I move amendment No. 51:
In page 27, subsection (2), between lines 3 and 4, to insert the following:
"(h) prohibiting the use of a carphone while a mechanically-propelled vehicle is in motion;".
This amendment is self-explanatory. Could the Minister give the reference to legislation whereby carphones are dealt with at the moment and what is his intention? Does he feel we need a specific reference in a Road Traffic Bill or is it best left unsaid?
It is covered under section 52 of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, but——
Which says what?
——I am going to give it some further thought. The question has been raised before. There has been a big difference in the situation since the general provision was provided. Many people are now using these telephones and it must be the case that people are using them while driving. I have not made up my mind whether I should consider a specific provision to deal with it on Report Stage or otherwise, but I intend to return having thought further about it.
On Report Stage?
Yes.
I was wondering what the existing provisions were. I am supporting this amendment. I think many of us should admit that perhaps we do not always observe the provisions of the Act as it is at the moment. I am wondering about the wording of this amendment. I do not want to be nit-picking, but the Minister would be aware of all these mobile telephones which are being used, particularly by programme managers, etc.——
And Whips.
——and Whips. Would a mobile telephone be covered by the wording of this or does it specifically refer to a carphone?
I take it that we are dealing with somebody who is in a moving vehicle. If the Deputy has anything else in mind she should be more explicit.
The wording of this amendment would seem to prohibit the use of carphones by passengers in motor cars.
That is a fair point.
That would mean that Ministers could not use their carphones and one frequently hears them taking part in radio interviews from their cars when they are travelling up and down the country.
That car is stationary and pulled in.
The public should not be deprived of the pleasure of listening to a Minister cruising down the country giving a radio interview.
I want to differentiate between the driver and the passenger but there are also hands-off carphones which can be used quite safely. We want to clarify exactly what kind of equipment Deputy Doyle is talking about. It is a problem. There is no doubt that drivers should not be distracted when driving a car by using a telephone with one hand.
I just want to think more about it. I think there is something in it and I would like to be sure.
It is to those in charge of a mechanically propelled vehicle that any such amendment may or may not refer, rather than passengers. The Deputy made a fair point.
The wording simply says "carphone" and I believe that many of the situations where difficulties would arise would often involve a telephone which would not be termed a carphone, most likely because people who would buy such an item might feel restricted if it was simply a carphone. They may not be using cars when they want to make a telephone call. It needs to be clarified that it refers to any situation where such a telephone is being used while the driver is driving the car. I would have thought that there was some law governing this already because Eircell, as far as I understand, recommend very strongly in big, bold print that a car not be driven while such a telephone is being used. It would save their PR people a considerable amount of trouble if it was simply the law and the law could be quoted. It is a law which must quickly be brought into line.
The driver is obliged at all times to have due care and attention. In this case there can be an infringement. As the Deputy knows, there have been prosecutions and fines in respect of the use of carphones. It is impossible for law to spell out everything but it is possible to prosecute.
Deputy Ferris made the points which I was going to make. I think it is too wide an amendment. There is no point in repeating what everybody else has said.
Do I understand, Chairman, that the Minister is going to come back to us on Report Stage with his thoughts on this?
Yes, but without commitment.
Perhaps the Minister might consider tabling his own amendment which would be more specific and would take in the points which have been raised rather than take them here this evening. Given the increasing number of these carphones and mobile phones which are used in cars, there might be a need for it to be specifically mentioned in legislation rather than just depend on the general dangerous driving code or the due care and attention code of the 1961 Act.
I move amendment No. 52:
In page 27, subsection (2), between lines 6 and 7, to insert the following:
"(i) regulating horse drawn vehicles;"
I wondered if there were any gaps in this section and it was pointed out to me that perhaps it might be necessary to regulate horse drawn vehicles which is why I wanted to insert this amendment after:
(h) prohibiting or regulating and controlling the driving of mechanically propelled vehicles and pedal cycles in relation to animals or animal-drawn traffic.
It is not much of a hazard in Dún Laoghaire but I know from holiday time that it can be and, when on the way to the Dáil one goes around St. Stephen's Green, horse drawn vehicles can be quite a hazard. I wonder if the Minister would include those when making regulations.
It has long been accepted that the ordinary meaning of the word "vehicle" is sufficient to cover all types of vehicles — mechanically propelled, animal-drawn or pedal driven — so the amendment is not necessary. Horse drawn vehicles are currently covered.
I am just thinking about horses doing 90 miles per hour around St. Stephen's Green.
I would love to think that my problems in relation to traffic were reduced to the problems that type of traffic can cause. I think that Deputy Keogh might perhaps have exaggerated the problems which they create, perhaps in a light-hearted way. It is a tiny part of my overall worries but, nonetheless, it is covered.
I am glad the Minister has clarified that and that he has realised that we are not too serious about these things sometimes. However, it might illustrate to the drivers around St. Stephen's Green that they are already included under this section.
I move amendment No. 53:
In page 27, subsection (2), between lines 16 and 17, to insert the following:
"(m) specifying the places in which skips and trailers may be parked and regulating markings and warning lights;".
I am almost afraid that the Minister is going to say that this is already well catered for. I was not quite clear from my reading of the Bill whether this particular area was adequately covered. I know we have discussed in our county council meetings the whole question of where skips and trailers can be parked and illuminating them, specifically because of particular instances where people have put skips in dangerous places and have not bothered to light them sufficiently. Perhaps the Minister can clarify the matter. It did not appear to me that it was adequately covered.
The position here is much like the earlier amendment. Skips are covered by the Roads Act, 1993, section 72, and new powers are contained in it to regulate and control skips on public roads, including their siting, removal, lighting and marking. In relation to trailers the term "vehicle" includes trailers and they are adequately provided for in the section. Similarly, there are provisions relating to the lighting of trailers contained in the Road Traffic (Lighting of Vehicles) Regulations made under Part II of the Road Traffic Act, 1961. It will be noted from that that they are adequately covered by existing legislation some of which has been introduced quite recently to further strengthen the old powers in relation to making sure that hazards associated with skips, etc., are dealt with. It is right and proper to raise the matter to be sure that they are covered.
I thank the Minister and I withdraw the amendment. The Minister is lucky that some of these amendments are so easy to deal with rather than some of the others.
I move amendment No. 55:
In page 28, before section 36, to insert the following new section:
"36.—It shall be compulsory for all persons under the age of 18 years to wear helmets when cycling or horse-riding.".
I urge the Minister to accept this amendment. I am asking that it be compulsory for all persons under the age of 18 years to wear a helmet when cycling or horse-riding on public roads. I do not wish to interfere with an individual's liberty as to what he or she does on private property. I have also stopped at the age of 18 years in the amendment because I pull back at being too dictatorial in relation to adults who should know enough by the time they reach the age of 18 years in terms of the protection of their own lives. They should have reached an age of responsibility whereby they can make informed decisions as to whether they need to wear a helmet and informed decisions as to how to conduct themselves when cycling or riding on public roads. In other words, I am not sure that our role as legislators is to protect adults form themselves, in this instance in terms of cycling or riding on public roads.
As legislators we have a duty to children and there is an onus on us given that the bicycles of today are technical, electronic machines in comparison to the bicycle we knew in our schooldays. That was a rather simple basic machine which did not travel fast and had two gears if one was lucky — most had only one — and only had brakes if one was lucky. Today, however, we are talking about technically sophisticated upmarket machines, costing a lot of money and capable of travelling at quite high speeds on much better road surfaces than in our day. They can be fairly lethal weapons in the hands of young children who perhaps have not yet the judgment or the sense to know how to cycle in certain situations or how to judge traffic or weather conditions. There has been quite a lot of public controversy in relation to cycle helmets for children and I urge the Minister to take the high ground on this matter and insist that youngsters under 18 years of age wear helmets on public roads.
Those of us with young people know how difficult it is to convince them to comply voluntarily with our wishes in this regard. No matter how much explaining one does they do not accept that helmets are in their best interests because they feel they may not look the part or their pals do not use them or they will be laughed at at the school gates. There is peer group pressure not to comply in this regard and with a little help from the law and the Minister is in a position to give that help, parents, teachers and all those who might have an influence could quickly ensure that helmets were worn by under 18 year olds cycling and horse-riding on our roads. I urge sympathetic acceptance of this amendment as we would be doing a great service to our young people many of whom have had narrow escapes or received serious injuries, particularly on bicycles.
Horseriding is becoming an increasingly popular leisure activity among the young, both in urban and rural Ireland and, again, young people need to be protected from themselves in this area. Interestingly, insurance companies will not allow one to compete on a horse without a helmet and a chin strap so that the helmet is firmly attached. If the insurance companies feel that it is that essential the least we can do is look after the safety of our young people by making sure that in their leisure time they also wear helmets. I urge favourable acceptance of this amendment.
I am happy to support this amendment. Having two young girls myself I know all too well how difficult it is to get them to wear the helmets. They are not "cool" if they wear the helmet and they are not part of the "cool gang". It brings me back to when I was at school and when wearing a beret was compulsory in secondary school, yet the beret only went on when in sight of the school and that was it. Unfortunately, in many instances, the wearing of helmets by young people takes on that sort of importance or lack of importance. It is bad enough with the young girls but it is even worse with young lads who can be told they are sissies if they wear these helmets. Making the wearing of them compulsory would take the decision out of their hands so it would not be their decision to be "cool" or "uncool", it would be their decision to obey the law and their parents would be helped by this. I know little about horseriding but I would be guided by Deputy Doyle in that regard.
My only difficulty with this amendment is that Deputy Doyle stops short at the age of 18 years and she has given her reasons for that. It is compulsory for motorcyclists to wear helmets and it is a little contradictory to expect children to wear helmets while cycling and not to expect adults to do so as adults are just as vulnerable. In that instance we could extend the age limit beyond 18 years, although I do not know whether we should stop at 65 years. Anybody cycling should wear a helmet as it has become far more dangerous since my day when I cycled to school everyday and had only one gear on my bike. We are all agreed that it is much more dangerous now and I am sure the Minister will be sympathetic to this amendment.
Speaking as a teacher for a number of years and as a keen cyclist, I agree with the amendment in part but I share the reservation that the age of 18 years ought not to be the upper limit for any compulsion. It does not really matter how fast one is going, a bicycle is as vulnerable at any speed because other road users are going somewhat faster, although in Dublin it is probably the fastest mode of transport if one is talking about getting around the city and I say that from experience. Having a dashing yellow and black helmet myself I do not need it to be compulsory but I would welcome it as being compulsory for all ages and the reason I say that has to do with children. When it comes to legislation such as this applying to people of 18 years or under, it is a little like drinking; those under 18 years of age try to look adult by drinking. This is a psychological question. We are not just trying to tell adults what they can do. We want to give the message it is important that everyone riding a bicycle should wear a helmet and we should be legislating with that in mind. I ask Deputy Doyle to withdraw her amendment because not having the 18 years of age threshold helps children and, although I hope that adults will wear them, from my experiences in Dublin, I doubt it. Peer group pressure is important and adults wearing helmets — many professional cyclists are currently doing so — gives a positive message. The more adults are seen wearing helmets, the more willing children will be to wear them voluntarily. However, I would welcome legislation in that regard.
There is merit in Deputy Doyle's amendment and the Minister will have to look at this issue if not in this Bill then in some future Bill. One point here that concerns me is the age limit. It would be wrong to insist on an age limit of 18 years. Like the previous speakers, I agree that if children must wear helmets, then their parents and more senior individuals of the community should be obliged to do like wise. I have found — I can only go on what my own children, who wear helmets when they go cycling, tell me — that it has become fashionable to wear helmets.
While there is legislation and regulations for the provision of lights, reflectors and indicators for cars, I fail to understand why there is not similar legislation for bicycles. Now that winter is approaching — I am sure every public representative is keenly aware of the danger to cyclists and motorists from unlit bicycles — I ask the Minister to investigate the possibility of introducing legislation whereby all importers of bicycles sold in this country — there are no bicycle manufacturers here — are obliged to have a front and tail light on every bicycle. I understand that reflectors are compulsory. It is a matter of urgency that all bicycles sold here should be equipped with a front and tail light and maybe this could also be extended to retailers selling second-hand bicycles.
There is legislation — it is one of the oldest on the Statute Book — for fining a person for having no light on a bicycle, may be the Minister can confirm if it is still in force; I think it is. However, we will have to address this problem sooner or later because it is now a topic of discussion and concern for schools and parents. The wearing of helmets is obligatory in other countries and I would not have it confined to 18 years of age.
People riding horses always wear helmets, simply because those involved with horses, in riding schools or other places, insist on them in the interests of safety. This then begs the question of whether the wearing of helmets is a cost factor. Many poor children have access to an old bicycle at home and if we make it legally binding, what kind of demand would that make on the parents? In the interest of safety, we should see if this is a factor and decide how it would be addressed. Eventually we will have to make helmets obligatory and perhaps the Ministers would initiate a code that could be introduced in schools so that when children buy a bicycle, they would be conscious of having to wear a helmet in the same way they do when riding a horse. Perhaps there is a balance between these two measures, but we will end up doing this at some future date if we do not do it now.
I support Deputy Doyle, but I agree with the sentiments expressed that we should go beyond the 18 years of age limit. I would make it compulsory for cyclists above 18 years. Deputy Doyle's amendment is timely and welcome — I compliment her for it — and is equally important as the compulsory wearing of a seat belt in a car, which has saved many lives. The headgear would not be unpopular because its design has improved tremendously.
While bicycles must have a front and rear reflector, they are not sufficient to warn people there is a bicycle on the road. Nevertheless, the wearing of helmets has become popular among young people and adults. Deputy Doyle's amendment also refers to the riding of horses and ponies, which has also become popular throughout the country. The wearing of helmets should become compulsory. Lives lost could have been saved by wearing headgear and we should show that we mean to protect people's lives in this Bill.
I thank the Members for their general support to this amendment. I am not hung up on the age limit of 18 years and I listened carefully to what was said on the matter. If the Minister was of a mind to accept the amendment except for the 18 years of age limit, I would have no difficulty in removing it.
A good case has been made in terms of example to young people. Even if cyclists obey the law and cycle carefully, the odds are stacked against them if a driver comes round a corner and hits them. I do not have a major problem with removing the age limit of 18 years from my amendment, but I feel strongly that our children must be compelled to wear them. Therefore, my emphasis is on the protection of those under 18 years of age or until they are of an age to accept responsibility for their own judgment and decisions and have more experience. However, it is not the biggest issue of my amendment. My amendment is that we need compulsion in the wearing of helmets.
Section 11 (2) (f) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961, provides for making regulations which would make it obligatory on pedal cyclists to wear helmets. That, in turn, means that if there was not a special requirement for a special age group, there is already provision for it to go in this direction. I have said on other occasions in the House that I was extremely anxious to facilitate, in the way we develop our roads and in our thinking generally, the cyclist to a greater degree — one could be talking about special cycleways or road traffic experience generally — to allow for growth in the use of cycles in our cities and elsewhere because cycling is good, physically and environmentally, and is a fast and economic way of travelling.
I agree with the benefits of helmets for cyclists but my problem is in making it an absolute legal requirement. For a legal requirement to be effective, one will have to have prosecutions. It will be meaningless unless one puts in those strictures. Is that the way we should go for a ten, 12 or 14 year old? I have looked at the situation in other countries and, as far as I can see, it is not a legal obligation in any other European country. It is encouraged and spelt out in the rules of the road and road safety campaigns and sponsors advise young children and parents by encouraging the voluntary use of helmets.
Deputy Ferris made a crucial point which worries me. When one makes it compulsory — one is talking about at least £30 for a helmet — everyone who has a bicycle, whatever their financial situation, must wear a helmet. We must ensure we do not impose financial burdens which some families may be unable to afford.
What is the price of a fractured scull?
I have a problem with making it a legal requirement. As I said earlier, if one wants to go down that road, one must spell out the terms, in what circumstances one will prosecute and the penalties. I am reluctant to go down that road without making the best possible effort to develop a voluntary code through schools, the National Safety Council, the rules of the road and any other medium because there are benefits involved. Should we enforce a legal arm and all it involves on minors? That worries me. There are two sides to the story. If everyone wore helmets and they were legally forced to do so, there is no question that the cycling traffic would be safer. Is it not possible to achieve the same results on a voluntary basis or is it essential to prosecute a ten year old child in such circumstances?
One would prosecute the child's parents.
One could impound the bicycle. There is a provision in this legislation for impounding and that is the way to do it. Children will not be brought before the courts. There are other ways to do this, for example, the bicycle could be impounded in the Garda station.
As I said at the outset, I have the power to introduce regulations to make it obligatory, provided it covers the entire community. I do not have the power to introduce regulations in relation to a specific age group and I would be reluctant to consider this.
Is amendment No. 55 being withdrawn?
I ask the Minister to urgently consider this matter. If the voluntary code worked, it should have shown greater results now. There has been much publicity, discussion and radio and television coverage on this issue. The objects which trade as bicycles are so high tech that they are unrecognisable from the old bike, "the high Nelly". Seat belts are needed in cars and helmets are needed on motorbikes, even on the low cc motorbike. Yet, many pedal bicycles can now travel faster than some lower volume motorbikes.
It is time for the Minister to show his hand in this area. Experts have discussed and debated it, we have gone around in circles. Without compulsory measures, we will be unable to get children to comply. I have no difficulty if the law is applied to the entire community — although I baulk at dictating to adults where it is unnecessary — but we must protect our children from the machines they are using.
We must not forget that one does not require a licence to ride a bicycle or that children do not need to produce evidence to show they know the rules of the road, a publication which costs £2, a large portion of the £15 required for a helmet. The rules of the road should be free or should cost 20p or a nominal sum. We have no way of assessing children who cycle these high tech bicycles, particularly at Christmas and in the New Year, and such bicycles are still in great demand. Great pleasure is derived from the use of the bicycle and there are also health and environmental benefits. However, we do not know whether the child, particularly the younger child, knows the rules of the road or can handle the machine. We should at least protect their heads, one of the most vulnerable parts of the body.
Sufficient thought should have been given to this matter and the talking should stop. We need compulsory measures, although I do not envisage our courts full of ten year old children being prosecuted for not wearing a helmet. There are better carrot and stick ways to do it. A new provision for impounding is contained in this Bill. If a bicycle was impounded for one month and not returned until the child produced a helmet at the local Garda station — although one helmet might cover several bicycles because children have ingenious ways of getting around these things — young people, and indeed adults, would know we meant business. This could be done.
Regarding on the spot fines, although the child would not have money, parents would have to pay a nominal fine of £5 each time the child was spotted not wearing a helmet. Three fines totalling £15 would cover the cost of a helmet and this would make people buy them. It could be included in the on the spot fines. There is no question of hauling young people into court. I ask the Minister to consider protecting people from themselves when it comes to riding and, particularly, cycling on roads because it involves a greater number of the community.
I accept the need for helmets. However, if such a measure is included in this Bill it would be a blunt instrument and an immediate step. Perhaps we could tease out the subject further. The Minister has the power to do so this week or next week under existing regulations and legislation.
A number of issues were raised. We cannot say that people will not end up in court as a result of a requirement in this legislation to wear helmets. Financial considerations are also a factor, for example, how does one enforce on the spot fines? Perhaps the options raised could be further teased out on Report Stage so that we know what we are voting for rather than inserting something while not realising the implications.
The legal framework already exists, provided it is widely used. The best way to approach this matter is either by way of a strict legal requirement on everyone to wear a helmet as a safety measure or, alternatively, the use of a voluntary code to increase the wearing of helmets by pedal cyclists to 100 per cent. I am reluctant to introduce more compulsory measures.
There are different arguments about this matter and no one here can say that he or she wants to make it compulsory. They need to know it is a safety provision. As I said on the last occasion, I am worried about enforcement, cost and about which of the two ways is better. We are stepping back a little as a community when we can only comply with these types of requirements under legal compulsion, by on the spot fines, or whatever. I would like to believe it could be achieved in another way. However, the legal powers are there; it is not necessary for us to argue about putting in a legal power.
What power is there?
The power is under section 11 (2) of the Road Traffic Act, 1962. It allows the Minister for the Environment to bring in regulations requiring pedal cyclists to wear helmets if he or she deems it necessary.
Does it cover those riding horses on our roads?
No.
That is also an important area.
I accept that.
In other countries it is compulsory to wear helmets on public roads. Many people are involved in this activity, although it is a more recent one.
From my experience — and this is different from the Deputy's experience — it is the practice for people engaged in these pursuits to wear appropriate headgear
There is no law compelling people to wear helmets.
But they do wear them.
They wear them if they are on riding school horses or if they are in a riding club. Jockeys do not always wear helmets. In fact, there are jockeys in County Wexford who do not wear them when they are exercising horses for a trainer. In these circumstances the trainer is remiss with regard to his insurance. It is not compulsory for a private individual exercising his own animal to wear a helmet on the road and these are the culprits. The modernisation of our road and traffic systems, greater speed limits and the construction of motorways, dual carriageways and roundabouts means that this area needs attention.
I do not want to delay the meeting, but I am concerned about the length of time the Minister and the Department of the Environment are taking to consider the matter of helmets. The longer we wait, the more problems are created. I do not want to be alarmist by saying the longer we wait the more people are killed on our roads. However, there are an increasing number of children, in particular, being injured and killed on our roads cycling on high tech bicycles. It is time to make a decision about this matter. The Minister is either prepared to invest in a large-scale publicity campaign through the media and schools to ensure voluntary compliance — and I mean spending considerable money — or he takes the compulsory route. Nothing will happen while we think about this matter, nor will there be a greater use of the helmet. We need action, voluntary or compulsory, to ensure that helmets are used. The Minister must be prepared to invest money to increase the use of helmets voluntarily.
The Deputies have been working all summer on decisive proposals to deal with safety measures. There is no lack of urgency as far as I am concerned. We have a democratic system and the Deputy has the right to put forward proposals. This is the first time we have had an opportunity to debate those proposals.
I accept that.
This debate has gone on for a half an hour. Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that I have been thinking about this matter for months or years. I have legal powers to meet the Deputy's request, provided it does not already relate to a specific age group. Therefore, the argument is not about powers, if we agree that it should operate for the community as a whole, but about whether we make this a legal requirement with the necessary penalties attaching, or take the other route. There are strong arguments on both sides. I am not saying I am any wiser than the Deputy about which is the better way. Perhaps the Deputy's latter suggestion about a publicity campaign is the first step. If that is not successful, perhaps we should use the power we already have to approach this matter, particularly if this legislation does not interfere with that continuing power.
We have a lot of common ground. If I understand the Minister correctly, both of us want people to wear helmets. The difference is that the Minister is doubtful about whether compulsion should be the first route. Is the Minister prepared to consider the possibility of a publicity campaign, through the schools or another medium, to try to get compliance in terms of wearing helmets, without taking the compulsory route? Is the Minister prepared to consider compulsory measures if the publicity campaign fails after a reasonable period?
I do not like to commit myself more than is absolutely necessary. There is no other way to understand what I have said.
Will the Minister also include people riding horses on our public roads?
I will consider that issue. It is not a big problem, but it is something which should be adequately dealt with.
It is important to consider this matter. A couple of days ago I had a conversation with two or three children, aged 12 and 13 years, who were discussing the question of wearing helmets to school. They cycle on a busy national primary route. They said it was not "cool" to wear a helmet. One particular child wore a helmet but it was said he was "way-out"; he was not "cool". Any campaign would need to overcome this "cool" image. Perhaps it is the Stephen Roches of this world who can give the helmet a "cool" image.
It is not cool to wear a helmet in summer.
We have a cycling helmet factory in Newcastle West.
I move amendment No.56:
In page 28, before section 36, to insert the following new section:
"37.—For the purposes of this Act, any person who—
(a) breaks red traffic lights,
(b) transgresses speed limits by up to 10 m.p.h.,
(c) engages in lane-hopping,
(d) cycles bicycles without lights,
(e) hauls trailers without lights, or
(f) cycles bicycles or rides horses without a helmet as specified in section 36,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable to pay an ‘on the spot' fine.".
In this amendment I propose to add a list of minor transgressions of the law to those which are liable to be paid by on the spot fines. My intention is to rid the courts of these minor offences, but at the same time to ensure compliance with the law. I will not waste time discussing each individual offence, but I hope they are self-explanatory. Offence (f) falls because my previous amendment was withdrawn. I ask the Minister to give serious consideration to extending the range of on the spot fines as penalties for transgressins so as to free our court system.
I already have sufficient powers in this area.
But the Minister is not using them.
A review is being carried out at present on the operation of on the spot fines, how effective they are and how payments are made. If that review shows a legislative defect, I will return to it on Report Stage. However, it is not a question of powers.
Will the Minister have the report of that review committee before Report Stage?
That is the expectation.
We can return to this point on Report Stage.
