HEART BEAT: I was interested to read recommendations from the Oireachtas committee report on reforms to the insurance market. Chaired by Donie Cassidy, it made some interesting and sensible suggestions.
Among these were that uninsured vehicles should be confiscated. Can anybody disagree with this? It was also mooted that secondary schools should provide simulated driving instruction and that the driving theory test should be included in the transition year.
The committee also noted the high levels of personal injury compensation here which in its view, deterred insurers from other countries entering the market. It is granted that since the establishment of the Personal Injuries Assessment Board (PIAB), this situation is improving, but there is a long way to go.
One of the first recommendations in the report, that of the introduction of random breath testing for alcohol and substance abuse, I find to be of particular interest. The report states that this should be addressed as a matter of urgency and that if there are constitutional issues that these should be resolved through a constitutional referendum. It has been claimed elsewhere that such a measure could save up to 150 lives each year.
Before delving too deeply into this issue, it is right to remind ourselves of the last major initiative designed to save lives on the road. I refer of course to the penalty points system. Initially everybody behaved themselves, slowed down belted up, and the death toll fell as predicted. Subsequently the citizenry perceived no enforcement and the carnage resumed.
There seemed to be in Government, no urgency in implementing the whole traffic plan. The dedicated Traffic Corps is limping, indeed crawling forward, and the usual computer problems are delaying or worse, the implementation of the other parts of the package. As in so many other areas in present Irish life, inertia is the preferred option. Meanwhile people die.
Eddie Shaw of the Road Safety Authority adopted an almost uniquely honest course for Ireland. He resigned. In my opinion and that of many others the wrong man resigned. There is no history of government ministerial responsibility now, apparently ministers are never wrong and certainly they never resign.
This brings me back to the committee recommendations. They all seem good and sensible and should be supported. But firstly or at least simultaneously, we should implement the laws we have.
The penalty points system should be completed and enforced rigorously. Driver testing should be expedited and not delayed at the behest of a small pressure group; this would allow only qualified drivers alone, to control cars. Learner drivers should be accompanied. We all know this, but it is being frustrated by the high failure rates in the tests and the inability to retest quickly.
The main point is that of the random testing. I am no lawyer but I see the problem. Has the citizen the right to travel freely on the roads without being subject to random stopping and testing?
The other side of the coin is equally obvious. Does the law-abiding citizen going about his business, have the right to be protected from those driving about undetected under the influence of drink or drugs? This brings us into the morass of civil liberties and conflicting rights. In a democracy not all rights are absolute and sometimes the common good must prevail. In many instances this may seem unjust and as Ibsen wrote "the majority never has right on its side".
This is better however, than the minority looking into its heart and deciding what the people want. Examples of conflicting rights are numerous.
Does one child with a handicap have the right to individual tuition over an indeterminate period, or should 40 children with one teacher in a dilapidated classroom have prior rights? In the ideal world of unlimited resource the answer is both.
This is not an ideal world and conflicts of rights often arise. In the medical world such conflicts arise all the time, often involving treatment of conditions brought about by inappropriate behaviour versus those not influenced by a negative lifestyle. Such conflicts can be avoided at least in the good times.
A referendum accordingly seems a fair path to take in this instance. Let the people decide and let the advocates on both sides have their say. Let us apply reason as best we can. I don't want to hear that it will save 150 lives because I know it won't and I don't want to hear about what happens in whatever part of Australia. For me even if 10 lives were saved that would be enough. I do realise that some will feel that giving such powers to the gardaí is questionable.
I know they can already stop and test you in reality. But this is not about them and us. This is about all of us being responsible. I am in favour for the greater good.
Maurice Neligan is a cardiac surgeon.