Lack of will to end road deaths seen in strategy

So far this year there have been the equivalent of 12 Omagh-scale massacres in this country. Unlike the response to the one of August 15th, there has been no sense of national crisis. No reconvening of the Dail for the passage of emergency legislation. No protestations that no cause or convenience justifies the taking of a single human life, let alone the taking of 330.

No national days of mourning. No books of condolence. No sense of national shame.

So what is it about the carnage on our roads that makes the loss of life on such a scale acceptable? In this year alone the likely road death toll will be over 500. Never in the Northern Troubles was the death toll anything near that figure. Deaths on the roads are no less arbitrary than deaths caused by terrorist explosions. They cause no less grief and hardship. They are no less unjust. So why should it be that governments can do so little to stop them? Indeed, how is it that a government can be so unconscionably culpable through its indifference and neglect of its basic duty to protect the lives of its citizens?

Take just one of the more glaring examples of official culpability for the road carnage.

Almost one-quarter of people who drive cars on the roads have not yet passed, or have failed to pass, a test to determine whether they are capable of driving a car in a manner that is not dangerous to other citizens. These are provisional licence-holders, who may avoid undergoing a test for four years. And then, even if they fail their first test - after they have been found unqualified - they are still permitted to drive on our roads.

Either the test means something or it doesn't. If it means anything it must mean that those who fail to pass it or who have not passed it are not deemed fit to drive on our roads. And yet about 330,000 people who have not passed a test are allowed to drive.

These provisional licence-holders are barred from driving without the presence in the car of a person with a full licence. This requirement is effectively unenforceable, for there is no way a Garda on the spot can know whether the person driving has a full or provisional or any driving licence or whether any person accompanying a provisional licence-holder has a full licence.

Four years ago the Oireachtas passed a Road Traffic Act which provided for the introduction of a system whereby drivers were required to carry a valid licence with them while driving. The provision has not been implemented.

Last month there was published The Road to Safety - the Government Strategy for Road Safety 1998-2002. Its declared objective was not to eliminate deaths on the roads but to limit deaths on the roads to 382 by 2002. Just think of the outrage there would have been had the British government declared, say in 1988, that the objective of security policy in Northern Ireland was to limit the carnage from terrorist atrocities to 382 per year. Why should there be tolerance for such carnage on our roads to the extent that it would be considered a success if there were "only" 382 deaths?

The report reveals that there are 37 per cent more deaths on Irish roads per million cars than the EU average. It goes on to state that in 41 per cent of fatal road accidents speed was a contributory factor and in 33 per cent alcohol was a contributory factor. We have known for years that speed and alcohol were major factors in road deaths.

But knowing that did not inspire the authorities to do much about it. The strategy report reveals that 40 per cent of cars are driven at speeds of over 60 m.p.h. on the rural sections of two-lane national roads and that 26 per cent of cars are driven at speeds of over 70 m.p.h. on motorways. And yet, although we have known this for years, the obvious arrangements for dealing with this - available technology - are only now being introduced (we will have shortly the grand total of five automated mobile units for speed detection).

And as regards drunk driving the report states: "The Government will arrange for the Garda authorities and the Medical Bureau of Road Safety to work towards the phased introduction of `the use of evidential breath-testing' throughout the country". This "phased introduction" is being done four years after it was provided for in the Road Traffic Act 1994.

Furthermore, after all the carnage and all we have known about the major contributory factors to road deaths, the Government is "considering" lowering the speed limit and introducing random breath-testing. The "consideration" of lowering the speed limit is taking place in the knowledge that studies have shown that a reduction in average traffic speeds by one kilometre an hour typically results in a 3 per cent drop in accident frequency. What is the need for consideration?

And, as regards the introduction of random breath-testing, the "consideration" is required because the public and, more importantly, the licensed vintners might not like it. This is a pathetic little document and is evidence of an indifference of the politicians (notably the succession of the pompous windbags who have held the post of Minister for the Environment over the years).

There are five obvious measures that could and should be introduced immediately, which alone would have a major impact on the carnage on our roads. They are:

To require all motor vehicles to be fitted with suppressers whereby they could not be driven at speeds above 55 m.p.h. and could not accelerate at a rate faster than, say, an old Morris Minor (failure to have an operational suppresser would be penalised by the confiscation of the vehicle).

To require "traffic calming" measures to be introduced in all built-up areas to prevent or deter cars from being driven at speeds faster than 30 m.p.h. (invariably this would involve the construction of ramps on all roads in built-up areas).

The immediate introduction of random breath-testing.

The immediate implementation of the requirement for drivers to carry valid driving licences with them while driving.

A ban on anybody driving who did not have a full driving licence, apart from cars fitted with dual controls in which provisional licence-holders could drive if accompanied by an instructor).

This will not happen for the simple reason that in spite of all the rhetoric about the sacredness of human life and no cause or convenience being worth a single life (and all that guff), the convenience of motorists and of the motor and licensed vintners' lobby is paramount.

Instead we require a "balanced approach", whereby there will be an acceptable level of carnage and cars can do what they do best.