WRITES . . may be the signal for a
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
drive against the speeding lorry driver.'
WHEN the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles was raised from 20 to 30 m.p.h. in May, 1957, the Minister of Transport at the time, Mr. Harold Watkinson, was widely praised for taking a step before which his predecessors one after another had faltered. After nearly six years, it is difficult to remember for what reason the decision was considered so courageous. In order to bolster up the Government's morale, manufacturers and operators had even found it necessary to set up a special committee or pressure group dedicated to the cause of the higher limit.
No similar shot in the arm has been provided for Mr. Ernest Marples. If anything, he has met more opposition or passive resistance than Mr. Watkinson. He has largely had to fight his .own battle, in spite of the fact that the Ministry's committee on road safety was proposing a speed limit of 40 m.p.h. for some goods vehicles as long ago as 1958. The lapse of time would seem to argue some hesitation in following up the recommendation, but the new regulations have made their way through both Houses of Parliament with no more fuss than would be devoted to almost any piece of legislation.
Mr. Marples may have expected warm approval from some of the interests concerned. If so, he has been disappointed. The vehicle manufacturers could hardly fail to give some measure of welcome for a new limit that is more in keeping with the standards of their products and that will encourage them to develop even better vehicles. The operators have been hardly lukewarm. Some of them have gone through the motions of what is expected of them and offered the Minister their congratulations. Others have shrugged their shoulders.
For the most part, the general public have lined them selves up against the new speed limit. Pedestrians and motorists maintain that faster lorries will mean more accidents. The trade unions representing the drivers of the vehicles argue that more speed involves harder work and greater danger. The popular Press have sensed the popular mood, and have welcomed the new limit, not as the sensible relaxation it undoubtedly is, but as additional ammunition for a diatribe against the goods vehicle.
FAVOURABLE ARGUMENTS
There are several favourable arguments that the Government has advanced. It believes that the heavy vehicle, against which more of the criticism is concentrated, is on the whole well maintained and well driven, and is now designed and built to operate safely at 40 m.p.h. where the conditions are right. This is the speed, in fact, at which most commercial vehicles travel on motorways where there is no speed limit. There are plans to apply a general limit of 40 m.p.h. more widely, and on stretches of road where this is in force it will be an advantage if all the vehicles are entitled to travel at the same rate, just as on other• roads, if lorries can more closely match the speed of other vehicles, it may help traffic flow and reduce overtaking.
834 Some of these items are valid and some more doubtful. There seems to be no suggestion that the new concessions will have much effect either on journey times or, what is really relevant, on the operational efficiency of a vehicle. This is clear to every operator, and probably also to most of his drivers, but to the general public the argument seems wilful obscurantism. Most people cannot understand why higher speeds do not automatically mean an increased volume of work.
It depends entirely upon the point from which the speed is measured. Only the motorist is concerned solely with journey time. Once he knows when he wishes to arrive, he can arrange his time of departure accordingly. If he can cut down on the journey, he will stay a little longer before setting out. The scheduled service by train, bus or lorry cannot fluctuate in this way, and the person using it must arrive at the station or depot on time, irrespective of when he may be expected at the other end. Road transport also makes it possible for the consignor to decide when the goods shall be picked up, but again this may have no bearing on the most favourable time for delivery.
NOT SNEER SPEED
In other words, sheer speed is not the only consideration. Otherwise, the railways could have no possible doubts that their new liner trains would capture all the traffic they wanted. Each journey by road has to be considered separately. There will be a few cases where the higher speed will significantly shorten the time between collection and delivery. There are other cases where it makes no difference. From reports so far, it would appear that there are unlikely to be any massive improvements in operating conditions.
The Ministry must have been aware of this, but still went ahead with its new regulations. The reason for its persistence may well exercise the minds of operators and drivers. It is a notorious fact that even with a 30 m.p.h. limit a large proportion of commercial vehicles travelled at 40 m.p.h. or even faster. In spite of this, there were few prosecutions. In a sense, the new limit merely brings the law into line with practice, to the indignation of the critics, who suggest that with such encouragement lorries will thunder along faster than ever.
They could easily be wrong in this deduction. The Minister believes in harsh penalties for infringements of the traffic laws and in strict enforcement. While the limit remained at 30 m.p.h., the authorities may have envisaged a storm of indignation at prosecutions for exceeding a rate of travel well below the comfortable cruising speed of the modern type of vehicle. There cannot be as many protests now that the permitted speed is 10 m.p.h. greater. The passing of the new speed limit regulations may be the signal for a drive against the speeding lorry driver. It must be remembered also that, if he is found guilty of three traffic offences in three years, he automatically stands in danger of losing his licence and his livelihood at One stroke.