Road-transport Activities IN PARLIAMENT
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Lord Russell Explains the Bill. Minister Favours 30 m.p.h. Limit. Late Home Secretary's Comments. Opinions About the Speed Limit.
MIIE Road Traffic Bill was, on December 5th, . read a necond time in the House of Lords, after some discussion, which revealed no great divergence of opinion on the
proposals. Lord Russell's explanation of the Bill was practically a recital of the main provisions, but be made a number of comments which may here be summarized. He indicated that on the committee stage the provisions of the Government's Bill, introduced in the other House, to penalize the unlawful user of motor vehicles, would be incorPorated in the Road Traffic Bill.
Lord Russell said that he expected some acute difference of opinion in the House of Commons, with regard to the proposal to authorize municipalities to run bus services outside their areas, subject to the sanction of the Traffic Commissioners. On Clause 2, which empowers the Minister to vary by regulation the maximum or minimum weights in each class of vehicle, he mentioned that the Royal Commission recommended that the weights should be finally fixed by statute, but this was impracticable and the Government was unable to accept it.
Minister Favours 30 m.p.h. Limit.
° PEAKING of the proposals with reference to tile
speed limit and the replacement of the :35 m.p.h. limit, which was recommended by the Royal Commission on Transport, for heavy vehicles, by one of 30 m.p.h., Lord Russell said that as it was impracticable to enforce the exact speed aid, as time-tables would really control this, the Minister thought, on the whole, that 30 m.p.h. would be a wiser limit to fix.
Large, modern commercial vehicles, Lord Russell continued, now attained speeds of 40-45 m.p.h, and had so far been singularly free from accident Whilst it might be thoughtthat the proposed legal maximum speed was high, the Ministry had received many protests from motor-coach proprietors that it was much too low.
He announced that the discussions with representatives of the leading insurance companies, on the subject of compulsory insurance, had been full and frank, and they had promised that they would not raise their premiums, in consequence of the passage of the Bill. At the same time they did not disguise the fact that the provisions were likely to lead not only to a larger number of claims, but possibly to larger payments, as the result of claims, effects which might, of course, have to be actuarially reflected in their premiums.
Late Home Secretary's Comments.
TORD BRENTFORD, probably better known as Sir W. 4 Joynson-flicks, late Home Secretary, supported the Bill as a means for dealing with the increase in accidents. He said there were now 2,000,000 motor vehicles on the roads of Great Britain, and that number would continue to increase in the same proportion as in the past four years.
With regard to the proposal to empower the Minister to make regulations affecting weights, etc., of commercial vehicles, he submitted that the Minister could not make alterations to vehicles already in use and that in issuing regulations at least 12 months notice should be given.
If, Lord Brentford said, too tight a speed limit were applied to commercial vehicles, manufacture-is might be forced to make two types of machine, one for the limited speed of this country and one for the unlimited speed of other lands, with results incompatible with successful M411111factu re.
There were about 1,600 motor coaches running in this country and employing some 5,000 people, so that Parliament must be careful not to injure the prosperity of the road-passenger and goods-carrying business.
He also hoped that the provisions with regard to working hours of drivers would be carefully considered.
Opinions About the Speed Limit.
THEfact that a one-ton van was not to be permitted to
run at more than 30 m.p.h., whilst a large private car weighing 2f tons could, under the Bill, travel at any speed, might, Lord Brentford thought, give rise to a feeling of hardship. There were to be no fewer than five legal maxis' mum speeds of commercial vehicles-30 m.p.h., 20 m.p.h., 16 m.p.h., 12 m.p.h. and 5 m.p.h.
Lord Russell intervened to say that he very much hoped that it might be possible in the committee stage to run
some of these schedules together. It was at present, he agreed, a terrible list.
Lord Brentford thought the Government would realize the difficulties of the police if they had to calculate the speeds of those different vehicles. Dealing with Clause 67, he suggested that instead of the driver having to give notice of failure of, or damage to, a public-service vehicle, the obligation 'should be placed on the owner, who would probably prefer this responsibility.
Lord Russell promised to inquire into the point.
Lord Brentford next criticised the provisions relating to municipal bus undertakings, and considered that a great extension of municipal trading was in contemplation. He thought that powers to run services competing not only with private organizations, but, perhaps, with those of rival municipalities, were too great, and it would be wise to remove some sections of Part V from.the Bill. He prophesied that 10 years hence there would be 5,000,000 motor vehicles in use in this country, and urged that a real effort should be made to improve roads and bridges.
Lord Banbury insisted that a speed limit was necessary and feared that compulsory insurance, whilst good in itself, might encourage reckless persons.
Viscount Cecil, whilst welcoming the Bill, considered that it was too elaborate. A Bill dealing only with the dangers of the roads would have been more easily passed through Parliament. He looked with some anxiety on the removal of the speed limit, being afraid of its psychological effect on persons who were likely to he dangerous. Whilst there was a greater weight of authority in favour of abolishing the speed limit, there was a number of authorities in favour of retaining it, including the Metropolitan Police. The true path was to try to arrive at some compromise and preserve a standard of speed as a reasonable average, which could be used in exactly the same way as was proposed to be done with the heavier vehicles.
The Earl of Denbigh regretted that there was no reference in the Bill to the danger from smoke and steam of traction engines, about which there was widespread complaint. He asked whether it was necessary that steam wagons should be allowed upon the roads, except, perhaps, in the case of engineers moving agricultural machinery.
Lord Russell and Road Junctions.
LOB,D RUSSELL, in the course of his reply to the debate, mentioned that a circular on the question of road junctions would shortly be available to the public. As to regulations to meet changes in the trade long notice had always been given, and he did not think that there was any real complaint on this ground. The policy of the Department was to be reasonable.
Reference had been made to the export trade, in relation to difference in speed. The speed of vehicles was a matter for the public to consider, and if it decided that a speed was reasonable for heavy machines, manufacturers would have to meet the spegification. The intention of the Bill regarding the matter of hours, if not quite clear, could be considered in Committee.
The Bill was given a second reading without dissent and committed to a Committee of the whole House.