Abolish the Coach Speed Limit
Page 31
Page 32
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
BEFORE the Road Traffic Act was placed upon the Statute Book over a year ago we severely criticized certain provisions of the First Schedule with regard to speed limits, and in particular that clause re stricting the public passen ger-carrying vehicle to 30 m.p.h., and we are led to return to the subject as a result of important overtures which may shortly be made to the Minister of . Transport for the raising of the limit to at least 40 m.p.h. This speed exceeds the 35 m.p.h. which we originally recommended as a satisfactory maximum, but, in the light of the past year's experience, we see no reason why the higher figure should not be perfectly safe, or, indeed, why there should be any need at all for a limit for a passenger vehicle.
The modern coach, with its flexible engine, powerful and quick-acting brakes and reliable tyre equipment, is quite stable at high speeds, so that there can be no question as to i s mechanical safety, especially as the fitness of vehicles now receives very close attention from the authorities. Furthermore, such machines are subject to expert maintenance surveillance which is of a high order. Is it reasonable, then, that the private-car driver should be unrestricted% as to speed, whilst his commercial confrere is legallY bound to observe a maximum speed which re• . duces to-an irritatingly low limit the-average he Is able to maintain over long distances? From personal experience and obserVation we have noted numerous cases of the present limit being a definite factor lead lng to unsafe driving. A stream of traffic composed of vehicles falling into different speed categories must inevitably create difficulties, especially in such matters as overtaking and drawing out to pass, both of which cause many accidents, either directly or indirectly.
A higher rate of speed for coaches would reduce the occasions when overtaking, is necessary and be a strong factor in reducing the number of road accidents.
In dealing with any representation which is made to him, the Minister is, therefore, invested with a grave responsibility and it is to be hoped that he will not dismiss the matter without giving mature consideration to the many important points involved.
Safe driving is, of course, imperative, but this, ipso facto, is not necessarily correlated with comparatively low speeds. We think that it would be 'better to impose a rigid standard of driving and physical efficiency for the driver than to handicap the vehicle. If this be done, the majority of existing drivers would have little to fear, for they are well aware of their responsibilities and. drive with caution and a proper regard for other road users. It would, hoWever, weed out from their ranks that type of man who, because he is In charge of a big vehicle, behaves as though he had prior right to the road, whatever the state of traffic flow.
A speed of, say, 40 m.p.h. would mean an average of about 30 m.p.h., and it would reduce the inclination on the part of drivers to travel at high rates in well-populated areas, but, at the same time, enable good speeds to be maintained on the open road. Furthermore, it would considerably ease the bugbear of traffic congestion which results from a vehicle travelling at a comparatively low speed leading a line of accumulated traffic and forming a convoy which cannot be passed without a considerable measure of risk.
Passing on the Near Side.
rri HE advent of the fast bus has created a• habit of driving which is, to say the least of • it, regrettable. At one time, when these vehicles were slow Compared with private-car traffic, they were, at any rate in the Metropolis and other large centres of traffic, given space close . to the kerb, whilst the faster traffie kept more to the centre. Now that the speeds are more equal, the car traffic still hugs the centre of the road, but the buses speed up or stop, as the case may be, near the kerb.
The outer line or lines of traffic now consist also of many commercial vehicles other than buses, and the speed of all these vehicles is , considerably slowed, as seldom is opportunity afforded to pass, and this constitutes one of the chief reasons for passing vehicles on the wrong side. The practice may be reprehensible, but it is essentially the fault of those drivers of fast or slow vehicles who persist in maintaining their positions on the outer fringe of the traffic, and many, whilst refusing to give way, are palpably annoyed when they are overtaken on the left.
We suggest that the mobile police could do some good if they instructed drivers of all vehicles, private or commercial, which at present impede the traffic flow, to keep well in to the near side and to turn out only when they wish to overtake other traffic. ,
Fewer Chassis Types in Future.
DURING the weeks preceding the Commercial Motor Show there will be given in this journal details of the chassis which are being prepared for future production. One tendency which is noticeable in many quarters is the simplification of manufacturers' programmes.
Obviously, it is not sound commercial policy to make many types of engine, with but small differences, and to repeat the same plan in con nection with other major components. The rational scheme, which was somewhat in evidence at the 1929 Show, consists of the production by each maker of a small range of major components and the combination of certain of them in various ways in order to provide vehicles of different pay-load capacities.
This system will, in many instances, be extended by makers already practising it, whilst others will adopt the principle. It may be thought that this is a point of interest only to the chassis manufacturer ! it is, however, the purchaser who will reap substantial benefits. The simplification of factory processes must result in lower prices and the reduction of the number of types of part will, in turn, eliminate much of the complication in spares services.