Seanad debates

Wednesday, 5 February 2014

Road Traffic (No. 2) Bill 2013: Committee Stage

 

2:25 pm

Photo of Feargal QuinnFeargal Quinn (Independent) | Oireachtas source

I have two amendments but I wish to support Senator Barrett's amendment as well. In respect of part (iii) of that amendment, when will we introduce the legislation with regard to children and tobacco? I would love to think that will happen. I realise Senator Crown has strong views on the matter and has been urging the change for some time. I can understand the points that have been made up to now.

I am in a different situation. The amendments I have almost suggest I am aiming to reduce penalty points for U-turns, because I believe the Bill is somewhat excessive as it stands. I can remember being in the United States on one occasion when I gave the wrong direction to the person I was driving with.

We could have solved it all by taking a U-turn, but he refused to do it and we went about 22 miles before we got back on track again. I was demoted from front seat navigator to the back seat in order to sit and watch what was happening.

I mention the U-turn because there are times when there is no traffic around. It is not correct to have a U-turn, but on occasion there is no traffic around. My amendment aims to reduce penalty points for U-turns, which I think is excessive as the Bill stands. I do not think that doing an illegal U-turn is worthy of two penalty points, with four on conviction. This amendment reduces the number to one penalty point for payment of a fixed charge, and two penalty points on conviction. It is crazy to give somebody four penalty points out of a total of 12 for one U-turn. If a person causes an accident, that is different. The book should be thrown at them. However, it seems that we are not treating drivers like adults if we impose such serious penalties if there is no accident or traffic problem but just a technical breach of the law. If somebody does a U-turn at 3 a.m. with no cars around, I do not see anything wrong with that.

Many countries go even further. In the US and in Belgium, drivers can turn on a red light if they see nothing is coming. In Belgium, a driver can proceed at a pedestrian crossing if there are no pedestrians. At the same time, if the driver causes an accident, he or she is liable. Paris now allows cyclists to turn on red lights or run red lights, but any accidents that occur when they are crossing will be deemed their fault. This measure is designed to reduce accidents, as cyclists can get away from clogged intersections and mainly away from cars. It is also done as cyclists are slower, with less control, as they accelerate from a stop, making them more likely to swerve or fall into a car lane. The authorities in Stockholm have been considering exactly the same measure.

I think we need to be a little bit more progressive on this issue. We need to show that we treat drivers as responsible adults, which 99% of them are, and there must be some common sense. We are banning everything and throwing penalty points around. I hope the Minister can be forward looking on this issue and reduce the penalty points for U-turns. On the other hand, if there is an accident, the book should be thrown at the perpetrator. However, sanctioning four penalty points for U-turns is excessive, and I suggest it should be reduced.

Comments

No comments

Log in or join to post a public comment.