Second Reading of the New Bill
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Criticism of the Government's Road-safety Proposals is Mainly Directed at the Speed Limit in Built-up Areas By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent
THE DEBATE LAST TUESDAY.
HE second-reading debate in the 1 House of Commons on the Road Traffic Bill last Tuesday revealed that, in the main, the measure was welcomed, what criticism there was being directed almost entirely at the provisions in regard to the reimposition of a speed limit for motorcars. On the.majority of the other points in the Bill the impression given by the discussions was that, whilst opinion was by no means unanimous, whatever minor amendments were desirable or necessary could well be left to the committee stage.
Without going into the details of the Bill, the Minister of Transport, Mr, Oliver Stanley, gave a general survey of its purport, pointing out, incidentally, that what he was proposing was only a part, and not necessarily the most important part, of the action that would have to be taken if the whole road problem was to be solved. He had definitely drafted the measure so that it would be impossible for the speed limit in built-up areas to be extended into a general speed limit, because he entirely agreed with the decision that had been taken by Mr. Herbert Morrison to abolish such a general speed limit.
DEFINITION OF A BUILT-UP AREA.
HE had adopted the definition of a. built-up area as one where there was street lighting, because street lighting did more or less coincide with built-up areas, but there were provisions in the Bill for dealing with exceptions. Such a case was that of the by-pass road where street lighting had been provided but which could not justly be termed a built-up area. It could be excluded from the speed-limit regulations either by the local authority or by himself after a public inquiry.
The same procedure could be followed in regard to a street which, say, went through a village and was clearly a built-up area but had no street lighting and which should be included as one of the areas to have a speed limit. The existing right of local authorities to apply for special speed limits was left untouched by the Bill, but he was not going to allow them to deal with the whole matter piecemeal. They would have to prepare schemes, and the part of the Bill concerned would not become effective until he could deal with the exceptions on a wholesale scale.
TESTS FOR DRIVERS.
I N regard to the tests for drivers, Mr.
Stanley said that his real object was not to put people off the roads but to put them on the roads with some sense of responsibility and some knowledge of the code behind them. The general run of people would pass the test. As to pedestrians' crossings, this was an experiment the possibilities of which, in view of the experience gained in Paris, could not be overlooked.
Outside London he would lay down certain regulations governing the conduct of various kinds of traffic, and it would be for the local authorities to submit schemes to him for the establishment of the crossings in their areas. The position in London was different, because there the experiment had already started on a voluntary basis. He hoped that the voluntary effort would be a success, but if not he would make it compulsory in order to protect people against themselves.
IMPROVING THE INSURANCE POSITION.
O'equestion of insurance against third-party risks there had been revealed some gaps that could be closed. Where a policy had been obtained by a mis-statement the insurance company at present could repudiate the policy and leave it to the injured person, by a very laborious method, to find out whether or not the company was entitled to repudiate.
. Under the new provision the company would become liable as soon as the injured person secured a judgment, so long as the car was being used within the terms of the policy. It would then be for the insurance company to get a declaration from the court saying that the company was entitled to repudiate the policy, which it would get only if it could prove non-disclosure of important facts in the policy.
THE ONUS OF ROAD-SAFETY RESPONSIBILITY.
THE succeeding,debate centred more around the question of actual road accidents than the technicalities of the Bill, many suggestions being put forward for lessening the risks of the road. These, in general, were on the basis that the responsibility for care lay, on a "fifty-fifty basis, on the motorist and the pedestrian, although Mr. Isaac Foot went so far as to say that they could not deal with the problem until the whole onus was put on the motorist,
" PANIC LEGISLATION."
THIS roused Lt.-Col. Moore-Brabas I zon, who was almost alone in his absolute opposition to the Bill. He could see very little good in it and, in tact, described it as "absolutely panic legislation.' He thought the Minister was undoing the work of Mr. Morrison, the aspect which he was most up against being that of the new speed limit, which he prophesied would mean "traps once more all over the country.
Other members who followed also came down heavily on the imposition of the speed limit in built-up areas, and it was asked that, instead of an arbitrary limit in all such areas, there should be varying limits according to expert opinion in the different areas.
SUMMING UP THE DEBATE.
rOL. ILEADLAM, Parliamentary 1../Secretary to the Ministry, summed ap the debate with a reiteration of the assurances given by the Minister on a number of points, notably those concerning pedestrian paths, driving tests, the proper administration of the law, and the speed limit. To the criticism that pedestrian paths were merely being painted on the roadways and not picked out in permanent steel studs, his reply was that, as yet, the Government were merely experimenting, and that probably in the end they would out-Paris Paris in the provision of these sanctuaries, for _pedestrians.
So far as driving tests were concerned he was emphatic that it was not the intention simply to ask for a proof of the applicant's mechanical capabilities, but that his knowledge of the highway code would also be -Liken into account, although as yet it could not be said very definitely what form the actual test would take. In regard to the administration of the law the House could rest assured that the legislation they were discussing would be fully enforced.
On the question of the speed limit, there was no intention whatever to reestablish a general limit. The larger number of accidents occurred in builtup areas. There was no opposition to the Bill as a whole, and it was given an agreed second reading.
PROPORTION OF BUILT-UP AREAS.
I T should be added that in reply to Sir Wm. Brass before the debate took place, Col. Headlam stated that of the 177,347 miles of public streets and roads in Great Britain, 41,640 miles, or 23 per cent, of the total, were situated in the areas of urban authorities, but he was not in a position to say what proportion of this mileage was streetlit, nor, of course, could he forecast what action the local authorities would take for the exclusion of particular roads from the effects of the Bill.