner even though the lights are against him. That is a common thing. To advert for a moment to the amendment before the House dealing with the use of horns at night, one of the most objectionable uses of horns is their use by people at traffic lights. If there is a second's delay when the lights change to green, someone blows his horn because he is in a hurry.

This may be a matter not for the Minister but for the local authority but there are several traffic lights in Dublin where the change is of too short a period to allow anyone to walk across. I heard from Senator Louis Walsh—he is absolutely right—that pedestrians have certain rights at the traffic lights. That may be so, but there are no motorists who would agree. Practically no motorist would agree that pedestrians have any rights at traffic lights. A motorist who goes around to the right, as he is perfectly entitled to, brakes into the pedestrians. I have seen them going very close without killing them.

I do not agree with Senator O'Dwyer that accidents occur because of speeding. They occur because of lack of courtesy and common consideration. A great many people, in this town, at any rate, drive their motor cars on the basis that it is a derogation of their sovereign status if they have to stop. They do not want to stop in any circumstances. They will blow their horns or do all kinds of things but they will not stop. This is not a social matter. I have pointed out over and over again that it is not the people with the big cars, it is not the young drivers and it is not the women who will not stop——

Mr. Barry

It is the old men.

Professor Hayes

That is right. Last Sunday afternoon on O'Connell Bridge, I gave way to a number of people who were waiting to cross and a man came up and went half way across right into the crowd. He was an oldish man with five children in the car. What was wrong with him, I do not know. I know the Minister talks in good faith about enforcement, but I think there will be great difficulties about enforcement when this Bill becomes an Act. I think there will need to be a great many more motor cyclists in the Force. It struck me—I do not know if it is a suitable idea—that the Ban Gardaí could be put in mufti at the traffic lights.

Mr. Carton

They would be in danger there.

Professor Hayes

They might be in danger there. I often notice coming into town that if I follow a particular person, it is that same person who breaks the law at every set of traffic lights. They are in the minority but they are dangerous. When this Bill becomes an Act, if it is to be of any use, it must be rigorously enforced. If it is not rigorously enforced, it will bring the law into contempt, and it will thwart the Minister's efforts and the efforts of everybody else.

Mr. Blaney

Might I express my appreciation of the manner in which the members of this House have dealt with the Bill as a whole and the co-operative way they have gone about their business? I would thank the House for the various expressions of approval that have issued. I would say further that the members of this House and the Dáil and the people in public life who have the opportunity of making themselves heard can be of very great assistance if they will use themselves strenuously in relation to the wishes expressed here and the intentions enshrined in the Bill and on every occasion bring these matters to the minds of the public who have responsibility in the use of the roads of the country.

Enforcement—yes; I quite agree. If it were not enforced, we would be all worse off than if we had never started at all, because, now that the effort has been made, if it does not have the desired effect, the jungle that exists on our roads today will even more forcibly be part of our way of life in future. Therefore, I would appeal very strongly to members of both Houses and others in public life who have access to the minds of the public through their position to impress on the public, whether they may be pedestrians, cyclists, motorists or drivers of horse-drawn vehicles, that all have responsibility. No matter how laws are made, no matter how they are defined, no matter how regulations are made, or indeed no matter how they may be enforced, they will not really get to the root cause of our trouble unless we have acceptance by the public of their responsibilities so that they will have thought and consideration for others when they use our public roads.

I believe that only ten per cent. or 20 per cent. of the accidents that take place are brought about wilfully by bad driving or misuse of the road. Eighty or 90 per cent. are the result of thoughtlessness and lack of consideration, people not thinking where they are going, what they are doing, who else is on the road and who else is entitled to be on the road. That is the big problem. The rigours of the law if fully applied and public opinion properly used by the better behaved members of the community can deal with that ten or 20 per cent., but the real big problem is the unwitting offender, the thoughtless offender, who offends by not having consideration for other road users and that is where I believe the members of both Houses and other public people can go a great distance in bringing about a reduction in the number of accidents and deaths on the road by using their influence on every possible public occasion to impress on the public the responsibility every member of the public has who uses the road, no matter in what capacity.

I have been fully assured that there will be co-operation and ultimate enforcement by the Guards. The laws as we pass them and the regulations we envisage as likely to be made under the measure will be enforced rigorously, when necessary. I am accepting that assurance by my colleague, the Minister for Justice, on behalf of the Guards, and as a result of discussions with Garda authorities in my Department during the preparation of the Bill, I have no doubt that there is a fund of goodwill in the Garda force itself at high level to ensure that when we give them the means, they will use them to clear the roads of the dreadful toll of deaths every year. They will take the steps necessary and proper to put the law into force so that they may save lives, perhaps even the lives of many of us sitting here.

During the course of the discussion in this House and in the Dáil, it was said that I had rejected the idea of tests for drunkenness and Senator Stanford said he hoped that I would keep the matter in mind and when a conclusive method of testing for drunkenness had been arrived at, I would consider the matter again. As I have said and reiterate now, we are in fact setting up a commission to deal with the whole problem of drunkenness, the degree of alcohol in the blood that may be regarded as bringing a person to the state of drunkenness or incapability so far as driving safely is concerned and all the various aspects of the matter. All these will be in the terms of reference of the Commission which my Department is in course of getting together.

If the commission reports at a not too distant date in the future that certain tests are reliable and make certain recommendations, then, as I said in the Dáil, the Minister for Local Government, whoever he may be at that time, will, I am sure, come back to both Houses with an amendment incorporating these recommendations. The commission will present very useful information on the matter and will be of very great assistance in providing the Government with a proper assessment of all the facts regarding testing drunkenness. Their recommendations will be given full weight, to the degree that I expect the Government and the Minister for Local Government of the day will come to the Houses of the Oireachtas to amend the law.

I feel it is only right to express appreciation of the co-operation I have got in this House and in the Dáil and of the manner in which members, no matter on which side they were, dealt with the Bill. I would thank them for the help they have given myself, the Department and the Government to bring along a Bill which I feel having been accepted whole-heartedly by both Houses with various amendments will also be accepted whole-heartedly and unanimously by the public when it is signed and becomes law.

Question put and agreed to.