LONDON'S BOROUGH COUNCILLORS AND CHIEF COMMISSIONER.
Page 9
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A deputation from a large number of le Metropolitan Borough Councils
'aited on the Chief Commissioner of olice (Sir E. R. Henry) at Scotland .ard on Monday afternoon, with refernee to the alleged nuisance caused by iotor traffic. The Councils represenel were :--City of London, Bermondy, Camberwell, Chelsea, Finsbury, lampstead, Holborn, Islington, Kenngton, Lambeth, Lewisham, Padding_ )n, Marylebone, Stepney, WandsTorth, Woolwich and Westminster. 'hus, 12 of the Councils were not reresented. Mr. Snell, representing a irge number of property owners in laida Vale, was present.
The deputation was introduced by Sir ;eorge Fardell, M.P. (South Paddingan), who said that the question of deaL rig with this nuisance had been before he Councils ever since 1903, when the :ensington and Islington Councils conened a conference which passed several ecommendations; these Were forwarded to the Home Secretary and the 'resident of the Local Government 3oard. A deputation was received by he Home Secretary on the 24th of anuary at which, judging from the re ■ orts that had been published, the -tome Secretary rather gave them the old shoulder. They, however, derived 4)rne consolation from the fact that the -tome Secretary mentioned it as his rpinion, although not in these words, hat there should be some regularly con;tituted traffic board for the whole of _eondon. (Hear, hear.) In Paddington here was an outcry now, particularly tom the residents in Talbot Road, and hey had taken an eminent counsel's ipinion on the matter, and had been addied that, as the nuisance was caused s.y the general use by various motorbus :ompanies, the Council could take no letion. He was pleased to say that hat opinion was not held by all the :ounsel of London, as another eminent nember of the Bar had given an
>pinion directly opposite. Sir George )ointed out that the deputation was not .here in any spirit of hostility to the notorbus companies themselves (apAause), but it was thought that they ihould as far as practicable—as they sad the advantage of running over the )ublic streets without any other ex)ense than that of the upkeep of their nachines and licenses—place upon the itreets omnibuses which did not create iuch an intolerable nuisance as they do tow. He referred to the "Electrobus" vhich had recently commenced running rom Victoria to Liverpool Street, and scented out that this vehicle did not nake any noise as it went along. The thief thing that they had to complain )f was the noise and vibration, which le thought was caused by excessive ;peed. It was urged by the bus coin)anies that this was chiefly due to the condition of the roads, but he would )oint out that the Borough Councils ;ould not do more in this respect than
.hey already did. (Hear, hear.) He flanked the Commissioner of Police for what he had already done in the mater, but urged that something more mist be done in the shape 'of efficient legislation. There should not only be a traffic board appointed, but some further drastic powers must be given to the Commissioner of Police.
The Mayor of Chelsea (Hon. W. Sydney) said they had to complain of the serious nuisance caused in Sloane Street by the " Union Jack" line of buses which, he thought, were the noisiest in London. He believed this chiefly arose from the great weight of the vehicles. It was not so much in the daytime that they complained of the noise, as at night. The buses were running until one and two in the morning.
Mr. Snell spoke of the great damage done to property in the Maida Vale area. He represented property which paid .45,ofxr to ..„--7,00o a year in rates and taxes, and in the last nine months the owners had received £900 from tenants as compensation for giving up their flats, owing to the nuisance. So many people were giving up their flats that the landlords were asking now two years' rent instead of one. In one building., the rental of which was £2,750 a year, there was only one flat let at £5o. He had recently been offered ;4:70 for a flat which two years ago let at £.200 a year. He complained that they often had buses running three abreast down Maida Hill.
Mr. S. Alderton (City of London) said they were not troubled with the speed nuisance in the City, as the streets were too congested. Their greatest trouble was caused by the smoke. They had no wish to do away with motors, but they wished, if possible, to do away with their great weight. The vibration was extremely bad and nearly shook people off their scats, whilst the smoke nearly poisoned others. Another nuisance experienced in the City was that caused by the dropping of oil on the roads (hear, hear), and they strongly objected to the heavy engines which came along dragging two or three trailers behind them.
The Commissioner pointed out that these latter were licensed by the L.C.C., and he would forward the remarks of the deputation to that body_ Mr. J. S. Rubinstein (Kensington), who was chairman of the conference convened by Kensington and Islington Councils, said he thought the. resolutions carried at that conference were feasible ones, and would, if adopted, do away to a very large extent with the nuisance of which they complained.
The Conference thought the Commissioner of Police should be empowered to define the routes on which the buses could run. It passed a resolution dealing with the dropping.: of oil, which was pleased to notice, had been dealt with by the authorities. It thought the greatest possible care should be exer cised before licenses were given to drivers. Resolutions were also passed
dealing with traction. engines and the
hours at which they' should be used and the number of trailers they should be allowed to draw which should be reduced from three to two. He could not help thinking that London streets were not intended for this kind of traffic, and most of them were unsuitable for it. Mr. Saint (Islington) said the view taken by his Council was that there was a future before the motorbus and, if properly regulated, it would be most beneficial to London. His information was that a good deal of the smoke and noise were due to drivers' inexperience.
Aid. Worth (Paddington) emphasised. the alleged fact that the vehicles were too heavy. Aid. Wilkinson (Bermondsey) saikk his borough was not troubled with motorbuses or trams, but a great. nuisance was caused by the traction engines which travelled all night and all day and often broke down.
The Chief Commissioner, in replying,. pointed out that heavy motorcars were taking the place of the old traction engines. .The police had no power over them as regards noise. He quite agreeck that it was .desirable that soinelaodY should be empowered to define 'the routes to be used, but it should not 1).e himself. He had received many complaints of vibration and noise, but bethought this was often caused by the state of the roads, an opinion also expressed by the Departmental Committee which enquired into the matter. On the question of noise, special officers were on duty to detect noisy buses and, when one was reported, theowners were served with a two days' notice to abate the nuisance or take thebus off the streets. Railway vans,. milk carts and brewers' drays often caused more noise than motorbuses. Hewas in entire agreement with them in saying that the Motorbuses were too heavy, but the " Electrobus " to which they had referred was about 50 per cent. heavier. The police had no jurisdiction over the construction of the buses and could only approve the type. In the matter of licenses, the police were very careful, and he was constantly receiving letters from M.P.s complaining that their constituents had been refused licenses. During the year, 587 prosecutions for excessive speed, or careless driving, had taken place, and 6,211 buses had been put off the street& mostly for defects causing oil dropping or smoke. During the past 12 months,. there were 11,386 cases of personal in-jury in the streets, of which 6,8o8 were caused by horse-drawn vehicles and 4,578 by motors. Of these 256 were fatal, horse-drawn vehicles being responsible for 162 and motors for 94... There were 1,064 cases of personal injury caused by motorbuses, 1,705 by motorcars and 1,809 by electric trams._ He thought that, if they had all the information before them which he was able to give them, they might be ableto suggest something for him to do.. He could assure them the police did all in their power. He would be doinewrong if he held out anyhope that the nuisance would be abated. The machines were passing through a process. of evolution and they must look to that to improv.e matters. $o long as they had mechanical traction they would have noise.
Sir George Fardell, thee thanked the Commissioner.