TOO STRINGENT
Page 64
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
EFFORTS to mitigate the severity of clause 3 of the Road Traffic Bill have been encouraged by the trend . of the debate during the second reading in the House of Commons. Several of the speakers expressed regret that, after the Bill was passed, disqualification would be the only possible consequence of three licence endorsements in the space of three years for any offences out of a long and varied list, some serious enough, but others of the kind sometimes described as technical or trivial. Support for the clause came only from the Minister of Transport, Mr. Ernest Marples, and his Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Hay.
Except on this single point, there was nothing but praise for the Minister, so that, unfortunately for him, his refusal to budge gives more and more the impression of obstinacy. It was evident from the debate that there was considerable opposition from both sides of the House, and it is known that the organizations representing road transport employers and workers are also united on this issue. Commendable as his zeal may be; it is possible that in this instance it has taken the Minister too far.
If no vehicles were allowed on the roads, there would be no accidents. This could be achieved by Making the qualifications for holding a driving licence so difficult that nobody could measure up to them. Obviously, no Government would, wish to take the matter as far as this; the disadvantages would far outweigh the benefits, and public opinion would be outraged. It is not practical politics to multiply restrictions and penalties indefinitely. A reasonable compromise must be reached, and it could be argued that clause 3 of the Bill deviates far too greatly on the side of severity.
Not nearly enough relevant information is available on the subject. It might be found that too many restrictions and penalties made the matter worse rather than better. Perhaps the special research team promised by Mr. Hay will be giving this point some attention. The team will include people with experience in psychology as well as technical experts. They might like to investigate whether too many signs, exhortations and threats do not have the opposite effect to what is intended, whether they do not promote hesitation and anxiety—both undesirable attributes in a driver.
A.S usual, most of what the Minister had to say was salutary. He emphasized that nobody was entitled to assume that he had a "divine right" to a licence. It was a privilege granted in recognition of the skill to drive properly and the patience to drive carefully and with consideration for other road users. However, these virtues must in the last resort be relative. What seem remarkable skill and patience to one judge may strike another as crass bungling and an uncertain temper.
Mr. Marpies may be inclined to make his standards stringent. This certainly seems to be so with Mr. Hay. He suggested that there had been some degree of cant in the arguments put forward on behalf of the professional drivers. The Paramount concern ought to be road safety, he said. "If what we are considering was the career of an airline pilot who, as a result of misbehaviour, negligence or dangerous conduct was convicted of an offence, we would not for a moment say that he should not be disqualified from piloting, an aircraft because it would mean that he would lose his livelihood."
n30 Mr. Hay described this comparison as a logical one. It would seem to imply a very high standard for road transport drivers. At least one other speaker, Mr. R. W. Elliott, Conservative M.P. for Newcastle upon Tyne, North, suggested an advanced test for the drivers of very heavy vehicles, as for public service vehicle drivers, but he hardly had in mind anything as stringent as the tests that an airline pilot must undergo.
In any case, perhaps Mr. Hay was missing the point. The main objection to clause 3 is not that a driver should escape punishment for gross misbehaviour, negligence or dangerous conduct, but that it is possible for him to break the law without being guilty of any of these things, so that the punishment should not be inevitable when the offence is committed in circumstances where there could be no danger. This is the reason for the opposition to the inclusion of speeding in the list of offences. Often it is dangerous to exceed a speed limit, and at all times there must be some penalty for breaking the law, however " technical " the offence. But it would be idle to deny that speeds above the limit can be reached. on some stretches of road with no risk whatever.
IN such circumstances, the sympathy of most M.P.s would appear to be with the driver. This may well have been the case even with Mr. Frank Mc-Leavy, Labour M.P. for Bradford East, although he suggested thatheavy commercial loads should be transferred from road to rail in order to promote a speedier flow of traffic. A little later he appeared to answer himself by stressing the vital importance of transport costs in the competition with European industry that would follow Britain's entry into the Common Market. Mr. McLeavy seemed to think that the best way of keeping the costs down was to promote more road-rail co-ordination.
Nobody followed him into this particular digression. Most people have now accepted the desirability of a strong and versatile road transport industry to meet the situation created by closer links with the Continent. For this purpose, good and skilful drivers are indispensable. No doubt the Minister has this as his object. The Road Traffic Bill in its present form may not be the best way of tackling the task.
From every side, generous tributes are paid to the skill and courtesy of the men who drive Britain's lorries. Their mental approach to their work must be sound, and might provide a useful norm for Mr. Hay's research team. It is based on a proper pride that in many cases has been fostered by the various road safety awards that are made periodically. There would be a regrettable waste of talent if even one of these men were deprived of his licence, and-therefore of his job, without really sound cause. And the fear that this might happen to them might discourage good recruits from considering entry into the road transport industry.
Even the possibility of this represents a serious defect in the 13111, and it could be put right fairly easily without damaging the structure of the Bill or its underlying policy. There is little doubt that amendments to clause 3 will be put forward during the committee stage, so that there is still plenty of opportunity for the Government to accept the necessary changes. It will be a great mistake if they do not do so.