Olivia Mitchell (Dublin South, Fine Gael)

I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate on this legislation, another in a long line of road traffic Bills we have debated in the House and others which were debated long before any current Member was elected, all aimed at regulating road traffic and trying to improve safety on roads. I welcome the specific measures in the Bill, although I appreciate that in most cases it is really putting into law decisions previously made, for instance, the measure about which we spoke earlier, namely, the reduction in the permitted level of blood alcohol when one is driving. I was interested to hear what Deputy Healy-Rae had to say in that regard. I realise people do rail against measures such as this. Perhaps I do it myself sometimes. I know it is an inconvenience sometimes and that it has affected public houses and people's ability to socialise in them, but the evidence is beyond question that these and other measures we have introduced previously do save lives. For that reason, I do not think we can deny the evidence. We cannot be half-hearted about it. We cannot have separate laws for rural Ireland and urban Ireland either.

When speaking in the Seanad, the Minister made the point that 40 years ago there were approximately 640 deaths annually on the roads and that last year we had 212. That is less than one third of the amount we had all those years ago. That reduction did not come about voluntarily; it was not that people suddenly became better drivers. It came about gradually as a result of a major cultural change that reflected a change in behaviour which itself reflected changes in legislation. There is no doubt that the legislation we make in this House does change behaviour.

When my children were small in the 1970s and 1980s, I had to import child car seats from Mothercare in England because the company was not based in this country at the time. When they were delivered, I was horrified to find that in order to get them, I had to pay the postman VAT at the luxury rate. Then I had to drive to the garage to have them riveted into the back of the car because, of course, there was no such thing as a seat belt in the back of a car. They were probably in the front of cars, but they were decorative and hardly ever used. That just shows how the culture and attitudes have changed. It is due to the legislation we introduce and relentless enforcement by the Garda during the years. That has changed driver behaviour, but it has also changed the public's attitude about what is acceptable driver behaviour. It is an ongoing process at which we must keep if we are to continue to make the roads safer and to try to save lives. The current figure of 212 road deaths represents a great reduction, but it is still 212 too many.

I accept the reduction in the number of road deaths is not just due to imposing penalties. The standard of roads has improved immeasurably, especially in recent years since the interurban roads were built. That has made a significant contribution. We also have better, sturdier cars now with better safety standards. Better driver education is another factor. While public transport in the city is limited, it has improved and this has contributed to road safety in the city by taking cars off the road. Perhaps in better times we will be able to introduce more public transport services. One of the bitter regrets of the financial crisis is that we are not able to invest as we should, particularly in urban areas, in switching people from cars by investing in public transport.

With all these improvements, I have no doubt that traffic legislation and enforcement remain the cornerstone of road safety. I am conscious that very little in the legislation is new; it largely copperfastens existing legislation. It is not sexy, new legislation, but it is nevertheless vital if the laws we have in place are to be enforced and effective. In my years in this House I have seen many examples where road traffic legislation has been revisited in an attempt to get it right, perhaps a second time, and to put provisions in the legislation beyond question in order that when a person goes to court, the case will stand up. In other words, a belt and braces approach is applied to the legislation.

Members are aware that generations of lawyers have grown rich on the basis of examining and finding flaws in the legislation we pass, particularly in respect of road traffic accidents. They go through the legislation with a fine tooth comb in an attempt to find loopholes in order to get their well paying clients off scot free. It is our job to pit our paltry brains against the not inconsiderable brains of lawyers to ensure the legislation we put through the House is watertight, particularly in a case such as this when we are refining legislation a second and perhaps a third time. I am conscious that because of the accretion of road traffic legislation it has become extremely complex and arcane. It has been constantly changed, corrected, refined and revised during the years. I am in awe of barristers, gardaí and judges who can figure out the law in many respects in terms of road traffic legislation because there have been so many changes during the years. I would love to see it codified, although I suppose those who draft legislation are busy meeting the requirements of the troika, but it is something that requires attention.

I welcome, in particular, the measures in respect of mandatory blood or urine tests following an accident. When some years ago I requested the Minister of the day to introduce legislation to this effect, I was assured it could not be done, that it was out of the question. I was told that it would endanger the lives of people on the roadside who were involved in accidents. All sorts of excuses were given such as that drivers might be unconscious. That was a pile of nonsense because automatic testing is commonplace in other countries. It is important to find out whether an accident was caused by alcohol not just to penalise offenders but also to gather data on the causes of accidents. It is ludicrous that it is impossible to get accurate data on the contribution of alcohol to accidents. Any basic regime requires data as well as evidence for court purposes. The data are required in order to make sensible decisions on legislation and other matters.

Testing should be automatic. If it cannot be carried out at the scene of an accident, it should be carried out as soon as possible thereafter, for example in a hospital. In most cases it is required in the case of injury. It should not be a requirement that the Garda should request it; it should be done automatically. It should be made clear to accident and emergency department staff that if someone is admitted following a traffic accident, automatic testing of blood and urine for alcohol levels is required. That is the practice elsewhere and it stands up in court. I cannot see why it cannot be done here. I would like to see similar blood testing for drugs. I accept it is more difficult in that there is not as simple a test, but it is the direction in which we should move.

There are a couple of issues I would like to raise, but one particular bugbear of mine is cyclists' behaviour. I support cycling and I want to see that modal switch from cars to bicycles. Although many do not, I support the campaign and the spending on cycle lanes. I realise that I am generalising, but my experience is that cyclists, as a group, are the least law-abiding, most inconsiderate group of people on the roads. They would say the same about car drivers and I suppose none of us is without sin, but for the most part at least car drivers obey traffic lights whereas cyclists do not. They cycle at top speed through busy streets, weaving in and out between pedestrians. They call for a cycling-friendly environment like Holland. I have been to Holland and I have seen the environment there. Cycling there is slow, sedate and polite and bears no resemblance to the cycling culture that people seem to think is acceptable here - cycling with the head down at speeds infinitely greater than the traffic. It is inconsiderate to other road users, particularly in busy urban areas where there are many road users, including children. I should say those to whom I refer are not child cyclists; I am talking about adults who should know better.

Generally speaking, I support the legislation. It is one part of a process of improving the road safety regime and I very much welcome the opportunity to contribute.

See this speech in context