Road Transport Activities
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN PARLIAMENT
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent
THIRD READING OF ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.
THE House of Commons gave a third reading to the Road Traffid' Bill last Friday. The Report stage was begun the previous day, but the Bill was first re-committed to enable one or two amendments to be made by the Minister of Transport on Clause 1 dealing with the general speed limit of 30 m.p.h. Sub-section 7 was lei i out and a new sub-section substituted providing that it should be the duty of the local authority :— (s) to erect and maintain traffic signs in such positions. as may ha requisite in order to give effect to general or other directions given by the Minister for the purpose of securing that adequate guidance is given to drivers of motor vehicles as to the places where a length of road begins, and ceases, to be a road in a built-up area, or as to a direction being in force RA respects a length of road that it Shall be deemed to be, or not to be, a read in a built-up area; and • (51 to Sitar Or remove traffic signs as may be requisite in order to give effect to such direc tions as aforesaid, either in consequence of the making of an order by the Minister under Subsection (5) of this Section or otherwise,
WARNING SIGNS ON A LARGE SCALE.
CONSTDER A131, E discussion took place on the proposal. Mr. Stanley wid the original scheme was that an area where a lighting system was provided should be considered a built-up area, but there were a number of marginal cases. Therefore, machinery was provided for treating as built-up areas some portion of road on which lighting was not provided and vice versa. It was intended that these exceptione shpuld be separately and definitely marked.
Colonel Moore-Brabazon hoped there would be an indication of going out of the speed limit area as well as coming into it. He thought the 30-m.p.h. limit was absurd ; it was too fast in some areas or too slow in others. Mr. Isaac Foot hoped there would be limits of 10 m.p.h. through some of the exceptionally dangerous parts. Mr. Stanley remarked that it would still be open to the Local Authority to apply for a special speed limit, and that in the de-restricted areas signs would be placed upon the lamps, not only at the beginning and end of an area, but at regular intervals along it.
Sir W. Brass proposed that the signs should be prescribed signs. Mr. Stan ley replied that uniformity of signs was ensured in future throughout the country and the signs erected under this Bill would be no exception. One or two other amendments were discussed and withdrawn and the Minister's proposed new sub-section was agreed to. The House then considered the Bill on report, and a new clause was agreed to whereby in the case of a charge of dangerous or reckless driving the Court may direct or allow a charge of careless driving to be substituted. 241 voted for the new clause and 21 against.
PENALTIES FOR BREACH OF SPEED LIMIT REGULATIONS.
A LONG discussion took place on an amendment by Sir W. Brass to -leave out Clause I. Mr. Stanley reiterated his belief that the general 30-m.p.h. limit would result in a reduction of accidents. He had recognized its experimental nature by providing that it would come to an end at a certain date, but he hoped the Minister of Transport might theU have solid facts to justify its continuance. The amendment was defeated by 187 votes to 30.
An amendment was agreed to to eliminate imprisonment as one of the penalties for -exceeding the speed limit. Mr. Stanley pointed out that some alternative would be necessary later to ensure that drivers of commercial vehicles were particularly relieved from the penalty.
Another amendment which was agreed to had the effect that a man shall not be debarred from getting a clean licence if his only 'endorsement is one in respect of a conviction more than a year old for exceeding the speed limit.
DRIVER'S MATE UNNECESSARY.
1% DOBBIE moved a new clause
1Virequiring that in the case of heavy motorcars there should be a second man on the vehicle as in the case of heavy and light locomotives. Colonel Headlam said the Government could see no grounds for requiring two persons. The trailer was in a different position. On a division the proposal was defeated by 239 votes to 38.
RAILWAY OPPOSITION TO APPLICATIONS.
!UR. McKEAG moved a new clause 1V1to the effect that the rights of iailway companies to make representations before the Commissioners in regard to applications by bus operators for road service licences should be limited to the presentation of the time and fare tables of the services provided. He contended that this would restrict the practice of the railway companies in carrying on hearings for interminable lengths. Mr. Stanley said he could not see how co-ordination could be carried out if one of the principal constituents was to be refused the right of proper representation. He could not accept the clause.
A proposal by Mr. Grenfell to prohibit a person under 21 from driving a heavy goods vehicle excecding`li ton in unladen weight was resisted by Colonel Headlam, who thought young men perfectly capable of handling such vehicles, and was rejected by 206 votes to 30.
THE SPLIT SHIFT,
4R. GRENFELL moved a new 1Viclause to modify section 19 of the principal Act for the regulation of drivers' working times and rest periods. He said that whilst the strict provisions of the law had been carried out, the conditions of continuous employment had led to the "split shift," which accomited for men being employed from early in the morning until late at night. Mr. Stanley explained that he could not accept this clause as it would take away from the Industrial Court the right of advising him upon this question. He was still prepared to discuss the matter with a view to getting some amelioration of the position.
An important new clause relating to contract carriages appears in our weekly feature, Operating Aspects of Passenger Transport, RESTRICTIONS ON INSURANCE POLICIES.
r-IN Clause 9, which refers to the L./avoidance of restrictions on the scope •of policies for third-party risks, a Government amendment was agreed to providing that where a certificate of insurance has been delivered under sub-section (5) of section 36 of the principal Act to the person by whom a policy had been effected, so much of the policy as purported to restrict the insurance of the persons insured, by reference to any of the following matters, should be of no effect:— fel The age or physical or mental condicion of persons driving the vehicle; or (h) the condition of the vehicle; or (c) the number of persons carried in the vehicle; or (di the weight. or physical characteristics of the goods carried in the vehicle; or lei the timesat which or • the areas within which the vehicle is used; Or if) the horsepower or value of the vehicle; or (o) the carrying on the vehicle of any particular apparatus; or (h) the carrying on the vehicle oi any particular means of Identification other than any means of identification recruired to be carried by or under the Roads Act, 1920.
The third reading of the Bill was afterwards agreed to without a division.
PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS.
AMOTION to annul the Regulations relating to pedestrian crossingplaces was discussed last week, but eventually withdrawn. Mr. Stanley intimated that in a few days he would be bringing into force the experiment at the uncontrolled crossings. They were going to put down places where their. uncontrolled use by pedestrians would not interfere greatly with the flow of traffic and upon those crossings pedestrians would have full rights.