In our previous debates on this important subject many Members had occasion to deplore the absence of real progress on road safety. That lack of progress was always attributed to an absence of commitment on the part of the Government to apply fully its strategy, adopted in 1997. Tonight I am delighted to say we are in a much happier position. The improvement can be summed up in the numbers of road deaths in recent months. In November 24 people were killed, compared to 40 in the same month of the previous year. In December 22 were killed compared to 37 the previous year and in January 19 were killed compared to 35 last year. Taking those three months together, 67 people were killed compared to 112 in the corresponding period of the previous year, a reduction of 40% in the number of deaths on our roads. That is not trivial: a drop of 40% is massive. Although we must mourn each of the 67 deaths that did take place, we should at the same time celebrate the 45 lives we would have expected to be added to the total but which have continued.

Why did this sudden reduction in the number of road deaths take place? There can only be one answer: it results from a radical change in driver attitudes and, more importantly, driver behaviour due to the introduction of the penalty points system in November. That introduction provided the missing fourth element of the national road safety strategy, which is just coming to the end of its five year run. The strategy was based on initiatives under four headings: education, engineering, enforcement and evaluation. Up to the very end, however, there was a gaping hole in one of the four. A table with only three legs will become wobbly: with four legs it is suddenly stable. The leg that was missing in this case, from the very beginning, was enforcement.

I have had an interest in this topic for some time and for the last two years have had the honour of taking the chair at the National Safety Awards on behalf of the National Safety Council. We receive entries from all around the country and examine steps taken by councils, educationists and the media, among others. It has been fascinating to see the changes that have taken and are still taking place in that area. The primary cause of road deaths, however, is our behaviour as road users. Changing our behaviour is the primary element, essential if we are to succeed in doing something about road deaths. In the past the high level of commitment needed was never achieved but we seem to have been approaching it in recent times. Some years ago in a debate like this I made the proposal of a weekend free of deaths. If the whole country was to focus attention on one weekend, we would have quite a success. We made a few efforts to do this but did not really succeed. Then last November, for the first time in years, there was a weekend in which there was not one road death. It shows that with the commitment behind it, things can get done.

The strategy recognised that changes in behaviour required all those elements to be addressed. For nearly the entire length of the strategy – almost five years – the absence of a concerted approach on all elements was shown by the very modest returns in terms of reductions in road deaths and injuries. The strategy had set out what many thought was a very modest target for the reduction of deaths and injuries of only 20%, which would still have left us way above the levels of deaths and injuries of our closest neighbour, the United Kingdom. However, as we approached the very last quarter of the five year period, it was clear that even that modest target would not be achieved as far as road deaths were concerned. We now have the proof of the reason that was so: the lack of a serious approach to enforcement, the fourth crucial element in the strategy.

I congratulate the Minister for Transport, Deputy Brennan, on his determination to fill this gap and the energy he showed in overriding the obstructions, the foot-dragging and the inertia that prevented progress up to then. In handing out that phrase, which I do very happily, I want at the same time to avoid laying blame on others for their failure to act. That failure is now in the past. What we should do – I hope tonight's debate will play its part – is build on the success achieved and make sure that in the future we make further progress. To that end, let us look a little more closely at what changed. What happened with the introduction of the penalty points system?

What changed was the perception of the seriousness with which the Government would address this problem. Up to then there had been much talk but it had not been backed up with action. The combination of those two things – talk and lack of action – added up to a single message – that the Government really did not care. Small wonder then that people did not change their attitudes and behaviour and that the carnage continued, as in previous years, at an unacceptably high level. When it came to road safety, we were trapped in an atmosphere of inertia. We lulled ourselves into accepting a certain level of road deaths as an inevitable part of modern life, something we could not change. We went on thinking this, despite the evidence from other countries that our level of road deaths was higher than it needed to be and that people's behaviour could be changed for the better. One of the most important things that has happened over the last three months is that we have shattered that inertia, at least for the moment. There is still danger – I hear that in other countries the first few months of a new regime work very well, before people slip back into bad habits. We must be careful.

People have had their eyes opened for the first time to the possibilities of success and change. They have seen the number of deaths drop massively, virtually overnight. That should give us all confidence, citizens and Government alike, in the possibility of not only maintaining that improvement but also building on it in the future. The first thing we should note is that in drawing up a new national road safety strategy we should be much more aggressive in setting targets.

I suggest a new target of an absolute maximum of 200 deaths per year. I hate to say we will allow 200 deaths but let us make it a maximum. It should be much lower because, if the 40% reduction over the last three months is extended over the whole year, we should already have an annual total of less than 250 deaths compared with the 400 or so that until the introduction of penalty points seemed such an immovable barrier.

Our planning should be based on holding the progress we have made and using it as a platform from which to make further gains. We should also learn the lesson that we cannot make a strategy like this work on a piecemeal basis. Without attention to all four legs of the table, one lacks the synergy the concerted approach demands and delivers. Unless one fires on all four cylinders, one cannot get the engine going.

The Government must continue to deliver on enforcement and be seen to be doing so. It is that which has caused the welcome change in behaviour over the last three months – people's fear of having their licence taken away from them. If that fear is weakened over time, the bad behaviour will slip back to where it was and we will have lost the ground made so efficiently in recent times. There must be no doubt in anybody's mind that those engaged in speeding will be caught and prosecuted with the full rigour of the law. We must make sure that is understood. Similarly, the Government must show its determination to extend the enforcement of the road traffic laws beyond speeding because it is only one of the killer behaviours we must change – the others being drink driving and travelling without seat belts. Tackling these three elements will make a major impact on road deaths. On all of these fronts the Government must show it intends and means business. If it does not convince the public it is serious about this, no progress will be made and what we have achieved will be lost.

In these days of retrenchment the Minister will come up against the barrier of scarce resources but, in that context, I draw his and the House's attention to a cost-benefit study carried out in 1999 by Dr. Peter Bacon which proves beyond any doubt that the benefits to the community of investing in a road safety strategy far outweigh the relatively small investment involved. One of the problems we must address is our fragmented approach to costs and benefits which makes it difficult to accommodate spending by one Department that results in savings by another. That is a trivial matter in comparison with the importance of the problem and I hope we can overcome such difficulties in the pursuit of what must surely be clear to everyone as a highly desirable goal.

There has been much talk of a traffic corps, particularly in Dublin. I know resources are required but on recent trips to America I have been impressed by the use of older people – people even older than I – who have been brought back into the workforce. Gardaí who retired at 57 years or so could well be brought back into the force, perhaps as part of the traffic corps. The Minister could say that, if resources are a challenge, they could be overcome in other ways than the purely traditional. I welcome the debate and the Minister of State's attention. Even more so, I welcome the success of the last three months in the hope we can build on it in the years ahead.

What depresses me about the report is that, according to Superintendent Liam Collins of the Dublin metropolitan traffic unit, many truck drivers blatantly break the law. He says trucks have speed limiters that kick in once the truck passes the limit but some drivers have got around this. I expected that, with the new speed restrictions, trucks had improved their level of compliance because they are professional drivers for whom losing a licence would be a disaster. However, that is not the case – they have made little difference in the speeds at which they travel. The article states 80% of articulated lorries exceed the 50 miles per hour limit on motorways and that more than 90% exceed the speed limit in 30 miles per hour zones. That is incredible.

There are factors which must make truck drivers incensed at the pace of traffic like the huge hold ups in cities, small towns and on roads with road works. The fact that they have to deliver under the just-in-time system operated by many supermarkets and other businesses – where the goods have to be brought to the shelves immediately and must arrive at a particular slot and be in the yard at a particular time – is not a good enough excuse. We also export goods which have to make it to the ferries but the fact that one is rushing to make a ferry does not mean one can put lives at risk. I am glad the Minister of State is here tonight because he will know from his practice that morbidity rates for those involved in crashes involving trucks are appalling. This must be taken into account.

Motorcyclists, too, fare proportionately badly in their contretemps with trucks with a 7% mortality rate. It is a serious problem that we do not have a test for motorcyclists. It is not only motorcyclists who are in such a vulnerable position, so are pillion passengers. I am a member of the board of Peamount Hospital where we have a unit described as being for the chronically sick young. It would be better termed the unit for the injured-from-motorbike young and their pillion passengers because they have no protection. They are made into mincemeat when they come off their bikes.

The most amazing thing is that we have no test. Someone told me recently that he asked an official who issued licences in a town in Cork how he decided whether one should get a licence. Apparently, there is a block of shops in the town around which the official sends the applicant on his motorbike, and if he comes back on it he gets a licence. I suppose it is his own form of test. Even I know that one is supposed to lean into the corner on a motorbike, but people are leaning in the other direction. It is amazing that so many people manage to stay on their bikes. Measures should be introduced immediately to counter this problem.

All the cases of Ministers or their families in speeding cars are very disappointing. I was delighted that someone said, "Whatever about the rule of the land, the laws of physics still apply to the Taoiseach and Ministers." If they are supposed to lead by example, it is shocking that they should be in speeding cars. I saw a report in The Irish Times by a reporter who tried to follow the Taoiseach during the election campaign, but who had to give up when he was doing 85 miles per hour on country roads. I think the reporter was wise.

The genesis of the road safety strategy of 1998 to 2002 was the realisation that the number of deaths and injuries on our roads had reached a level that was unacceptable in a modern society. However, it would be wrong to suggest, as some commentators speculated, that Ireland ranked as the worst in the European Union in terms of road safety. While such speculation was falsely based, the Government realised that our road safety record was significantly less impressive than that in some of our fellow member states. The purpose of the strategy was to move our record closer to the best in Europe.

In order to achieve that overall goal, it was quickly realised that the countries boasting the most advanced records in Europe all shared a common policy direction. The states in question – Sweden, Holland and the United Kingdom – had all based their policies on the pursuit of a strategic approach. The first page of the strategy stated in succinct terms the underlying context within which the overall strategic approach was to be set. It stated, "The Government cannot acquiesce in this 'business as usual' scenario." A failure to pursue the new approach would have resulted in an estimated 550 road deaths in 2002. Against that background, the Government set demanding primary targets to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries on our roads by a factor of 20%.

By 2002, supporting targets of the strategy were as follows: to reduce the incidence of excess speeding by at least 50% from present levels; to increase the wearing rate for front and rear seat belts to at least 85%; to reduce by 25% the number of fatal road accidents, which are commonly drink related, occurring during the hours of darkness; and to implement specific accident reduction measures at more than 400 additional national road locations.

Excessive speed, failure to wear seat belts, drink driving and poor infrastructure directly contribute to the occurrence and severity of accidents. The high-level group subsequently added a fourth target area, seeking a renewed concentration of policies toward vulnerable road users, and this has been the subject of our more recent advertising campaigns.

While the strategy recognised the importance of the maintenance and augmentation of existing road safety policies and initiatives, the need for the promulgation of new policies and actions was accepted. This led to the promotion of the following new policies: to extend the use of automatic speed detection systems, including the installation of fixed cameras; to commence evidential breath testing for drink driving; to extend the on-the-spot fine system to non-wearing of seat belts, and to develop a penalty points system.

While there was early evidence suggesting that the number of serious injuries was falling on a year-on-year basis, the initial reduction in road deaths was not sustained. However, that was to change with dramatic effect in 2002. Last year, some 379 people were killed in road traffic accidents, representing a reduction of 19.7% over the number of deaths in 1997. Thus, the target set in the strategy for 2002 was achieved.

The picture in respect of serious injury figures is even more encouraging. By the end of 2001, the number of serious injuries reported had reduced by 35% compared with the number in 1997.

It was obvious from an early stage that the realisation of the targets in support of the main primary targets would prove difficult to achieve. This was particularly obvious in the case of the target set for the reduction in excessive speed. A national speed survey carried out by the National Roads Authority in 1999 showed that the speed of vehicles was in excess of the established speed limits on all road classes. This prompted the road safety high-level group to call for a refocusing of the target to concentrate resources on single-carriageway national primary routes, given the higher concentration of risk associated with those roads.

A similar study carried out by the NRA in relation to the wearing of seat belts in 1999 showed the extent and depth of the problem. It was found that the rate of wearing of front seat belts was 55%, while the rate in rear seats was 20%.

The results of the NRA examination of speeding prompted the authority to commission a research project by a team of internationally recognised road safety experts from Victoria, Australia. The team's report presents recommendations relating to the deployment of a mixture of speed enforcement measures, with a strong emphasis on mobile speed detection.

As a follow up to its initial surveys of speeding and the wearing of seat belts, the NRA has completed further research. The reports, to be published shortly, will show evidence of sustainable improvements in relation to compliance with speed limits and the seat belt wearing rates of drivers and front seat passengers. It would seem, however, that there is no evidence of improved wearing rates for rear seat passengers.

The evidence of the NRA research, combined with the results of Garda enforcement and international experience, gave a clear template to the National Safety Council to pursue focused promotional and educational road safety campaigns throughout the period covered by the strategy. Senators will be familiar with the direct and disturbing media campaigns launched by the council over the past number of years. The council realised that there needed to be an element of shock in these campaigns and the graphic nature of the depiction of the consequences of speeding, non-wearing of seat belts and drink driving are aimed at showcasing the real and appalling results of such behaviour. These campaigns have been jointly promoted with the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland to give them an all-Ireland perspective.

The fourth joint media campaign is currently centred on the vulnerability of pedestrians and promotes the need for a more precautionary approach by this vulnerable group of road users. The development of good road safety habits needs to be nurtured at an early stage. The National Safety Council has, therefore, promoted new resource material for both primary and secondary schools. The material forms part of the primary school curriculum.

The national safety test is now into its fourth year and there is widespread acceptance that it has real benefits in terms of better maintained cars which are safer and contribute to better air quality. In 2002, some 536,000 cars underwent full testing and 53% of these passed at the first attempt. Almost 245,000 were re-tested and of all cars tested and retested 90% were issued with their NCT certificates.

The consultation paper on school bus safety was published and is currently the subject of a public consultation process. The use of daytime running lights is being considered by the EU high-level group with a view to the production of appropriate guidance for all member states.

In promoting the road safety strategy, the Government was keenly aware of the need to review existing legislative provisions that impinge on road safety and to deploy new initiatives where appropriate. The headline measure targeted was the possible introduction of a system of penalty points. The strategy recognised that this issue would give rise to the need for extreme care in the development of a suitable system, particularly in the context of the exclusive constitutional role of the courts in the administration of justice.

While penalty points constitute a key element of the Road Traffic Act 2002, the Act can be seen primarily as a means to enhance the legislative basis for the enforcement of traffic law. It incorporates a comprehensive review of the financial penalties for traffic offences and provides for the introduction of a new system of fixed charges to replace the current on-the-spot fine system. To further support Garda activity, the capacity for the use of cameras and other technological supports was extended to a range of traffic offences in addition to speeding.

All public opinion surveys have shown that safety cameras are acceptable if it is made clear that their purpose is to make the roads safer rather than to raise revenue. Camera systems have been operational in the UK since 1989 and, where deployed, have saved lives and reduced accidents. In the UK, the average distance between sites of camera posts is 1.5 km whereas the average distance between fixed-post camera sites in Louth and Meath is 8 km. There are in excess of 3,000 camera sites in the UK, of which approximately 2,000 are used for speed enforcement and 1,000 to monitor traffic light infringements. That demonstrates the belief by the authorities in the UK of the value of these cameras. In contrast, there are only 20 such cameras in Ireland. The 35 mm camera systems employ film cassettes which are capable of capturing 1,000 images and can be processed on a two to three day cycle.

Statistics from the UK show a substantial reduction in excessive speeding and road accidents within a 0.5 km radius of fixed-post cameras. They also show that over the period 1992 to 2000, cameras installed in urban areas reduced pedestrian fatalities by over 50% and road fatalities by 44%. At fixed camera locations in the UK, there was a 44% reduction in speed related accidents, a 21% reduction in all accidents and an 8% reduction in fatal and serious accidents. The average speed came down by 4.7 mph, the number of vehicles exceeding speed limits was reduced by 81% and the numbers of vehicles massively exceeding speed limits – by 15 mph or more – were reduced by 97%. In the UK, safety cameras also played a part in detecting 289 crimes in addition to their key role in reducing road accidents and casualties.

It was always recognised that the full roll-out of the penalty points system would depend on the completion of a number of information technology developments. While the national driver file is fully operational, work on the remaining IT networks continues. It is premature to fully assess the effects of the launch of penalty points for speeding offences, however, we have clearly seen the beginning of the development of a more precautionary driver approach and a resultant reduction in the number of detections for speed infractions. There has also been a marked reduction in the number of road deaths over the past three months. Provisional data made available by the Garda indicates that the number of road deaths have fallen from a total of 113 in the period November 2001 to January 2002 to 68 over the most recent period. That is dramatic.

Other initiatives taken since the launch of the strategy in the legislative area include the introduction of a requirement to sit a theory test before obtaining a provisional licence. On-the-spot fines were extended to apply to offences such as non-wearing of seat belts, traffic light infringements, defective tyres and box junction violations. The strategy committed the Government to consider a possible change to the legal requirements relating to roadside breath testing. There was no commitment to full random breath testing, but the Road Traffic Act 2002 significantly extends the grounds for the use of roadside testing by the Garda and brings our position into line with that in the United Kingdom.

The effectiveness of any legislation depends on enforcement which must, therefore, be a central component of any road safety initiative. The Garda has a key role in achieving the goals and targets set out in the strategy. While we can all take credit, I commend the Garda Síochána for its tremendous work and the results achieved over the past five years. As already stated, the number of fatalities has decreased from 472 in 1997 to 397 in 2002 and the Garda must be credited for that. Since the introduction of penalty points, detections for speeding have dropped dramatically which suggests we are making the necessary behavioural changes.

Garda visibility is of the utmost importance. The facts speak for themselves. The figures for the period November 2002 to January 2003 show a drop in the number of fatalities over the same period in the previous year, from 112 to 68. Credit must go to the Garda Síochána for enforcing the law, thus bringing about this dramatic fall. There has been a sustained increase in the level of enforcement by the Garda Síochána, particularly in the key areas of speeding and seat belt wearing over the period of the strategy.

The role of the traffic corps has been discussed and apparently finds favour from all political parties. Visibility is all important. Senator Quinn has suggested that the traffic corps could possibly be started by retired members of the Garda Síochána, regardless of their previous rank. Some would already have the necessary training while others would require training with the new equipment. Gardaí can normally retire after 30 years of service and many retire between the ages of 50 and 52 years. Some might welcome a return to the ranks in the traffic corps. We could also perhaps look at extending the compulsory retirement age of 57 years for members willing to serve. While these are matters for debate, they should be considered in the context of the establishment of the much needed traffic corps.

While there has been significant progress over the past five years in terms of road safety, those gains should only point us towards further advances. The lessons learned during the past five years will inform us of the pursuit of a second strategy. That strategy will also be supported by the conclusions of both the economic assessment of the measures contained in the previous excellent strategy, undertaken by Dr. Peter Bacon, and a review of the strategy produced by an international road safety expert. The latter report shows that the prioritisation and framework of the strategy still represent a robust model. In pursuing a new strategy the Government will be cognisant of this and seek to add value to the valuable progress made over the past five years. I will also be mindful of what is said in this debate. I look forward to the rest of it and I am pleased to be here to listen to the concerns expressed by Senators.

The Minister of State referred to the Australian link. The road safety campaign was based on the Australian model, yet in Australia road deaths were cut by 50%. In view of this we should not be quick to congratulate ourselves. Measures were introduced very slowly and much remains to be done. Last year 379 people were killed on the roads. Families have lost fathers, mothers, elderly parents, grandparents and children.

There has been a dubious use of figures in this debate. The Minister of State referred to numerous percentages but we must be careful how we interpret figures. Before Christmas, in a farcical situation, the Minister for Transport had to rescind his claim that most learner drivers were the cause of most fatal road accidents. It subsequently emerged that only 1.6% of fatal road crashes involved learner drivers.

Speaking as a male under the age of 30 years, I have a good idea of what I mean when I refer to the blatant discrimination by insurance companies against young people. Every day we hear of the involvement of young people in car crashes. It would be much more beneficial if figures showed how many car crashes were caused by them. There is a huge difference between being involved in and causing a crash. The Minister and his officials should take this on board and be aware of using correct statistics.

The Minister of State referred to the shock tactics used in the campaign by the National Road Safety Council. They have not worked and may have gone overboard. The council's efforts have been undermined by the reckless speeding engaged in by Ministers. I admit to speeding, although I should not speed. However, I have never driven at 85 mph. Unlike Senator Dooley, my car is unfortunately not fast enough.

During the general election campaign I heard in Kilkenny of the reports of the Taoiseach's break-neck speeding from New Ross. The journalists covering his campaign could not keep up with him.

The penalty points system cannot be taken in isolation as other Government initiatives have led to safer roads. The Government's five year road safety strategy has seen the number of serious injuries reduced in 2001 to a figure more than 40% lower than prevailed before the launch of the strategy. The low cost accident reduction schemes funded by the Government have been very successful since their introduction some years ago and I am delighted they are being continued.

I am delighted to note from the Minister of State's speech that the national car test is now in its fourth year. I have to have my car tested in March. While none of us likes to get the notice and go to the trouble of preparing a car for the test, there is widespread acceptance that it has real benefits in terms of better maintained cars which are safer and contribute to better air quality.

I welcome the public consultation paper on school bus safety. It should be compulsory to have headlights on at all times.

There have been very successful initiatives and I am impressed by the national car test. The penalty points system has had a big impact but I share Senator Browne's concern and I hope the impact is not just short term. We need to watch that.

The British-Irish Interparliamentary Body is in the process of producing a joint report on penalty points and I will be disappointed if it is not possible to have a cross-Border scheme in effect. Better roads and better road markings make a contribution, while slowed up traffic is a negative effect.

I am frustrated by bicyclists who ignore traffic lights and traffic regulations. I saw four examples of this in one day last week. Could the National Safety Council make it absolutely clear that the rules of the road, especially at traffic lights, apply to bicyclists as well as to everybody else?

I have written to the chairman of the National Safety Council about the danger of sleepiness and drowsiness. This cause of accidents is not properly highlighted. I confess that I once knocked over a bus stop. It was, fortunately, a bus stop and not a tree, otherwise I would probably not be here. In case anyone thinks a scandal has been uncovered, I reported the matter to the Garda the following morning. Why do accidents happen late at night? Drink is not the only cause.

Senator Mansergh referred to cyclists and I agree with him, even though I admit to being a rather bad cyclist. I am of the view that it is highly dangerous for cyclists to cycle without lights and reflective gear, particularly in the country. I was returning from the country one weekend and even in the middle of the day I witnessed a few dangerous incidents. There was a charity cycle and cyclists, two abreast, wobbled around on the dual carriageway.

I would like to see a campaign to advise people that if walking in the country they should wear reflective clothing and should walk opposing the traffic. Frequently I see pedestrians in dark clothing walking in the same direction as the traffic. That is desperately dangerous.

Will the Minister tell the House if commercial vehicles and CIE buses are tested? I do not believe they are tested but if so, how regularly and where is it done? Those I see are in a deplorable state. Yesterday I saw an 89 G registered bus on the quays which was corroded with rust to an appalling extent. It had a big banner on the back saying, "On loan to Bus Éireann". I do not believe that bus was tested during the past ten years. That smoke belches out from the backs of these buses is clear evidence that they have not been serviced. The same applies to lorries and commercial vehicles. I simply do not believe commercial vehicles are subjected properly to the road test.

With regard to the national car test there are some anomalies, one of which I would like to raise. If one acquires, say, a ten year old car and the previous owner has not had it tested and you as a good citizen have it tested, the certificate covers only the remaining amount of time from the time when it should have been tested. That is idiotic. One could get a certificate that lasts only three months, when it should last two years from the date of the test. The miscreant, who is the previous owner, should suffer any penalty.

I welcome the reduction in road deaths, as everybody does. I am not begrudging about it and I congratulate the Minister on having introduced the penalty points system. Everybody must welcome the fact that a large number of people are alive today who would not be alive were it not for the introduction of these measures. However, there must be consistency and coherency in road signage and changes in the speed limit. It is absurd to have changes in the speed limits down from 70 mph, to 50, 40 or 30 mph with no real justification and without adequate signage. I instance coming into Dublin in the direction of Kingsbridge, through the Inchicore area, where there are several changes for which there is no real reason. One does not anticipate them because the road stays exactly the same, yet for some unexplained reason there is a change.

Another interesting instance in Glenageary was given on "Today with Pat Kenny" this morning. A dual carriage has a 30 mph speed limit, even though it is a perfectly good road and should have at least a 40 mph limit. One then goes into an area which is not a dual carriageway and past a special school where the limit goes up to 40 mph. There must be consistency and coherence in speed limits if citizens are expected to observe and respect them.

They did a survey in that area and asked us all our opinion and we all sent it in. Did we ever get the result of the survey? Did it have the slightest blind bit of effect? One must be joking – not at all. They just wrote back and said, "you can .. well, whatever you want with yourselves".

I enjoy being on this side of the House. The part of it I inhabit is neutral. Neutrality is so important in Ireland. To demonstrate my neutrality, I listened with some astonishment to Senator Browne who was so passionate about young drivers. It is astonishing to state that they are not responsible for causing accidents and that middle aged and elderly drivers are bashing into them for the hell of it. We should get real about this.

I compliment my colleagues on putting down this motion. It has been an excellent debate and I know the Minister will take up the points Members, in their various ways, raised.

Penalty points are part of the overall Government strategy to reduce road deaths, which has been in place since 1997. The full implementation of the penalty points system will, however, require a range of resources, particularly in the area of information technology, which are not yet in place. The points system initiative, as we have seen in the area of speeding, will work well, but it will take time and all the necessary structures will have to be in situ. The Garda Síochána has done a wonderful job, but we cannot expect it to fully implement the system until it is given the necessary resources. These will be in place at the end of the current year.

As for so-called "joy-riders", a term I dislike intensely, they should be called "death riders".

How is it that while drivers of small private cars are acutely conscious of the possibility of incurring penalty points, professional truck drivers whose livelihoods depend on it seem to be entirely oblivious to the matter? I do not know what the answer is but perhaps the Minister of State will find out. The statistical evidence from the National Roads Authority is that about 75% of truck drivers exceed the speed limit. The anecdotal evidence, however, gained from much driving on main roads over the past three months is that virtually every truck is in breach of the speed limit with some travelling at 55 or 60 mph. I have been passed on the motorway when travelling at 60 mph by large trucks doing 65 mph. I do not understand why that is. Do truck drivers understand the law – it would astonish me if they did not – or is there some sort of understanding that they will not be prosecuted? I do not see the reason they should be treated differently from anyone else.

According to the NRA, 3% of all vehicles registered in the State are classified as trucks which are involved in 10% of fatal accidents. Today's report put the figure at 20% but it depends on how one views the figures. Whichever figure one believes, however, it indicates that trucks are disproportionately involved in fatal accidents, which is no surprise if they travel faster than they are supposed to. If we are to achieve the targets set by the Government, drivers of this category of vehicle – even though it represents a proportionately smaller number of vehicles – must observe the law like everyone else because trucks are doing a significant amount of damage.

Senator Norris expressed his concerns about the different speeding limits but, as I understand it, they are a matter for each individual council. I am not sure if I would want to see that changed, although some Senators have asked the Minister to adopt a national approach to the matter. I am a strong believer in the principle of local government and do not think central government should usurp the authority of rural areas. County councillors, who have put most of us here, are well capable of making decisions on these matters.

When the Government's road safety strategy for 1998-2002, entitled The Road to Safety, was published, it outlined a number of policy initiatives to help improve the level of safety on our roads. While the document addressed a number of areas, the main aim was the reduction of road fatalities, in regard to which we have been successful. The target at the time was set at a very demanding 20% – far more than the 15% proposed at EU level. It was also hoped to reduce the number of serious injuries sustained through road accidents by the same margin. A lot of statistics are bandied around about reducing the number of road accidents but accidents will occur wherever human beings are involved in the use of mechanically propelled vehicles. The important thing, however, is to reduce the number of fatalities. I am happy that will occur following the reduction of speed levels. Even at 60 mph accidents will happen as a result of human error but if speeds are kept to lower levels, lives will be saved.

The targets I mentioned were to be achieved through targeting three key areas – speeding, alcohol consumption and seat belts – which are recognised internationally as holding the greatest and most immediate potential for improving road safety. The second progress report on the strategy recommended that vulnerable road users should be added as a further area of focus and that additional measures and resources should be directed at this new target area. It is clear that the Government has made significant progress in achieving these objectives.

I take issue with Senator Browne on the extent to which we have achieved the target numbers. In 1997, 472 people were killed on our roads. Since the implementation of the Government's road safety strategy we have seen a significant decrease in the number of road fatalities. By 2000 the number had dropped to 415 and by 2002 it had fallen to 379, as Senator Wilson pointed out. Obviously, one death on the road is one too many and represents a personal tragedy. We would all like to have a road system which is completely free of accidents but, given the human error factor, that is not possible. We were short of the target by 0.3%. It is not nice to bandy statistics about and clap ourselves on the back because people are still dying on the roads but we are all in this together. We all have a duty of care to others and ourselves when using the roads. We must show respect for others and work together in trying to come up with solutions involving policies and laws that can be enforced to ensure road deaths do not increase again.

I am happy, as most are, with the situation that has arisen through the introduction of penalty points and hope we will see no relaxation of the system. I agree with Senator Brian Hayes that the Garda Síochána has made a remarkable effort in this regard and have no doubt it will continue to do so. I thank the Minister and his officials and hope they will keep up the good work.

Penalty points were introduced in Northern Ireland in 1996. However, a driver from Armagh driving in Brighton who infringes the law cannot have this reflected in his penalty points in Northern Ireland. There are two separate systems within the United Kingdom, one for England, Scotland and Wales and the other for Northern Ireland. That is crazy and the British should do something about it. In order to reduce the number of deaths on the Dublin-Belfast road we must have a co-ordinated approach to penalty points on an all-Ireland basis. The British-Irish Interparliamentary Body will bring forward proposals to Government on both sides. I hope it will happen.

I returned recently from a private visit to Australia and was very impressed by their initiatives. They have very aggressive signage on their highways and roads such as "stop, revive and survive". They continually remind motorists they will be caught and penalty points will be put on their licences if they speed on a continuous basis. Their policy seems to work. On public holidays, if one is caught speeding, not wearing a seat belt or whatever, the penalty points are doubled. I was there for Australia Day and there was a huge movement of traffic throughout New South Wales. People abided by the rules because if they were caught, their penalty points were doubled for that holiday period. I ask the Minister and his officials to consider this and see if it could be introduced by way of regulation. Many Members referred to the danger at holiday time. On bank holiday Mondays many people travel around the country and it is something the Minister might consider doing even for one holiday period to see if it would make a difference.

Recently I was summoned to court because it had been alleged by the garda in question that I did not have any tax paid on my car. I went to court and what happened happened. The garda had to come to court for the whole day and consequently lost a day's work when he should have been in the Garda station. We must get away from the notion that gardaí must go hand in hand with us to court.

Local authorities have created problems in towns and villages by pursuing ribbon developments. In many cases, there are no proper facilities such as footpaths and, as a result, people must place themselves in danger by walking on the sides of roads outside towns, etc. This has caused problems in many areas. There is a responsibility on local authorities to ensure that warning signs are maintained, cleaned and can be seen. These signs were not erected just for the sake of it, they were erected because there was a real need for them. We must ensure that the onus is on local authorities to enable drivers to drive safely.

I have already referred to road markings. Thousands of dangerous trees are still adjacent to our roads and every time there is a severe storm an unfortunate motorist is killed by a falling tree. I hope the Department will put pressure on local authorities to ensure that dangerous trees adjacent to roads are made safe, particularly on the southern side of roads where there is a greater risk of the storm knocking them down.

Previous speakers referred to speeding trucks. This is a problem and anyone who says otherwise is wrong. As I drove from Enfield to Dublin this week, trucks were travelling at 70 mph rather than 50 mph. One can only drive at 70 mph on the motorway but trucks were travelling at that speed on ordinary roads. Senator Ryan commented on the varying damage that can be done by vehicles travelling at different speeds and also referred to the length of time it takes to bring a vehicle to a halt. Given the speed at which some of the trucks to which I refer were travelling, they would have almost reached Lucan before they could have stopped.

On a wet day it is almost impossible to overtake trucks, even the ones that are being driven slowly, because of the huge amount of spray given off by their wheels. I understand there should be brushes on the covers of the wheels to stop the spray shooting outwards, but that is not the case. We must ensure that something is done about this problem.

I compliment the Minister of State on many of the new laws and regulations relating to the wearing of seat belts. Many people involved in crashes were saved because they were wearing seat belts. Unfortunately, many back seat passengers do not wear seat belts and the measure relating to them must be implemented.

I hope the Department will allocate extra money for more speed cameras, even if they must be moved at regular intervals. I have no doubt that drivers slow down in areas where cameras are located. However, once they pass that location, they speed up again.

A previous speaker referred to NCT tests on trucks. Where the test centres are located is the responsibility of local authorities which appoint the testers. I am aware of two centres in my county and I know of truck drivers who were put to great expense to ensure their trucks were roadworthy before they left the centres. Unfortunately, if trucks are not being repaired properly, that is too bad.

I again compliment all those concerned on the penalty points system, which is one of the great changes to the law over the past 20 years.

I do not wish to rehash the comments of previous speakers. I am glad agreement about road safety problems has been in evidence among Senators from all sides of the House and compliment the Government on introducing the penalty points system, although it should have been done some years earlier. Fianna Fáil promised to introduce the system during the 1997 general election campaign, meaning that we had to wait for almost six years. The delay was especially unfortunate, as Senator Browne said, because many families could have been spared the loss of a loved one if the system had been introduced earlier.

Senator Wilson spoke about traffic calming. I agree that traffic calming measures have been introduced in certain towns and villages where traffic can be too calm at times. On the other hand, traffic calming measures have been started in parts of County Kilkenny but the funding to complete them is unavailable. I refer to villages like Mullinavat and Knocktopher on the main road between Waterford and Dublin. Kilkenny County Council has not been given the moneys it needs from the National Roads Authority. The speed of traffic through certain villages demands traffic calming measures and more money should be allocated to that end. Engineers should use common sense when deciding whether to locate traffic calming measures in villages. I have problems with the fact that villages on regional roads do not qualify for such measures. There are a number of such villages in County Kilkenny and I am sure they can be found all over the country. When there is a wide regional road leading into a village, people driving at 60 mph may be in the village before they realise it. I suggest that the Department of Transport should extend the scheme to include regional roads.

The Department is also involved in the low cost safety scheme, which is basically for non-national roads. While it does not include traffic calming measures, it provides funding for local authorities to upgrade non-national roads. I could name umpteen locations in County Kilkenny that deserve support under the scheme but they will not receive it as funding is prioritised according to how many accidents have taken place at a given location. It is not good enough that we have to wait for somebody to be killed at a bend in the road before funds are allocated for that junction under the low cost safety scheme.

The last point I want to make relates to speed limits, a subject mentioned by Senator Norris and other speakers. There does not seem to be any consistency in the manner in which speed limits are determined at different locations. Senator Norris mentioned the problems in south Dublin. I am sure all Senators could refer to similar anomalies. If the Department has issued guidelines to local authorities to help them to determine the speed limits for different areas, such guidelines need to be brought to the attention of engineers. When an elected representative makes a request for a change in the speed limit in a specific area, he or she should be able to have a rough idea of the limit that will be imposed.

I support the comments of most Senators during this good debate. I compliment my colleague, Senator Quinn, on introducing the motion to the House.

I welcome the motion moved by Senator Quinn, to whom I apologise for taking up some of his time. I thank the other Senators for sharing time with me.

The Minister and I were clearly thinking along the same lines when it came to the suggestion of using retired gardaí in a traffic corps. What a great idea. I hope the Minister will move in that direction. I have a Japanese friend who is a very successful businessman and when I asked him how he succeeded, he gave me a lovely saying: whether you believe you can or you believe you cannot, you are right. He took the example of a football game: if the team members go in thinking they do not have a chance against the other lot, they do not have a chance. However, if they go in believing they can win, then they can. What has happened to this country, this Government and this Minister recently is that for the first time, we have said that we can actually win this battle against road deaths. I congratulate those who have been involved in the successes of the past few months and I urge them not to lose sight, not to lose courage and to continue along that road.

Question put and agreed to.