As amendments Nos. 2 and 11 are related to amendment No. 1, all may be discussed together.
Road Traffic Bill, 2001: Committee and Remaining Stages.
Sections 1 to 7, inclusive, agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 1:
In page 8, before section 8, to insert the following new section:
"8.–The Principal Act is amended by the insertion of the following section after section 11;
‘11A.–Without prejudice to section 11 of this Act, a person shall, when using windscreen wipers, drive a vehicle in a public place with the dip head lamp illuminated.'.".
I am aware that the Minister has already dealt with this amendment in the Lower House, but I had hoped that by the time the Bill reached this House he might have seen the light, so to speak. There is no doubt that one obvious way to reduce the number of traffic accidents is for people and vehicles to be more visible. Cyclists make sure they wear reflective clothing and have proper lights on their bicycles. It would seem reasonable that a country such as ours, in which there is a long twilight period in addition to inclement weather, should follow the example of some Nordic states where drivers of motor vehicles are obliged to use dipped headlights day and night. A number of car manufacturers have produced vehicles for the northern climes, the lights on which work automatically once the ignition is switched on. This has been done by order of some Nordic Governments. Amendments Nos. 1, 2 and 11, to the Schedule, deal with this matter and are both reasonable and sensible.
Given our climate and looking out the window today, there would appear to be no need to have headlights on. We tried this in the case of the vehicles of Wexford County Council, but it was discontinued. However, the Senator may have a point where twilight is concerned where some do not turn on their lights as early as they should. While that is certainly hazardous, it may have to be dealt with separately.
Like every simple proposal made in the area of road safety, there are two sides to it. It was subject to detailed debate on Committee and Report Stages in the other House. This is a complex issue, although it appears simple and straightforward and everyone's immediate reaction would be that it sounds like a good idea to make people more visible. Despite the fact that it has been given detailed consideration over a long period, the European Commission has been unable to adopt a definitive position on it. It has recognised the importance of the issue by including daytime running lights, DRL, as a road safety priority to be progressed at EU level. I have no doubt this will lead to further significant debate on it.
The messages and signals from international research literature are mixed. There are different perceptions as to the effectiveness of the measure. The lack of empirical support on the impact of daytime running lights creates significant difficulties in assessing its potential effects in this country. At the heart of the discussion is that, while daytime running lights can have certain safety benefits which the Senator outlined and no one would dispute, there is a converse problem that it could lead to additional deaths and injuries for more vulnerable road users, such as pedestrians and cyclists, because they are relatively less visible when vehicles use daytime running lights. By making cars more visible, there is a danger, according to research, of making others less visible during daytime.
As well as this, the Motorcyclists Action Group firmly opposes the introduction of daytime running lights on a mandatory basis for all vehicles. It believes such an arrangement would reduce the benefits of its many members voluntarily using daytime running lights on their motorcycles. There is some evidence to support the group's contention that, if everyone uses daytime running lights, motorcyclists will become less visible.
I accept the spirit of the amendment and it is not something I would dismiss. To determine whether there is a basis for establishing a definitive position on it in this country, Dublin City Council with the support of the road safety high level group is finalising its arrangements for a pilot programme on daytime running lights. It will carry out an assessment of its effects on safety which it will use to inform decisions on whether a statutory basis would be appropriate. For this reason, while I accept the spirit of the amendments and it is something which must be considered carefully, it would not be prudent to include them in the Bill. If specific positive proposals emerge as a result of the research work and discussion being progressed both at EU level and here, we will revisit the issue. Adequate legislative powers are available under the Road Traffic Acts to address it. An amendment is unnecessary. For this reason, having highlighted the issue, I ask the Senator to withdraw the amendments.
There is a slight distinction between amendment Nos. 1 and 2. Amendment No. 1 relates to the continuous use of daytime running lights whereas amendment No. 2 relates to using them in inclement weather or when it is raining. A number of cars are sensitive to rain and automatically turn on the wipers. It should be possible for daytime running lights to be turned on automatically at the same time. The Minister has the advantage of being driven, but those of us who must drive ourselves will be aware that trucks which do not use skirts in inclement weather are one of the greatest dangers on the road. This is a hobby horse of mine and, if I had my way, they would be obliged to use skirts down the side panels as well as the back. In inclement weather a truck driver cannot see a car overtaking if it does not have its lights turned on until it is halfway up alongside the truck. If the lights were to come on automatically at the same time as the wipers were turned on, it would increase visibility and reduce the danger.
This would deal with the difficulty to which the Minister referred whereby some people become less visible as a result of certain vehicles becoming more visible. I understand this in the case of motorcyclists. It is good to be able to see the headlight of a motorcyclist coming behind because one knows when he or she will overtake. One can see him or her coming. I would hate to affect this. The idea of using daytime running lights when it is raining should be considered. Another idea for consideration is that lights be turned on one hour before lighting up time and kept on for one hour after street lights are turned off.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 2 not moved.
Section 8 agreed to.
Section 9 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
Amendments Nos. 3, 7 and 10 are related and may be discussed together.
I move amendment No. 3:
In page 12, before section 10, to insert the following new section:
"10.–Each local authority shall, within 6 months from the passing of this Act, make bye-laws prescribing a speed limit of 20 miles per hour in the vicinity of schools as directed by the bye-laws concerned.".
I feel strongly about this issue. In the United States of America all vehicles must stop behind a stationary school bus. No vehicle is allowed to overtake it. During the years a number of accidents have occurred as a result of children running out from in front of or behind a school bus and being hit by overtaking motorists. Most school buses stop on major roads. I am aware that prohibiting overtaking of school buses could create a difficulty, but the standard speed limit could be used in the vicinity of schools with an additional flashing sign indicating "no overtaking" wherever the school bus stops. It only takes a few minutes for children to get on and off. It would be in the interests of the safety of children and is something about which I feel strongly.
If one travels in any suburban town in France, one will find that speed limits are not fixed at 30 miles or 40 kilometres per hour. In some places they are as low as five and ten. People in France expect these speed limits in certain areas. We appear to have the inflexible idea that the speed limit is either 30 miles per hour or 60 or 70. As I said on Second Stage, there are roads on which it is more dangerous to travel at 60 miles per hour than at 100 on a motorway because the roads are not meant to take it. Perhaps the Minister will respond to this.
I support Senator Coogan in this series of amendments dealing with traffic restric tions in certain circumstances. He referred to the issue of bus stops in the vicinity of schools. Amendment No. 10 specifies that local authorities, after consultation with the Garda, would apply a statutory maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour.
The issue of speed limits, especially the question of consultation between the Garda and local authorities, is very important. I support Senator Coogan's amendments in that it is important that we give additional significance to the role of local authorities working in consultation and partnership with the Garda in setting speed limits.
I am particularly concerned with village areas, schools and bus stops. In the case of villages along roads carrying substantial traffic flows, speed has become an increasing problem for people trying to cross the road, particularly elderly people. Some of the villages I have in mind in County Tipperary are Toomevara on the N7 and Horse and Jockey on the N8, where it is virtually impossible to cross the road. Even in villages off the main roads, speed is an increasing problem. This is now one of the most frequent complaints which residents in the vicinity of such villages are raising with public representatives as a factor which is undermining their quality of life.
In areas where there has been new housing development over the last five to ten years, not necessarily in the form of a village, as such, but even in the case of ribbon development, regardless of whether we want it, there may well be a need to review the requirement for local speed limits where the level of population is such as to warrant new measures being taken in the interests of safety and quality of life. In this context, Senator Coogan's amendments are very relevant in terms of clarifying the role of local authorities, particularly amendment No. 10 which provides that local authorities, working with the Garda, could apply a maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour. That would also give the elected members of local authorities a role in bringing forward such proposals.
I regard the points made as much more an issue of enforcement. Obviously, speeding is a problem in many villages, but the solution lies in enforcing existing speed limits rather than setting new ones. I would even suggest that, because of lack of compliance, some speed limits are actually pitched too low. I have heard debates at local authority level on the idea of reducing speed limits from 40 miles per hour to 30 in the hope people might stay within the 40 miles per hour limit. I agree that this is not a good approach to law enforcement and compliance, but, unfortunately, it reflects the situation as is.
If speed limits are pitched at unrealistically low levels, they are unlikely to be effective. For example, a "village" consisting of a pub and a garage would be better served by a 50 miles per hour limit which is adhered to rather than a 40 miles per hour limit which is largely ignored. Not enough use is made of the 50 miles per hour limit which, I understand, is an option available to local authorities but not widely used by them. Standards need to be looked at with a view to having a degree of uniformity as a basis for more effective enforcement.
I remind the Minister of his excellent address to his party Ard-Fheis in which he suggested it may be timely to look at the policing of traffic management areas. Perhaps there is potential for a significantly enhanced role for local authorities in this regard. In turn, it would release Garda resources to be applied on a more full-time basis to dealing with criminal activities.
My reason for not accepting the amendments is not that I disagree with them but that the primary legislation is already in place to facilitate what Senator Coogan is proposing. Under current regulations, there is provision for speed limits of 30, 40, 50, 60 and 70 miles per hour, providing flexibility for local authorities. I understand the request by Senators for the inclusion of a speed limit of 20 miles per hour in designated areas. Perhaps the way to take the matter forward is for local authorities for whose members this is a reserved function to consider if there is a need in certain areas to introduce such a new provision. If there is such a demand around the country, my Department would, as is normal, draw up regulations allowing for 20 miles per hour speed limits in particular circumstances. It would then be up to the local authorities to designate the particular areas in which this should apply.
In relation to village areas, I agree with Senator Walsh's comment that if speed limits are pitched too low, they will be ignored, bringing the law into disrepute. A speed limit of 20 miles per hour would be ridiculous in the case of villages on national secondary roads or whatever. However, I take the spirit of the comments of Senators Coogan, O'Meara and Walsh in relation to new residential areas and locations in the vicinity of school bus stops. I am not sure if it is possible to have a moveable speed limit, as it were, to accommodate school buses stopping at points where there are no bus stop signs, but I share Senator Coogan's concern in this regard. I have some knowledge of the US system whereby other vehicle drivers have to take special precautions in relation to school buses, such as stopping when the bus has stopped while kids are boarding or disembarking, giving the bus a wide berth when overtaking and so on. I agree with this. However, as I have said, the amendments are not necessary because the primary legislation adequately provides for the changes in speed limit signs mentioned.
In deference to the Senator's comments and taking account of my response in relation to the local authorities' role – the Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, has already indicated this – we will raise the matter again with the high level committee on road safety. We are now coming to the end of the current strategy period and will specifically ask the committee to have a look at this matter in preparation for the next strategy.
I also reiterate Senator Walsh's comments in relation to speed limits. No matter what regulations and speed limits we have, the law will simply be brought into disrepute unless they are enforced and people believe they will be enforced. I am particularly familiar with the situation in the village of Batterstown, on my way to and from Dublin. Motorists are conscious that the Garda operates speed checks there fairly regularly, and one notices the brake lights coming on as they approach the speed limit signs at the village. I am sure Senators could cite similar examples. Our main focus has to be on even greater enforcement, acknowledging the huge increase in recent years.
I do not wish to appear churlish in not accepting Senator Coogan's amendments, the spirit of which is accepted. We have the appropriate primary legislation and it is not necessary to duplicate it. I assure Senators Coogan, O'Meara and Walsh of my commitment to have the matter taken up by the high level group. The Senators are probably in a better position to inform local authorities of this than anybody else. If there is a demand for this from the members of local authorities, we will amend the regulations to allow for a 20 miles per hour speed limit in particular areas. That is as far as I can go at this stage.
With no further pun intended, that would not be a better vehicle for the introduction of such limits than the proposed legislation, as we do not know when we will see the proposed regulations. I do not know if the Minister intends that it be introduced by regulation or legislation. In the interim, if the amendment is accepted, it might be responsible for saving a number of lives while awaiting any other changes the Minister intends to make in the future.
On the way in to Dublin I am confused by road traffic signs regarding speed limits. This has cost me a few bob and may possibly cost me penalty points in future if I do not watch out. Speed limits change constantly along the western road. The 40 mph speed limit sign suddenly changes to 50 and I only become aware of this when somebody blows the horn behind me. It changes to 40 quite quickly and a light flashes behind me for a different purpose. I accept the fact that if one does not have a speed limit to which people adhere, there is no point in having it.
On the western route in Galway, a dual carriageway, no car travels under 30 miles per hour. At a recent meeting of the city council I recall remarking to someone that a terrible thing had happened in the case of a car travelling at 50 miles per hour on the dual carriageway. When the person concerned asked if the driver had been charged with speeding I replied that he was charged with obstructing traffic. If the Garda wants to make money, all it has to do is stand on the one spot along the road and everybody who passes will be travelling at more than 50 miles per hour.
Corporation members have asked time and again that this road be re-examined, but their request has not been taken on board. The Minister can say what he likes about local government being able to do these things, but one has to return to the Garda which will say "No". Privately gardaí will say it is impossible to enforce the speed limit unless they leave a Garda car on a full-time basis and while that may be financially rewarding, it is not exactly good law. I ask the Minister to reconsider if this is the proper vessel for this measure.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 10 agreed to.
SECTION 11.
I move amendment No. 4:
In page 17, between lines 42 and 43, to insert the following new subsection:
"(14) A person who, in purported compliance with subsection (4), knowingly furnishes false or misleading information shall be guilty of an offence.".
The Minister is aware of this amendment on which I would like to hear his comments.
The Minister of State, Deputy Molloy, accepted a similar proposal made on Committee Stage in the other House. As a result of that Fine Gael amendment, the Minister of State sponsored an amendment to sections 11 and 12, essentially the same as that being proposed by Senator Coogan. The Minister of State's amendment was accepted in the other House and forms part of the Bill in sections 11(17) and 12(16). As the matter has already been addressed, I ask the Senator to withdraw his amendment.
The issue has substantially been covered.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Section 11 agreed to.
Section 12 agreed to.
SECTION 13.
Question proposed: "That section 13 stand part of the Bill."
I welcome this section which extends the remit of local authorities and gives them a role where offence or discomfort is caused by excessive emissions and noise from road traffic. It is important that the role of local government in traffic management is further extended, for which there is tremendous scope. There is an onus on local government to implement fully the provisions and powers they are being given, something which does not always happen. While the SPC structures are important, the implementation of policy and the remit and responsibilities of local government is equally so, and will necessitate a very significant and direct role for councillors in ensuring responsibilities in the areas concerned are fully implemented. In general, I welcome this provision. I know the Minister does not need any encouragement from me to do more of the same in the future.
I concur with what Senator Walsh has said in regard to this section. It is essential that we introduce regulations that are very tight in regard to emissions and noise pollution. Athens has some of the finest monuments from ancient times, many of which have been affected by pollution from heavy traffic. I am not saying that would happen here, but let us stop it before it starts. I commend the Minister on the section.
Question put and agreed to.
SECTION 14.
I move amendment No. 5:
In page 26, between lines 45 and 46, to insert the following new subsection:
"(7) Where the Minister proposes to enter into an agreement under subsection (1), he or she shall cause a draft of the agreement to be laid before each House of the Oireachtas and he or she shall not enter into such agreement until a resolution approving of the draft has been passed by each such House.”.
I would like to hear the Minister's response. I am sure he has already come across this amendment on Committee Stage in the other House.
I often cross swords with Senator Coogan's colleague, Deputy Dukes, on various Bills, but we both took a similar line in regard to regulations and resolutions before the House. In normal circumstances I am in favour of having resolutions approving regulations put before the Houses. In this case however the proposal provides for the laying of the draft of an agreement before each House of the Oireachtas and the passing of a resolution before any agreement can be finalised in regard to arrangements for such matters as the national car test, the driver theory test and so on.
There is a difficulty in this area in that such agreements have to remain confidential as they contain sensitive information on intellectual property rights and confidential financial matters. The publication of such data could leave a party to an agreement at a considerable commercial disadvantage, which would militate against the effective application of the section in most cases. It would not be practical in this case in the context of agreements to have resolutions placed before the House. I, therefore, ask the Senator to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment put and declared lost.
Section 14 agreed to.
Section 15 agreed to.
SECTION 16.
I move amendment No. 6:
In page 29, line 14, after "buses", to insert "including school buses".
This could possibly have been discussed with earlier amendments. The Minister has agreed that, if it is possible to legislate to ensure school buses are included in the same way as other buses, it might result in lives being saved.
While I will not accept the amendment for reasons that I stated previously, I accept the spirit of what is being attempted. In the context of any review, of the high level group on traffic safety and of the ongoing consultation regarding safety on school buses, we will look at the possibility raised by the Senator. However, there is no need to make statutory provision at this stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 7 not moved.
Section 16 agreed to.
Sections 17 and 18 agreed to.
SECTION 19.
An Leas-Chathaoirleach
Amendment No. 8 is consequential on amendment No. 9 and they may be discussed together by agreement.
I move amendment No. 8:
In page 31, lines 13 and 14, to delete "amended by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsection:" and substitute the following:
"amended–
(a) by the insertion after subsection (1) of the following subsection:”.
We are now using the euro and in this instance a more realistic amount than £100 would be €1,000. The former sum has been difficult to find since 7 February and in real terms €1,000 is meaningful. A €100 provision is minimal and would not have the same effect.
If the Senator looks at section 23 of the Bill, he will see that we are being even harsher than he suggests. The penalty described there is €1,500 and I am sure, in that context, that the Senator will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Can we add another €500 to it?
No.
I accept that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Amendment No. 9 not moved.
Section 19 agreed to.
SECTION 20.
Question proposed: "That section 20 stand part of the Bill."
This section deals with the extended use of electronic equipment, including cameras, which obviously are an effective deterrent. The thrust of much of the technology we have today raises serious questions about invasion of privacy. Entitlement to privacy is a fundamental right. When doing anything in this area we should ensure that we do not infringe that right to too great an extent. Pro bono publico applies, where one must ensure there is compliance with laws that provide for the common good, but we need to achieve a balance. I do not disagree with the section – I am simply sounding a note of caution because the thrust of various Government, international and EU regulations are starting to infringe, in a fairly serious way, on people's right to privacy.
I agree wholeheartedly with Senator Walsh. I am not sure if it is true or one of those stories that grow legs, but some years ago in Great Britain somebody was sent a photograph of himself and he was in a compromising position because the woman in the car with him was not his wife. While I would hate that to happen to anybody, it is not the issue I want to raise.
My problem is with the photograph that is taken of somebody when he or she is speeding at a particular point in time. I raised this on Second Stage and it is something about which I feel very strongly. How can one appeal in a case where one accelerates to 58 mph to safely overtake a car travelling at 30 mph in a 50 mph zone? Although one subsequently reduces one's speed to 50 mph, one has been photographed at the moment one was exceeding the speed limit although one was carrying out a normal procedure under the traffic laws. It makes more sense to overtake at that speed than at 50 mph and, perhaps, endangering oncoming traffic. I have a difficulty with the single point in time photograph. Perhaps it would be better if there were four or five different photographs.
Regarding Senator Walsh's point, there is a growing sense that big brother is watching with the installation of citizen cameras. They are no harm in their own right and they are being installed because of unfortunate things that are happening.
Will the Minister discuss what happens to a person who is fined when he or she is photographed at a point in time when he or she exceeded the speed limit while overtaking to ensure somebody else was not endangered? Their action makes much more sense than keeping to the speed limit in that instance.
The application of the electronic equipment we are discussing used to be limited to the offence of exceeding the speed limit, as provided for under section 47 of the Road Traffic Act. Section 91 provides for it to be used in cases of dangerous driving, careless driving and of parking a vehicle in a dangerous position and to control traffic where an event is attracting large assemblies. Section 92 provides for the prevention of obstruction of traffic by fairs and markets, section 93 protects bridges from excessive loads and section 94 provides for the closing of roads to particular vehicles. Under the 1994 Act, section 35 provides regulations for the general control of traffic and pedestrians. Those sections are the reasons for extending the use of electronic equipment and why the extended uses are being put on a statutory basis.
I am not a lawyer so I will not try to interpret the law, but as we saw, tragically, in the Jamie Bolger case, footage from CCTV is used in detecting crime and to see who was in the vicinity of a crime when it occurred. It is there to assist the Garda and it is difficult to argue with it. The right to privacy is an important one, but the common good has to be taken into account, as Senator Walsh said, and a balance has to be maintained.
I am not being smart, but the short answer to Senator Coogan's remarks regarding point of time photographs and fines is that the person exceeded the speed limit in his example. He or she can pay the on-the-spot fine, if that is what is imposed. If there are particular circumstances and he or she feels he or she should have his or her day in court to explain what happened, all we can do is provide him or her with the opportunity to be heard there. It is possible that at some time in the future we will have moving versions of the cameras but for now, if one exceeds the speed limit, that is the postion. We are all supposed to drive in a manner that does not endanger anybody else and which puts us in a position to stop safely at all times, among other things. Those are the general rules we are all supposed to follow. If we exceed the speed limit and are caught on camera, there is nothing much we can do about it.
When anybody who is working for a living looks at having to spend a day in court, rather than pay the fine, even if he or she feels they are right about what he or she did, he or she will pay. If the penalties begin to accumulate, people will say "I was not doing anything wrong in overtaking quickly". As I pointed out on Second Stage, sometimes people force one to stay over the white line and refuse to allow one to return to one's side of the road. In that instance, the penalty should be imposed on such people. The person who travels at 45 mph, holds up traffic and creates chaos behind until someone loses their cool and overtakes five or six cars at once should be fined as well.
We should have good driving practice, but it is very hard to instil that in people. Perhaps it is because of the way people are taught to drive that their consideration is for themselves and not for others. Something I mentioned to the Minister before, as well as on Second Stage, that might sound futuristic is the idea of using simulators to allow learners to be subjected to all types of road conditions to see if they know how to apply rules and regulations without causing any accidents. As Senator Walsh mentioned, today is a lovely day and if one was doing one's test now, it would be much easier than having to do so on a slippery slope somewhere in the middle of winter. In a simulator one can simulate the conditions of all seasons in the year and assess if the person adheres to the rules and regulations and knows how to drive adequately. It is a futuristic concept but in the long term it is the way to go.
Question put and agreed to.
Sections 21 and 22 agreed to.
NEW SECTION.
I move amendment No. 10:
In page 34, before section 23, to insert the following new section:
"23.–Local Authorities may, as they consider appropriate and after consultation with the Gardaí apply a statutory maximum speed limit of 30 kilometres per hour.".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Sections 23 to 26, inclusive, agreed to.
FIRST SCHEDULE.
I move amendment No. 11:
In page 38, between lines 32 and 33, to insert the following:
"
|
Reference Number(1) |
Offence(2) |
General Description of Offence(3) |
Penalty Points on Payment of Fixed Charge(4) |
Penalty Points on Conviction(5) |
|
Using a vehicle without dip head lamp illuminated |
2 |
4 |
".
Amendment put and declared lost.
Question proposed: "That the First Schedule be the First Schedule to the Bill."
I raised a number of points yesterday which I considered again overnight. Those points do not imply any criticism of what is important and far reaching legislation for improving road safety. However, there are some anomalies in the Schedule. Some are minor but one of them is extremely serious.
Inadequate brakes carry one penalty point if the person pays the fixed charge and three points on conviction. That is rather low. If somebody drives on the road with inadequate brakes, it creates a hazardous situation. Perhaps the penalty should be looked at again, particularly when compared to other penalties. The penalty for crossing white lines seems a little high. The NRA seems to have influenced the local authorities and there are now continuous white lines in areas where it would appear safe to overtake. I also have in mind a road where there is a continuous white line for a certain distance followed by a broken white line, which enables one to overtake the vehicle in front. However, if one had passed 30 metres earlier, it would have been safer and one would have had greater visibility but one would be in breach of the rules.
I feel strongly about the penalties for trailers not equipped with rear lights. It is one penalty point on payment of the fixed charge and three points on conviction. All Members will be aware of accidents resulting in death which were caused by somebody pulling trailers or plant and equipment which was not properly lit. If I drive on the road pulling a trailer without brake lights, I will pay a small fine and get one penalty point if I am caught. Somebody else who commits the same offence might be unfortunate enough to cause a fatal accident. He or she obviously will suffer a severe penalty, and rightly so. However, our offences are the same. Where this offence occurs, there should be no recourse to the payment of a fixed charge. It should result in conviction. This situation occurs because people are either careless or have a total disregard for other road users. I strongly believe there should be a change in this provision.
The other point I raised yesterday was the prohibition on vehicles using the outside lane of the motorway. This applies in other jurisdictions which have three lane motorways but, to the best of my knowledge, the majority of our motorways have only two lanes. Where articulated lorries are restricted to a 50 mph speed limit and a car in front of a lorry is travelling at only 40 mph, this provision prevents the lorry from overtaking. I wonder about the prudence of that provision.
I am not trying to be pernickety because, overall, it is good legislation which I strongly welcome. It will make a major input to road safety. However, I feel strongly about the provision relating to trailers because people I knew were killed as a consequence of unlit trailers on the roads.
Senator Walsh referred to defective brakes. I believe that is covered under reference No. 10 which relates to driving a dangerously defective vehicle. It provides for no initial penalty points but for five penalty points on conviction.
Reference No. 13 refers to using a vehicle "not equipped with rear underrun protective device". That is the barrier to prevent another vehicle from running under the back of a truck or lorry. Has the Minister considered the point I raised about additional rubber skirting, that is, rubber mats that prevent water splashing from the main wheels of juggernauts? When one is trying to overtake those vehicles, even with the windscreen wiper operating on the fastest speed, one is still ten feet past the vehicle before one has good visibility. That is because they do not have proper or full flaps on the back of the vehicle. In addition, if flaps were put on the sides of the vehicle, it might reduce the amount of water thrown up from the road. The number of accidents that occur as a result of overtaking such vehicles is phenomenal. Will the Minister consider introducing such a provision in the Schedule?
There will always be a variety of views on what should and should not be in the Schedule and what penalty points should apply. The important point, however, is that we now have a penalty points system. It is our first attempt and the penalties can be changed in the future, but only by legislation.
Senator Coogan did my job by outlining the position regarding brakes. Having inadequate brakes will earn the motorist one penalty point. The other offence is driving a dangerously defective vehicle. If there are serious brake problems, that is the provision that will apply.
At any stage, gardaí, whatever the offence, have the option of proceeding to conviction or imposing an on-the-spot charge. For a serious offence, therefore, gardaí should and will opt for conviction. The points option is available for less serious offences. Obviously, however, where a less serious offence causes a death or serious injury, gardaí can decide to seek a conviction rather than use the penalty points system.
Senator Coogan spoke about flaps on the sides of trucks. I will look at his suggestion. These vehicles are manufactured outside this country so it is probably an issue we should deal with at European level. I will do that because the Senator's point is valid. On a wet day one can see a clear road in front when one is sufficiently far behind the truck to decide to overtake but when one comes up beside the truck, one can be temporarily blinded. I will raise this issue both domestically and at European level.
Question put and agreed to.
Second Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported without amendment and received for final consideration.
Question proposed: "That the Bill do now pass."
I raised a number of matters on Second Stage and I know this is probably not the right time to raise them again. We spoke about the reduction in the number of accidents and road deaths. Nobody would disagree that the purpose and thrust of this Bill will make a positive impact in that regard.
There is another side to this which I emphasised previously, that is, the condition of roads in comparison to those in many of our European counterparts. Poor road conditions lead to accidents. On a major route such as that between Galway and Dublin, I could take the Minister to a place where, following rain, there is always an accumulation of water. I have seen cars aquaplane on that stretch of road when the weather is reasonably good.
The standard of roads in Ireland must be improved. We know how much money is raised from the car drivers through VRT, motor taxation and tax on petrol. When road tolls are introduced the motorist will be paying again and again. Motorists are not getting back as much as they are putting in and they have a right to demand more from this Government, as they had a right to demand from previous Governments, with regard to the standard of roads and the time it takes to go from one place to another.
The National Roads Authority stated that it wished to set a standard of an average speed of 50 miles per hour on national routes. As Senator Walsh will be aware, in a test run from the centre of Cork to the centre of Dublin on Saturday my average speed was 27.8 miles per hour. That is nearly half the standard which the NRA wishes to attain. The amount of time the cars are on the road, the damage they are doing to the environment at the same time and the cost of transporting goods at such a slow speed is adding continually to the costs of the motorist. The motorist has a right to demand that the standard of roads be improved, both in the interests of safety and of adequate and safe speed.
Senator Coogan has made a compelling argument about the roads. He said that he travelled from Cork to Dublin at an average speed of 27.8 miles per hour. The figures should be inverted. One should be able to travel from Dublin to Cork in two hours. If we had a proper motorway system, that would be possible. We should have such a system and I know the Minister aspires to it. Much of what is contained in the national development plan is heading in that direction but we need to see the investment as quickly as possible. Senator Coogan is quite correct. It will not only facilitate the economy but considerably improve road safety and reduce the number of accidents. Statistics in other countries bear this out. It is a very important component of traffic safety.
This is probably one of the most significant pieces of road traffic legislation to pass through this House in the life of this Seanad. The Minister, Deputy Dempsey, and his colleagues, the Ministers of State, Deputy Molloy and Deputy Dan Wallace, deserve to be commended for their input and effort. Serious strides have been made in tackling the issue of driver behaviour and road traffic accident reductions.
I understand that the manner in which this scheme is constructed is unique to Ireland. It is good to see that there is a fixed charge so that it can be dealt with administratively. There will be a significant improvement in driver behaviour because, as people start to accumulate penalty points, it will make them focus on improving their own driving behaviour and ensuring that they do not get to the stage where they are caught.
Even though it is a less high profile part of the legislation, the EU-wide approach to the issue of offences and disqualification and the fact that drivers from other countries may be disqualified here is a step in the right direction. No doubt in the course of debates in this House in future years people will refer back to this as a watershed in improving road safety in Ireland and I commend the Minister for that.
I thank the Members of the House for welcoming and supporting this important legislation. I thank the members of my own party for their support, in particular, but also the Opposition for their constructive approach. In the other House a number of amendments put forward by the Opposition were taken on board. It is an area where there should be all-party support.
I take this opportunity to put on record my hope that we will be returned to power after the general election in May, but it is important to give the commitment on a personal and party basis, leaving aside the commitment on a Government basis. One of the first things the next Parliament should do is establish an ad hoc or standing joint committee to go into the detail of road safety issues. It could look into the kind of issues raised by Senators Coogan and Walsh such as educating people in good road manners, etc., but also the more serious issues which have been raised. We should feed into the high level group on road safety, have a direct say in it and make a direct impact with that group. We should do that having looked at good practice in other areas.
Many accidents can be avoided by people behaving themselves and adopting a responsible attitude. At times people want to blame politicians, the Garda, the local authorities, the NRA and everybody else, but the vast majority of road accidents are caused by people who do not give proper consideration to their fellow motorists. That is the long and the short of it. We will not reduce the number of road deaths significantly until everybody takes personal responsibility.
The focus in the past couple of years has been on the penalty points system which is being introduced in the Bill. No doubt this will have an impact. However, it is my hope that the impact will not be realised by motorists accumulating a large number of penalty points. I would like to report to the House after the penalty points system has been operating for a year that very few drivers have accumulated penalty points because behaviour and attitudes have changed. It would be wonderful if that were so.
I hope the system will promote greater caution among motorists and greater respect for all road users. That is the overall theme of the legislation. The number of fatalities has been reduced by 14%. We have achieved a considerable reduction in the number of serious injuries and I hope we can add to that over the coming years. This legislation will help, although there are other things which need to be done.
I acknowledge the point made by Senator Coogan about the condition of roads. In a huge number of road deaths it is not a factor, but in some cases it is. It is estimated that the roads programme, including the motorways, which we are putting in place in the national development plan will save about 50 lives per year. That underlines the importance of having not only a good national roads system but also a good local roads system.
I thank Members for their contribution to the debate and the Cathaoirleach and the staff in the House for facilitating it. I also thank my own staff for all the work they have put into it.
Question put and agreed to.