The new speed limits on Irish roads, which will come into effect next month, were not an issue in the general election.
In fact, they have never really been publicly debated at all. A report was commissioned by a Minister, a recommendation was made, and now some lucky sod or sods will get the considerably hefty contract to replace all of those nice road signs saying “100” with equally nice road signs saying “80”.
This being Ireland, we can be sure of one thing: The new limits will be debated extensively, but only after they have already been imposed. If there is one thing that I can guarantee you, dear reader, it is this: Next week local and national radio phone-in shows will allow the public to have their say. Opinions will range between the correct opinion (that the new limits are a nanny state outrage) to the incorrect and evidence-free opinion (that the new limits will save lives, even though few people are killed by drivers obeying the limits) to my favourite kind of radio-phone in show opinion, that of the self-righteous bore (“I never go above 50 myself Joe, you just need to leave yourself plenty of time”).
In any case, it is a strange form of democracy, that such a major change to our laws, affecting so many thousands of people – lengthening commutes and journey times across the country – might be enacted with so little involvement from the people who allegedly have the final say on all of our laws – the voting public.
But of course this is how most of our laws are made. General elections are a funny thing and we might be able to reflect on that with more clarity given how recent the last one was. Think back to that election campaign and ask yourself how many issues were actually discussed: There was the generic “we will build more houses than themfellas” and the usual “We will give you more money in your pension and child benefit than the other crowd”, but those are ultimately accounting matters, not major questions of policy.
The actual laws we live under, that affect thousands of us daily, are rarely put before us to be openly debated. Leave speed limits out of it and think of something like vaping: The Government is to launch one of its patented wars on vaping over the next few years, cracking down on a tobacco alternative enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of ex-smokers, and likely driving up their costs while driving down their liberty. Does it actually have a democratic mandate to do so, or will those laws, like so many others, ultimately be the handywork of a small clique of campaigners and lobbyists and NGOs who have managed to make themselves the font of most policy?
Like the speed limits, we’ll have a public conversation about those laws as well. After they have passed.
By this mechanism, I would argue, are we all afforded the illusion that our views on things really matter.
On the question of these new speed limits, my own views are clear: That this is a historic nonsense, without even a hint of justification.
First, it is a simple fact that car safety today is leagues ahead of where it was when our roads were built. The brakes are better, the suspensions are better, the automated crash avoidance systems are better, and the airbags are better. Second, our roads are immeasurably safer than they once were.
Consider the following: In 1989, when we had a far smaller population, 460 people died on Irish roads. That was not a massive anomaly: The figure for 1988 was 463 and the figure for 1990 was 478.
For 2021, 22, and 23, those figures were 134, 155, and 185 respectively. Even as the population has more than doubled, road deaths have fallen by far more than half.
Obviously, Government will try to take some credit for that: They will say that they have improved the roads (correct) and that they have increased awareness of road safety (correct) and that they have done things like make seatbelts mandatory (correct). All of those are factors. The other factor is that you are many more times likely to survive a crash in a 2024 Toyota Corolla than you were in its 1989 equivalent.
The other point here is that trying to eradicate road deaths is an utter nonsense, which simply is not possible without banning cars. Without wishing to be cruel, there will always be people who step out from behind obstacles into the paths of cars, just like a dozen or so unfortunate foxes do on our roads every night. There will always be people who lose control in low speeds because of Ice or snow. There will always be people who look down to change a radio station at the wrong time, at the cost of their lives.
The question we should be asking is one of balance: What restrictions on the public are justified to achieve an unknown further reduction in road deaths, when the restrictions are certain and the benefits uncertain?
Nobody – no politician or expert – can tell you how many lives these new limits will save. But I can tell you for certain that the journeys of thousands of motorists will be delayed, frustrations will mount, speeding offences will rocket this year, and all of us will be little bit more burdened by Government than we are this week.
Anyway, we can discuss it all next week, once the law has been passed and the public finally decide that it’s time to debate it. As usual.