Bernard Durkan (Kildare North, Fine Gael)

I congratulate the Minister for Transport on his elevation to his important office and wish him well in his Department. I hope he will have a long and successful term as Minister. As it is my first time speaking in this Dáil, I congratulate all Members of the House, including the Ceann Comhairle, on their emergence or re-emergence, as the case may be, into the hallowed limelight of this august Chamber.

I agree with Deputy Ó Snodaigh concerning the ramps that have been lain all over the country, not just in Dublin city. They are a disgrace. They were not laid to deter speed, but to wreck the cars of people who happened to slow down. The only hope one has is to drive at them at speed, which might allow one to bounce over them. Their surfaces have also unravelled, creating dangerous conditions that are not conducive to the safety of the pedestrians or drivers who must cross them.

There is one aspect of this Road Traffic Bill I cannot understand. One of its purposes is to propose a reduction in blood alcohol concentration levels from 80 mg per 100 ml to 50 mg. If one is wrong, the other must be as well. I am not an ultra conservative, as I believe in allowing a certain amount of latitude on both sides, but if the purpose of the exercise is to reduce the alcohol level to such an extent as to make roads safe, there should be no alcohol allowable at all. The difference of 30 mg will not make a significant impact on the number of road accidents. I am sure the Minister will want to refer to this matter in his reply.

If I was asked whether a person could take a drink before driving, my advice would be "No". If so, surely the blood alcohol concentration figure should be reduce to 0 mg. There must be a reason for the 30 mg, one I would like to know. Otherwise, the provision will defeat the purpose of the Bill. It would be a different story if its purpose was to catch more people with a certain level of alcohol in their blood, although it can be debated whether that approach would help reduce the number of road traffic accidents.

We all agree that everything that can be done to reduce the number of road traffic accidents must be done. Some previous measures have been helpful while others have not but the evidence seems to suggest that the regulations on blood alcohol levels have worked so far. There are down-sides and glitches. For example, some periods have seen a spate of accidents for which no one can offer an explanation. It is on this subject I wish to concentrate. Not all accidents are attributable to alcohol and some Deputies have already referred to the other reasons. For example, vehicle failure can cause accidents. People might point to how well DOE testing and NCT testing have worked. I am not so sure that it has. If a car is more than four years old, it must undergo the NCT every two years. It is usually a good test and it should not be necessary to test the vehicle again for at least two or three years unless significant mileage has been clocked up. I have some mechanical knowledge, like many Members. DOE tests on the other hand, must be undertaken annually. It should not be necessary to test on an annual basis. If the vehicle is mechanically sound in the current year, it should be possible during the test to determine its likely condition over the coming two years unless it is subject to extraordinary abuse. This issue needs to be examined. If the test is conducted properly and effectively and the vehicle is deemed to be mechanically sound, it should be possible to operate a vehicle safely for two years. It would probably make for greater efficiency and scrutiny during the test because it would not be tested again for two years. The Minister might examine this to make sure the tests are sufficiently stringent to identify the risks of failure over a two-year period and leave it at that.

A number of Members referred to road surface difficulties. Every driver must be able to point to scores of roads that are inadequate for vehicles travelling at more than 35 kph. On some sections of road, usually on a bend where a speed limit of 100 kph applies, one comes across a series of potholes interlinked with rivulets or minor canals and one is in danger of going off the road unless one knows the territory. This presents a serious problem to drivers and creates a difficulty from a health and safety point of view. Account should be taken of road conditions and the extent to which they have been found to contribute to traffic accidents in recent years. I can think of several high profile cases in which the condition of the road was a factor. In those circumstances, it behoves us to concentrate on those issues with a view to eliminating this contributory factor to road accidents in the course of road maintenance works. We need to identify poor conditions, which are worse in inclement weather, before something tragic happens.

Driver fatigue has also been found to be a major contributory factor to road accidents in recent times. The effects of fatigue vary greatly from driver to driver. There is no sense in saying drivers should take a rest at set intervals and walk up and down the road. One may need to do that but no two drivers are alike. Some people can drive for four or five hours non-stop without the slightest difficulty while others cannot drive for 30 minutes without needing to stop. I will let the Ceann Comhairle into a secret, although he discourages this practice in the House. When I was young I recall having to stop regularly, having to get out of the car to walk up and down the road, despite only driving for half an hour because I was in danger of falling asleep. Many times, while driving my parents, that happened to me. I have not been affected by this problem since and I wonder whether it is possible that I grew out of it. However, I reiterate that no two drivers are alike and I totally disagree with the suggestion that every driver should take a break at set intervals. Some drivers may need to take longer breaks more frequently than others depending on their metabolism. Based on my experience, we should take greater care with this issue.

Recently, while driving on the motorway a vehicle passed me travelling at least double the maximum speed limit while being pursued by two Garda vehicles. The speed the vehicle was travelling at was so great that within three seconds, it was out of sight. It had a large exhaust pipe, similar to a number of vehicles I have witnessed from time to time on the roads being driven in a peculiar fashion. The car made a distinctive noise because of the modification that had been made to the exhaust pipe. I cannot understand why the owners of vehicles that have been modified like this are not questioned about whether they use them for road racing and so on. It is a frightening experience to see a vehicle travelling at the speed I witnessed, even on a straight road.

We live in a liberal society but some people take drugs and drive and no more than driving under the influence of alcohol, it is unacceptable. It is a contributory factor in some accidents and, unfortunately, innocent road users rather than the drug taker have paid the ultimate price. It is high time unequivocal and clear action was taken regarding drug driving. A number of cases have come before the courts and, notwithstanding that, we need to be much clearer and less ambiguous about this issue than we have been in the past. There is not much sense in improving the road network and road safety and addressing the questions of drink driving and vehicle failure and the other issues that contribute to accidents while at the same time saying we cannot do anything about people driving under the influence of drugs. We can do something about this and we need to be emphatic about it so that we are seen to apply the law right across the board without exception.

See this speech in context