Ms Donna Price:

I wish to add to what Mr Lieghio said about recidivist offenders. We have to look at cases where a defendant accepts a guilty plea on a lesser charge, thereby tying the hands of the judge. Our families would prefer that the case goes to a judge and jury. The hearing should take place and the jury should decide on guilt or innocence. In the particular case in question, the driver fled the scene and had to be extradited. Yet, the judge had to allow a reduction for the guilty plea and for remorse.

An apology means so much to our families. As we have said, we are not looking for vengeance. However, we want a strong message to go out that we are not going to accept impaired driving on our roads. It is horrifying. I have before me the figures from the Road Safety Authority for the five years in question. Over 150 people per week were arrested for drink-driving. These are only the people who are caught. I have never been breathalysed and I am in my 50s. There is such a small likelihood of being caught. Over the five years, in excess of 40,000 people have been caught drink-driving and endangering others. That is an appalling vista. It is something we must tackle.

Deputy Troy referred to tiered penalties. Can he indicate what we can do to reduce the level of carnage on the roads? Does the Deputy condone this level of law-breaking? How does he believe we can put a stop to it? Does he believe the status quois okay and that we can continue to live with 40,000 people breaking the law in every five-year period? I reckon the figure is ten times greater if we include those who have taken chances and not been caught. What do we do in that situation?

Reference was made to vulnerable road users. People come to us after a serious crash has taken place. A loved one has been killed. Our experience in many cases is that vulnerable road users are dead and gone and so there is no prosecution. In too many cases, the vulnerable road user is blamed for his or her own death. This is why I believe it is too easy for the other party, the surviving driver, to say she did not see the deceased driver, the deceased pedestrian stepped out in front of the car or she did not see the deceased in the car mirrors.

This is why we call for mandatory checking when the investigation is taking place. If all of the known contributory causes of crashes are investigated and if the other driver is then seen to be a careful driver, then we can blame the pedestrian. Otherwise, we have to be extremely cautious. It is simply unfair. The families concerned have to live with the consequences of a loved one being blamed for his or her own death. The families have no justice as a result. Also, it is sending out the wrong message to the effect that the driver need not be careful or look out for vulnerable road users. After all, it is in the law. Everyone knows they must drive and keep a safe distance such that they can see clearly. We have a duty to look out for vulnerable road users. It is right to have a distance for overtaking cyclists. All of us have seen the horrific clips on the cyclist Twitter accounts of lorries overtaking cyclists and whizzing past them as though they are ants on the road. They are people and have the same right to be on the road as the lorry driver. If it is not safe to overtake, then the driver simply has to bide time, wait until it is safe and give the cyclist the necessary distance.