John Dennehy (Cork South Central, Fianna Fail)

I welcome the opportunity to speak on this Bill, the primary purpose of which is to provide for the introduction of a metric system for road signs. It also involves other issues, for example, the adoption of changes in the administration of the fixed charge system for traffic offences, including outsourcing of certain actions and functions of the Garda in that connection.

I have a concern similar to that which I expressed in regard to the Safety, Health and Welfare at Work Bill, namely, the need for consolidation of the various measures parked in different Acts, which can be confusing. I would like to see those bits and pieces put together in some way. The issue is much too dangerous and hazardous. Any activity that results in 300 or 400 people killed in a year must be dealt with in a particular way. One of the results of the scattered legislation is that people who infringe regulations get away on technicalities partly because issues are not clarified and spelt out in a plain, coherent fashion. As many offences as possible should be listed in one Act.

I am also concerned about road safety and the attitude of some commentators in the media. When we were dealing with the issue of hand held mobile telephones in cars one article appeared in which the writer suggested that the logical follow-on to banning hand held mobile telephones was that one would also need a hands free gear stick and various other mechanical changes in the car. It was ludicrous but it was frightening that anyone could take that kind of approach to such a serious topic and to the fact that 300 or 400 people are killed every year on the roads. It would not be tolerated in any other country.

The conversion of road signs to metric units is long overdue. We have a mix and mess of road signs, one such stupid example was cited recently in the Irish Examiner to the effect that a sign stated a speed limit of 30 km per hour for the next 5 miles. That is the kind of crazy situation we have. Once we adopted the metric system for other transactions such as finance and weights it was logical that we would move quickly to the use of the metric system for measurement on the roads. There have been arguments against this conversion as there were over the other conversions. In this case they range from sentimental attachment to the old Irish mile, a topic on which someone won a prize for letter of the week, to the cost involved in converting speedometers in vehicles when necessary.

Public safety must be the primary consideration on this issue. The question is whether the change to a standardised system will be less confusing and bring more clarity to driving for us and for the thousands of visitors who drive here whether on holiday or business trips. It will certainly in time prove to be a safer system. There will be a bedding-in period and people will take time to deal mentally with the changed situation but that is part of driving and is the primary argument against hand held mobile telephones, namely, that one must concentrate. It is just like a gear change, one must concentrate at all times on what one is doing in the car, on the road and what is ahead. It is much too dangerous to allow anything impinge on road safety, including bad signage. Some people will continue to convert back to miles in their minds but in the long run we will have a more commonly understood and therefore safer system for drivers and other road users.

The main difference between this and the previous metric conversions is that in this case we are dealing with hundreds of lives being lost every year, which is shocking. It is worrying that this is almost accepted. Sometimes people play the numbers game and say it is great that the number is down by 20 or someone in the Opposition will say it is up 40 or whatever but it is tragic and we must take every possible step to make the roads, driving and motorists safer. This is just a step in that direction. Many associated issues lead to the carnage on the roads. One death is one too many. Deputy Cowley mentioned four lives saved by a dedicated air service and someone has obviously done some work on that. More work of that kind should be done on road fatalities in general.

I was shocked recently to read that following a post mortem on a victim of a road traffic accident only the coroner knows whether the driver was incapacitated by drink or drugs. There is talk of bringing in new legislation to make that information available. I always presumed it was available. I requested and understood that each road fatality was investigated in a full and clear manner. When a death occurs we tend to an extent to put on the béal bocht and worry about bringing more distress to the people who have lost a loved one. The only way we will improve the position is to investigate fully every fatality and every serious event. Speaking as a former industrial safety officer, until we start examining every unsafe practice and serious incident we will not eliminate fatalities because for every death there is a given ratio of dangerous events in which people happened to be lucky enough to get away with it. The same is true of the roads.

I wonder what value we attach to human life. Deputy Cowley mentioned something in the region of €1 million but we certainly do not attach a high enough value to it. If we did we would not allow the situation to continue. Over recent years I have heard scathing comment about the amount of money spent on roads from one party that says we are spending too much on the construction of safer motorways. I drive from Cork to Dublin every week and believe I am fully entitled to the safest possible route. Statistics show that route to be a motorway. I am entitled to that as is every other motorist in the country. How many lives are to be sacrificed to maintain the low cost and low standard secondary road network that we have and on which most driving is done? Many of these roads were created by simply putting tarmacadam over what were in effect animal paths, leaving the bends and twists in them. We have very bad roads that are more like adventure courses than part of a modern road network. The arguments for cyclists can be made and we can have cycle paths and so on. However, these people will not put the rest of us on bicycles. We are entitled to have good motorways and dual carriageways. It has been proven that they are safer and about 3% of accidents happen on motorways. I make that comment on cycling as someone who did not drive until the age of 34. I practically lived on a bike and I have probably done more mileage in my time than all members of the group to which I refer. I did not pause for too many photographs, unless it was for a sports meeting. At some stage, I had to get a car for practical reasons, but my preference would have been for the bike. Both cyclists and motorists have to be facilitated. However, trying to stop us spending money on a modern set of roads is criminal. This is especially the case when over 300 people die on our roads every year. When people try to block that progress, they are responsible.

I know of at least one Fine Gael Deputy who complained about the signs that are currently on our roads. This is what this is all about; changing the signage for the better. I have made a point three years running to the CEO of the National Roads Authority at the Committee of Public Accounts and I will reiterate it here. The NRA must give advice on the location of such signs. One morning, I counted 46 badly damaged signs between Cork and Dublin. Many were forward warning signs which cost up to €100,000 apiece. Cullahill in County Laois was the worst example, where all four warning signs were battered to pieces. The NRA took no notice of me and replaced all four in exactly the same location, but they had been hit 30 or 40 times. The manifestation of bad engineering work is that they are badly located. Signs are fine if they are placed in the right location. I appealed to the NRA that the physical damage done showed that they were not in the right location.

I also made an appeal to the NRA on traffic islands. I agree with the creation of the plinths outside of villages and towns as well as the development of lighting for them. There is a plastic object in front of the islands, but 90% of them have been smashed and blown away. Anyone examining the edges of the islands will see that they are regularly struck by passing vehicles. I wanted reflective studs on the base of these islands. The islands consist of a mass of concrete thrown together and they are impossible to see. This is often because they are on the edge of villages or towns where there is not good public lighting. The committee's last meeting with the NRA took place three months ago and the retiring CEO assured me that he was getting a firm of contractors to paint the bottom of these signs and that I should therefore be happy. I am not happy because as they are so close to the ground, they will be covered in mud straight away. Reflective studs, which are the same idea as cats' eyes on a motorway, should be put on all of them. A hazard is being built and that should not be permitted. We have spent much money on traffic calming, but I have been appealing for three years for this to be done and it has always been refused. I hope the Minister of State at the Department of Transport, Deputy Callely, might take that on board. It is a common sense thing. These are being created in different places. There was an attempt made in New Inn in County Tipperary, where the studs were put in the centre of the road in a roundabout effort, but it is scandalous that any of us are allowed to get away with that kind of thing. An attempt will be made to paint the islands black and yellow as that has been traditionally put on moving vehicles, yet they are not suitable for that at all.

If the signs are being battered, then they are being erected in the wrong place. I want to give credit where it is due and the standard is improving immensely with the forward warning signs, in particular the large signs which are quite expensive. A few of them have been badly constructed where the crossbars are slipping down, so that two halves of a sign have a six to ten inch gap between them. That is not good enough. Good signage is critically important and road engineers should treat every road issue as though strangers were driving on it. If one is driving on a motorway or dual carriageway and suddenly a sign pops up, then one will have to break suddenly to swing off it. Good forward warning signs remove that problem. The issue of signs has not been dealt with seriously enough. There have been some comments on the debate in the media implying that signs will not kill anyone. I know of at least one constituent killed on a motorcycle because a stop sign was in an obscure location. He drove straight on to a main road, so signage is critically important.

There is new legislation to change the administration of the fixed charge system for traffic offences. The Committee of Public Accounts got a report on that which was not very cheerful. There were 87,004 fixed charge notices issued between 31 October 2002 and 31 December 2003, yet 50% of the photographs taken were faulty. With proper administration and the full support of everybody, including gardaí, civilians and traffic departments, we could probably cut our fatalities by 50%. We could do it if people feared that they would receive penalty points for offences. It would put manners on all of us who drive. I am worried about issues like cancel notices and so-called other driver nominations, where 22,881 registered owners contacted regarding offences were not driving the car during the alleged offence. That is a crazy figure. If we need to take steps to prevent cars being driven by others then we should be able to do that. We have taken such steps on the issue of minors. It has taken us a long time to make it a specific offence to supply a mechanically propelled vehicle to a minor. We need to be able to deal with issues relating to the penalty points system, such as cancelled notices, drivers holding foreign driving licences and foreign registered vehicles.

I have not had a chance to compliment Deputy Callely publicly since he was appointed Minister of State at the Department of Transport. In wishing him well, I am sure he will look beyond Dublin as he needs to do. I remind him that a car driven dangerously, for example in dangerous conditions or by a driver under the influence of drink or drugs, can be as dangerous as a shotgun. We insist that those who own weapons should lock them up, take great care of them and possess licences for them. I do not believe that we have been sufficiently stringent in respect of cars, however. I do not accept the "nanny state" argument, which certain commentators seem to find funny enough to use. Such an argument is not appropriate when over 300 of my fellow citizens are being killed on the roads each year. If this Bill is part of the process of getting tough, so be it. I wish the Minister of State well and commend the Bill to the House.

See this speech in context