Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

Within weeks of passing the last road safety Bill, we were back correcting flaws and oversights. The Government has an obligation to ensure legislation is robust and that the agents of Government implementing its administration are equipped with the resources and means to do the job. This applies to the Garda, the Judiciary, the new Road Safety Authority and the local authorities.

Clear gaps in road safety law became apparent when two high profile cases of dangerous driving resulted in a conviction but no driving ban and no penalty points. The individuals concerned were able to drive home from the court having been convicted of driving at 195 km/h. If there is to be consistency of sentencing, at the very least minimum guidelines must be given to the Judiciary.

The judge in this case was criticised for his failure to impose a ban but he acted in the only way he could in accordance with precedent. There is no clearly delineated schedule of penalties for dangerous driving offences. If there is a hierarchy of driving offences — dangerous driving, careless driving, driving without due care and attention — then a commensurate hierarchy of penalties should be in place. It makes no sense that one could get precisely the same sentence for the least serious offence as for the most serious one. More importantly, it sends the wrong signal to offenders and does not act as a disincentive to re-offend in the way originally envisaged by the Legislature.

Charges of dangerous driving are rare enough. Many initially charged with it have the charge reduced to one of careless driving. A dangerous driving charge should be regarded as a serious offence. If the justice system is to have any purpose, the conviction must have serious consequences. It is entirely appropriate that the right to use the roads should be withdrawn, even if only for a short time of six months. This kind of penalty brings home the seriousness with which society treats the offence, in a way that a mere fine does not. For many a €1,000 fine is nothing more than an irritant, particularly if one owns a Lancia.

In the Mullingar dangerous driving case, it was assumed the minimum penalty points would be incurred. This was not the result because there was an assumption that a disqualification would be imposed. It is a gap in the law and we must provide direction and clarity for the Judiciary.

Section 3 provides for mandatory breath testing of drivers at serious road traffic accidents. I was stunned to discover the Garda has no figures for the number of traffic accidents where drink was implicated. The Minister's claims that it would not be fair if one driver was unconscious or feigned unconsciousness are nonsense. Breath testing is done in other jurisdictions. If one party feigns unconsciousness, it will be taken into account in any subsequent court case. Genuinely injured people can take the test at a later stage. The purpose of this measure is not to ensure people are convicted of dangerous driving or to assist insurance companies, but to collate and analyse the real causes of accidents.

We are simply guessing in this regard. That is evident in decisions to install a speed gun in locations where there are many accidents, on the assumption speed is to blame. However, speed is not to blame in College Green, for example, but rather the sheer volume of vehicles and perhaps even pedestrians. It may be the camber of the road or any number of other factors that is contributing to accidents in a particular location. These problems will not be solved simply by the installation of a speed camera.

See this speech in context