Road Transport Topics in Parliament
Page 46
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Ministry Censured By The Lords By Our Special
ALNESS REPORT UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED.
AEMBERS of the House of Lords 1,Y1 expressed their opinions last week, not only on the Report of the Select Committee on Road Accidents but also on the shortcomings of the Ministry of Transport. Lord Newton moved that the Reportshould be taken into consideration so soon as was practicable.
' Pointing out that it was a unanimous report, he outlined some of the more important recommendations.
The Committee had taken the view that no financial recompense should accrue to drivers who had committed grave offences. That seemed common sense. He supposed the chief objection would proceed from the insurance companies, as their premiums would become lower. He hoped this particular proposal would be carefully brought before the Minister of Transport.
As to imitating the autobahnen, he commented that Germany was far bigger than this country and the
population less dense. The German motorways cost £30,000 a mile. Here the cost might be £60,000 a mile. At £50,000 a mile, 100 miles would cost £5,000,000, which, at the present time, would be reckless and useless expenditure.
REGULATE CYCLISTS AND WALKERS.
UE was a, member of the Pedestrians' 1 'Association, and sympathized strongly with their point of view, They said, with truth, that the Committee had not sufficiently appreciated that the fundamental cause of accidents was speed. However, if onerous conditions were to be imposed on motor drivers, motorcyclists and cyclists, it was unreasonable for pedestrians to object to being restricted.
Cyclists were the chartered libertines of the road. They were subject to no restraint at all. They were not taxed, registered or numbered, nor obliged to insure, to ride on the tracks specially provided for them, to report accidents or to carry bells or brakes. All that must come to an end. It was nonsense that they were in a different position from everybody else. Numbering about 15,000,000, they were a formidable body of which all party politicians were afraid. That was the sole reason why they had not been regulated up to now.
He appealed to the Minister of Transport speedily to deal with the question, which gained urgency daily. If he would put into force the recommendations, a great change would be made and this national disgrace, so aptly described by the Committee as "the holocaust of the roads," might be mitigated.
Parliamentary Correspondent MINISTRY'S INADEQUACY.
QPEAKING as a member of the
Roads Group, Lord Eltisley praised the Report and the Committee for its courage in dealing with a Government Department. Its members said that the Ministry had shown lack of vision, of initiative and of driving force in dealing with matters affecting accidents.
On 750 miles of main road the width was less than 30 ft. and there were in the whole country only 189 miles of dual carriageways, only 38 miles of cycle tracks and no fewer than 4,000 level crossings over railways, of which 200 were within Greater London.
At the rate at which they were being dealt with now, it would he 200 years before they were all done away with. Thousands of danger signs cluttered our roadways. Each was a condemnation of the road.
Where danger signs abounded, steps should be taken to improve the road: yet only £1,327,000 was spent by the Minister upon improving major roads. It was distressing that so little money was devoted to the roads when so much was expected of them. Road exits from London remained as in 1888.
Two principal facts emerged from the Report —Motor drivers had been amply regulated and legislated for under present conditions. The condition of the roads was responsible for too many of the accidents and traffic had far outgrown their capacity.
It was unfair, when over £100,000,000 was raised annually by licence and petrol duty, that something under £25,000,000, or less than 3d. in the shilling, was returned by way of betterment of the roads.
He regretted the setting aside of the Bressey Report and hoped the decision in connection with it to limit the Exchequer grant to 60 per cent. would be reconsidered. He hoped this debate would do something to shake departmental apathy and self-complacency, and that the do-little or do-nothing departmental policy that had been seen would be replaced by an energetic and forceful attempt to carry out the many excellent recommendations in the Alness Report.
TRAVELLING COURTS IMPRACTICABLE.
THE Marquess of Reading touched on the question of special travelling Courts. He said the suggestion was made prohibitive by two overriding factors—the colossal expense—something like 210,000,000—and the army of barristers.
SPEED NOT THE CAUSE OF ACCIDENTS.
5TRESS was laid by Lord Alness en the unanimity of the Report, and he hoped the Government would see to it that the solution of this major domestic problem should not be allowed to suffer because of the pressure of external affairs.
With regard to the roads in Germany, it was an impressive fact that the deputation was unanimous in recommending such roads in this country. Still more impressive and important was the fact that the initiation of these roads in Germany had resulted in a most startling decrease of fatalities.
The most serious cause of road accidents was not, as frequently contended, the speed of a motor vehicle. After the 20 m.p.h. limit was removed the toll of the roads was less than for a number of years preceding it. Furthermore, the great majority of accidents took place within the restricted areas.
In conclusion, he implored the Government to give early .a,nd earnest consideration to the Report and to translate its recommendations into statutory form without avoidable delay.
ONE SPEED LIMIT URGED.
TRIBUTE was paid by Earl Howe and other Peers to the really wonderful work of the Select Committee. There were some very serious criticisms of the Ministry of Transport in the Report. He (Earl Howe) was connected with an important body, representing the whole of the commercialmotor world.
What did they find in paragraph four of the Report? That the Committee was not impressed by the evidence regarding the organization and working of 'the Department, etc. What more serious view could be taken by a Committee? And there was no dissent from it.
He questioned whether the Ministry took sufficient heed of loss of life and limb on the highway.
No less than 13 paragraphs levelled criticism against the Ministry. There were five other paragraphs that criticized it by implication.
There was one thing he was sorry the Committee did not recommend (he spoke for the motor-vehicle industry), namely, that there should be only one • speed limit for commercial motors. One of the things that created difficulty and danger on the highway was varying speeds. He thought restricted areas should be reduced.
A report of the Government's reply is given on page 462.