Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE ROAD SAFETY Authority could lose its responsibility for NCT and driving tests, which is a move recommended in a draft report on the organisation, Minister of State at the Department of Transport James Lawless has said.
Speaking on RTÉ Radio today, Lawless said that the RSA “perhaps needs to go back to basics” and focus on its road safety promotion remit, adding that “all options are on the table” when it comes to reforming the agency.
The draft report seen by Lawless recommends that the RSA be relieved of its testing duties, which Lawless described as a “likely” outcome. Although a new funding model would be needed as most of the agency’s income comes from test fees.
“It is overdue,” Lawless said of the report. “And it’s prompted partly from ongoing operational issues with the NCT testing, driver testing,” Lawless said, pointing to a backlog left by the Covid-19 pandemic.
“There were very significant and unacceptable delays coming on the back of Covid and they have been brought back into service levels in terms of waiting times, but they’re still not quite where they need to be. There’s still some delays outstanding.”
Lawless said that the RSA’s managing of testing could detract from its “core mission” of “ultimately road safety advocacy and awareness campaigns”.
“So we need to have a look and see is the RSA, as currently structured, as currently resourced, really optimising its core mission, which is road safety advocacy? And is everything else where it should be in terms of ownership and agencies and responsibilities?” Lawless said.
Lawless suggested that there could be a new national agency set up to take over testing.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Time for a vote on 8th amendment again. It is incompatible with real life.
Why should somebody be forced to carry a baby to full term knowing full well that the baby will not survive birth / survive long outside the womb ..surely this is what incompatible with life really is.
PS my own mother had 3 babies that did not survive being born and it had an effect on her.
I have to say, I do agree in a way. The only issue I have is the effects on a woman who decides to have a termination because she has been told by doctors her baby is incompatible with life. It’s not going to just make everything easier because the baby doesnt exist anymore. As a woman myself, I think I would have this lingering thought of ‘what if they were wrong’. It has happened. I don’t know what I would be haunted with more; the memory of seeing my child die, or the thought that maybe if I made a different decision it may have lived. I know this doesnt offer anything to the debate. Just more a thought.
Absolutely right and for me this is a straightforward area where abortion could be used to improve the welfare of a mother. After all why should women like your mother, god bless her have to carry a still born child full term?
As long as there is absolutely no doubt in the minds of a number of doctors then yes a baby that is due to be born that will only last a few days should be aborted if the mother so wishes.
As long as we do not get ourselves into a position where we do what Canada do and allow women to abort babies almost up to full term. I would even be content with conceding that a foetus of 1-6 weeks is acceptable vs what they do!!
Exactly. That’s a hard position to reach though. I think people seem to thibk that terminations are just easy, like they are not as traumatic as someone’s baby dying. They are not like getting a tooth pulled. It can be mentally scarring as much as anything else. I am not a pro life and person, but I think people have taken the stance that termination is just the best option. It’s can be hugely psychologically scarring.
I don’t want my comments to be construes as saying terminations are a bad idea in certain citations. They can be. I just think that people are on this termination bandwagon without realising how big a deal they are and how emotionally traumatic it can be. A woman makes a connection to their baby whether it’s 10 weeks in or at the end of their pregnancy.
That’s why the abortion should happen in Ireland and the women should get proper support vs having to go to England in secret and travel back the next day to carry on with their lives hoping no one finds out.
Spiderman, you haven’t got your facts straight. 90% of abortions in Canada occur before 12 weeks when there is absolutely no chance of sentience in the embryo/foetus. Only 0.4% occur after 20 weeks and these are almost always in the cases of Fatal Foetal Abnormality (most of these cases are only diagnosed after 20 weeks) and risk to the woman’s health or life.
Like most countries where abortion is legal, elective abortion is not allowed after 24 weeks, it is only allowed in very exceptional cases at that stage.
Most women who do not want to be pregnant will have an abortion as quickly as possible which is far easier to do when its legal, our laws cause women to have later term abortions in the UK because they need time to raise the travel money etc.
Canada considers abortion a matter for healthcare not the law. The figures are very similar in other countries where abortion is legal.
http://www.arcc-cdac.ca/postionpapers/22-Late-term-Abortions.PDF
Only 0.4% and that makes it somewhat alright. Easy to hide behind statistics Kelly.
Well done to these brave families, I love their work on Facebook, they’ve made me and many others realise that their babies were valuable and not incompatible with life – what a horrible term. Why are people being nasty about this? Unreal.
Hi Amy, maybe look at the lovely videos on http://www.everylifecounts.ie to see the great joy and healing these families who carried to term received from time with baby.
Good for them, but the point is that it is not up to anybody to make that choice on the part of parents.
Incompatible with logic.
Ret@rded cretins!
Why can’t the money they are spending on this trip be given to a children’s charity like Childline? They only seem to care about children not even born yet.
Exactly. So obsessed with the unborn, and never hear again for them when babies are born without a brain, born addicted to drugs to junkies on the street, born to a rape victim who can’t look at the child she was forced to give birth to all because of opinionated arrogant religious crazies that want to force their opinions and ideals on others. In a direct sense of the term, I am pro life, of course I am, everyone is. I am pro life as in pro quality of life for everyone who is born into this world. But sometimes, abortion is needed for this to happen.
Kanye
Wow
Life has to mean more than a heartbeat…if my brain activitys gone my advance directive says do not resuscitate, why im ‘alive’ right? Technically..but im not aware, im not self coincious, i cant even dream..my lifes over.
Not always that simple sure but you hear cases of infants born with no eyes or limbs..what quality of life is thst? Tha ought b the key phrase. Why should parents not have the option to avoid a life of hell for them and a life of zero quality for their child? Early, before 14 weeks? Lifes not the key threshold we should argue personhood n quality of life are
Apart from your loose grasp of English you’re spot on. Pro-life will never distinguish between living and just being alive. They don’t care who suffers.
My english is fine, its my typing thats shit
It seems absurd to me that these people are lobbying to have a clinical definition redefined based on an emotional experience. To put this in context if I were to lobby the airline industry and ask that “crash landings” be redefined as “gravity defying landings” as many people have survived them and I have had a personal experience of one, I’d be laughed at. The only reason that doesn’t happen with these people is that this is such an emotive issue.
@ Ryan – children born with no eyes or limbs.. Why should parents not have the right to avoid a life of hell for them? (By aborting them)
Blind people are all miserable? People missing limbs cant live happy lives? Some people might find that pretty offensive. Like blind people and amputees. They may not see themselves as being less “worthy” or “incompatible with life” such that they should have just been aborted.
Your point here seems less about FFA and more about eugenics by way of selective abortions.
“Incompatible with life” – i think the first step must be to agree on a precise definition of this. It seems that currently different people have different interpretations of what it means, then how can we have a proper discussion on it in the first place.
So they get to choose what they want to do when faced with an awful choice but nobody else does. It’s NOT acceptable under any circumstances.
I would have thought that describing a child who has failed to form some of its major organs who will die as a result of having the umbilical cord cut would be “incompatible with life”, this to me seems to be a statement of fact rather than a slur.
These are not mere “disabilities”, this is the equivalent of a person who is completely reliant upon life support intervention having the machines switched off.
It will be interesting to hear their argument. Because I can see a few holes in it already, I would like to know how they propose to patch over them.
Zero compassion from Shanti. These people loved their children, and they want discrimination to end.
I do not doubt that they loved their babies, are you getting to insinuate that someone who went for a termination in these circumstances doesn’t??
And yet you attack me for what you have decided is “a lack of compassion”.. No one is telling these women they had to abort. And no one on the pro choice side would support that. We would like the option to be there for those who feel it’s the best option *for them*, it’s not a one size fits all sort of a situation. For some people carrying a foetus that cannot survive birth is an extremely traumatic experience, where’s your or this groups compassion for them?
These people are very annoying
That’s masterly understatement, Gis!
I’m disgusted that they describe the word ret@rd and the PHRASE incompatible with life as being as bad as each other.
What planet do these people live on?
well said Brian but we need abortion for fatal foetal abnormalities..it should be required of Ireland as a modern EU state to provide it. Itd make you sick to thick it isnt.
The Irish Taliban
Pro-birth, not pro-life
Now there is an idea, why not send a delegation to have the “pro-life” phrase removed?
i.e: “Pro Life group believes life is in black and white and there are no such things as grey areas.”
Suggested replacement: “One of God’s little tests”
What phrase do they want to use instead of “incompatible with life”? No mention of their suggestion in the article.
They don’t want it replaced, they want it removed so that people have no choice.
In their eyes the parents family etc even the unformed, malformed going to die or have an extremly unpleasent short life fetus is not important as long as they make it so it’s carried to term (dead or “alive”) and to hell with anyone else.
Psychopaths
Who are they?
And who is funding this little lobbying trip?
Denis O’Brien.
Seán is that really true?
@meninblackhoods – the group is called Every Life Counts… you can find them on facebook and youtube :)
Didn’t know “cretin” was considered offensive.
The terms “cretin” and “moron” were both originally technical terms referring to certain levels of intelligence and gradually became notorious to the public so were dropped by psychiatrists.
Fair play to them, they’re speaking the truth.
We need to remove every single reference to abortion from our constitution. It’s a matter that should be dealt with by regular legislation, the constitution is too inflexible for a subject with so many variables.
Gobsheens,right wing catholic nazis,most of them never had a ride in their life,
There they go again – hijacking the very language of our medical professionals. Double plus ungood!
For instance, if they are pro life, is everyone else anti life?
And according to them an abortion ceases to be an abortion if they deem the reason behind it worthy..
Good luck to them, nice to see a group stand up for what they believe in.
Lets go ailbhe……
Delighted to see this step. The term “incompatible with life” is not only offensive, but inaccurate.
http://necir.org/2014/12/18/physician-society-urges-better-understanding-of-new-prenatal-tests/
If the foetus cannot survive the severance of the umbilical cord, Be that because there’s no brain, no lungs, no kidneys, etc.. What do you think they should call it then?
“incompatible with life” is perhaps less offensive than “as good as dead”, would you not agree?
Just as the elderly, infirm, handicapped, very young cannot survive the withdrawal of sustainence. Pretty self defeating argument.
Only when you’re arguing with a straw man.
Until the umbilical cord is cut the foetus is *contingent*, not merely reliant, upon the woman it resides within. If she dies, so does the foetus unless it has already become viable.
To compare this to a born person in any way shape or form is extremely disingenuous, because once born, ANYONE can care for that person. Be that hospital staff, care staff, or other members of society. They are not entirely dependent upon being *inside* someone else. I mean, what happens when an 11 week foetus is “born”? Could it be cared for by anyone else? No. Because it would die immediately upon severance of the umbilical cord.
In these cases, severance of the umbilical cord means certain death, even when the foetus has come to full term. The only thing keeping the foetus alive is the transference of nutrients and blood via the placenta, and the removal of waste via the same route. The foetus will never be capable of doing any of this for itself. It may be missing the brain to control all the processes. It’s heart may not be capable of sustaining a human, it might not have lungs, maybe it has no kidneys for waste removal. Some of its organs may have developed outside of its body. There are sadly quite a number of things that can and do go wrong, and they mean certain death upon birth.
This is a far cry from someone being dependent upon others for just their care.
My main problem with the phrase is that it has enough wriggle room to be extended to abortion on the grounds of handicap, I would suspect that this is intentional btw.
have your say