Motor Traffic in the Metropolis
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4
Page 5
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Report from the Select Committee of the House of Commons.
We have made brief comment, above, upon considerations which have evidently been allowed In influence the report of the Select Committee of the House of Commons which was appointed "to inquire into the circumstances which led to the large and increasing number of fatal accidents in the Metropolis, due to motor omnibuses and other forms of power-driven vehicles, and to make recommendations as to measures to be taken to secure greater safety in the streets."
The report and conclusions run to a White Paper of some 42 pages. They open by recounting the fact that the Committee has had 42 sittings for the, hearing of evidence, and the quotation of certain statistical information. The Committee then proceeds to point -out that underground facilities for transport--of themselves valuable and safe methods of travel— have enabled more and more people to crowd, the various centres to which they flock for business, shopping, or amusement. Since the year 1904, the number of journeys taken per inhabitant per annum, on the average, has increased from /50 per head to 228 per head in 1911. Further increases are taking place every day.
Fatal Street Accidents from all Causes.
The Committee quotes figures to show that, compared with 155 fatal street accidents in the Metropolitan police ares, in the year 190.1, the totals for the years 1910, 1911 and 1912 have been, respectively,
B2
388, 427, and 537. Between 1901 and 1912, the number of non-fatal accidents has also approximately doubled —an increase from 10,:3S4 to 20,166.
The important fact is admitted, that in the last three years there has been a slight improvement in the City of London. This fact contradicts a later conclusion of the Cammittee, as we shall point out.
Multiplicity of Authority.
The Committee draws attention to the present condition of affairs, under which three Government Departments are concerned in the regulation of matters connected with street traffic in London, and points out that none of them, nor all of them together, can be held responsible for the whole of it. Apart from these Government Departments, the City Corporation of London, the London County Council, and the various Borough Councils also have diverse and separate interests. There is a total of 142 local bodies concerned with the Greater London area. of approximately 700 sq. miles, in addition to the Home Office (through the police), the Board of Trade (as concerns tramways), and the Local Government Board (qua loans and other financial control of local authorities).
The Committee finds that the remedy can best be secured by the concentration of responsibility and legislative and administrative power into closer compass, although it states (paragraph 14) that "the control of the streets is essentially a municipal ninetion." That being the case, and we agree that it is, why does the Committee make no provision for representation of the London Borough Councils in its proposed scheme of control?
Statistics.
The Committee comments at length upon the difficulty of securing sufficient analytical information with regard to accidents and their causes. It proceeds (paragraph 23): " We may consider the motor omnibus as proportionately more dangerous the more truffle is congested." This statement is at direct variance with the experience in the City of London, where the traffic is more congested than anywhere else.
It is pointed out that competent judges are in agreement that fatal accidents cannot be held to be more frequent in any street by reason of the presence or absence of tramcars. Ilereanent (paragraph 26), we note that the Committee states, in referring to certain accident records : "Of these, the trams were responsible for" only so many. We repeat that sufficient data were not before the Committee, in our judgment, to justify such an allocation of credit. It is admitted (paragraph 36) that extraordinary discrepancies exist between the records of the various Departments which attempt to take notice of accidents and all the circumstances leading up to them. One example will suffice for our readers. Whereas the Board of Trade figures for tramcars for one year were 38 deaths and 1062 accidents, the Home Office figures of " tramcar accidents known to the police" showed a total of 2303.
Although no direct recommendation to that effect is made„ we trust that the new traffic authority, when constituted, will devote a considerable amount of time to the securing of adequate and properly-analysed records of accidents, and will put this branch of investigation on as nearly an actuarial basis as may prove to be possible.
Carelessness of Pedestrians and Drivers.
Various extracts are made from the evidence of witnesses, to prove that the carelessness of the pedestrian is in very many cases the cause of the accident. A representative of Messrs. Wontner, the official legal advisers to the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis, reported his firm's conclusion that "a large number of accidents is caused through the carelessness of foot passengers in stepping suddenly into the roadway, without first looking to see whether traffic is coming."
The City of London.
Paragraph 48 again mentions the City of London. We quote : "The changed conditions of vehicular traffic in the streets have affected the City of London equally with other parts of the Metropolis, but there is an outstanding fact that accidents have rot increased within the area administered by the City of London police."
We are wholly at a loss to understand why the Committee does not proceed to suggest that this may be due to the absence of tramcars. It was given in evidence that the motorbus traffic has increased enormously, and any fair-minded person who notes these gross omissions will be able to draw his own conclusions in the matter.
Safety Guards.
After referring to certain magisterial decisions in civil and other actions, and to the design of vehicles, the Committee deals with the question of safety guards. It indicates the value of these in tramcar practice, and points with satisfaction to the attention which is being given by the London omnibus companies to the fitting of side guards, and to the investigation of front guards.
Accident Records and the Motor Omnibus.
Paragraph 75 of the report states that "the Committee are of opinion that the record of the motor omnibus in the matter of accidents is most unsatis
factory." It then proceeds to give the bald record o; fatalities, and of accidents per thousand motorbuses. It takes the total figure for motorbuses at the end of each year, as the correct divisor, and makes no allowance whataver for the increased mileage run per motorbus. This is most unfair. The accidents should be stated in relation to the bus-mileage, and everybody who claims to investigate the development of motorbus operation should make allowance for these facts. A few years ago, motorbuses broke down so frequently that their daily mileage averaged well below 100 miles ; to-day it reaches fully 120 miles. For the years 1907-1912 the total fatalities due to motorbuses have been, respectively, 35, 62, 59, 70, 114, and 182. Stated per thousand of motorbuses, on the incomplete and misleading basis that has been adopted by the Committee, the fatalities per thousand motorbuses, for the same years, have been, respectively, 29.0, 54.7, 50.0, 58.3, 58.1, and 62.6. A tardy admission is made that the fatal accidents in the first six months of the present year show a diminution compared with 1912. The wording of this reference (part ot paragraph 75) is : "Some improvement is claimed by the company in the percentage of accidents, making due allowance for the increased number _ of vehicles and mileage. Mr. Stanley gave the accidents per million miles run as 2.44 in 1911, 2.14 in 1912, and 1.61 in the first quarter of 1913, but this does not take into account the increased mileage run by the buses for the less-congested roads, and in any case does not justify the large total."
Motorbus Hours and Wages.'
The Committee states that it favours payment by the day, rather than by distance. It also comments adversely upon the fact that occasionally men who have been concerned in fatal accidents have been on duty after less than eight hours' rest before resumption of duty. It is considered that the rule of the company in this regard has been broken in a substantial number of cases, and that these conditions are inimical to safe working in crowded traffic. No comment is passed upon the rates of pay, which are known to be satisfactory, and which we mentioned when reporting the meetings of the Committee. We repeat them, as a matter of convenience: third-class driver, 1.15d. per mile ; second-class driver, 1.20d. per mile ; first-class driver, 1.25d. per mile. All classes are granted bonuses for days without accidents.
Tram Passengers and Passing Traffic.
The Committee &ale at some length with the claims of tramcar passengers to special consideration when alighting from or mounting tramcars. One interesting comment (paragraph 108) is the following : —" The pedestrian has the right to be treated not less favourably than if he were another traffic unit." Another comment on the same subject (paragraph 114) reads : "it must be recognized that if the tramcar were an ordinary road vehicle, entitled to pass from the centre of the street to the side, the delay to following traffic would be greater, and traffic would be again delayed while the car pulled out into the centre of the road." This is purely a hypothetical conclusion. Further, on the subject of the "cutting in" upon tram passengers by motorbuses at stopping-places, the Committee proceeds (paragraph 116): " Your Committee are of opinion that there are two distinct principles involved: in the one case, the right of the pedestrian to use the street cannot be challenged ; in the other, which is a question of accommodation which should be settled according to public convenience, and upon which local opinion and local needs should be consulted." There is no question that this problem of the claims of tramcar passengers at stopping-places will be one of the most difficult of a/1 for the new traffic authority to handle satisfactorily. There will be grave danger of added congestion if new and peculiar rights are conferred upon such passengers. Why should the tramcar passenger be allowed such exceptional
degree of right of user of the highway? The highway laws. of this country allow the pedestrian, strictly speaking, merely to pass along it—not to be upon it. The risk of abuse of any concession is very great indeed, and any by-law on the subject would, in our opinion, lead to the assembly of tramcar passengers on the carriageway, to the inconvenience and loss of all owners of ordinary wheeled vehicles. In effect, it would hold up the whole of the rest of the traffic many times over, and we consider that it would be a much better bargain for the community at larip to get rid of the tramway undertaking altogether in London than to invite that general hindrance to locomotion.
Paragraph 118 proceeds to endorse the terms of a proposed L.C.C. by-law, to the following effect :—
. " No driver of an omnibus or other stage carriage shall stop such omnibus or stage carriage to take up. or set. down passengers in such a position in the immediate vicinity of any tramway stopping-place as to cause obstruction to passengers or intending passengers alighting from or entering any tramea.r."
Where is it suggested that the motorbus should draw up in the numerous instances in which a tramcar stopping-place is only some 20 or 30 yds. beyond a busy intersection of highways'? Is the motorbus to stand at the intersection, to the inconvenience of everybody else, and with the certainty that the driver will he summoned for obstruction, or is it to collide, head on, with another tramcar, coming from the opposite direction, in an effort to get by the stationary tramcar to which the suggested protective by-law is at the moment being applied It appears to us that the Committee, as is pointed out in the L.G.O.C. views (see page 662), must have been considering the L.C.C. tramcar interests alone, and nobody else's interests, in making such a suggestion.
More Traffic Points.
The Committee endorses the view that more police should be put on point duty, and it considers that the annual cost of a 16 hours' point., which is stated to be £300, should not outweigh the advantages to be derived from such an expenditure.
Speed Limits.
The one-sidedness of the Committee again asserts itself in paragraph 126. It has already admitted that L.C.C. tramcars are permitted to run at 16 m.p.h. on 79 miles of line, and at 12 m.p.h. on 39 miles of line, leaving only 20 miles of line in respect of which there are various lower limits of speed, and it proceeds : "Your Committee do not recommend any alteration of the maximum for tsarnways, nor for motor omnibuses. In any alteration of the law by which the Local Government Board at present fixes speed limits, it should be considered whether greater latitude as to the precise speed should not be allowed." This conclusion means that the Committee wishes to see the higher speed of 16 m.p.h. preserved for the tramcars, and the motorbuses restricted to the lower limit of 12 m.p.h. Could anything be more partial ? The Committee (paragraph 127) expresses the view that both tramcars and motor omnibuses should be fitted with speedometers as soon as practicable.
Bias Against Motors Generally.
Paragraph 132, which refers to the maintenance of a tail lamp alight., in our opinion again discloses remarkable anti-motor feeling, and distinct bias against motorcars generally. It reads : "Article IT of the Motor Car Order, 1903, which governs the lighting of the back identification plate of a motor, has hitherto been considered an absolute order, and a breach of it in any circumstances an offence. In consequence of a recent judicial decision, this is not now so accepted. Your Committee are of opinion that no excuse should be permitted for non-compliance, though justices may take into account the circumstances in mitigation of the penalty." It is more difficult to understand this n6 conclusion of the Committee when one recalls that they are supposed to be referring only to the Metropolitan Police area, practically the whole of which is well lighted.
Mr. Muskett's Views.
Why was Mr. Muskett, one of the police lawyers, allowed to put in various appendices, although he was not called as a witness ? Is not this an irregularity which requires some explanation? In many respects the report might well be termed the legal views of Mr. Muskett, rather than the considered opinions of a Select Committee of the House of Commons!
A Characteristic Warning.
Paragraph 137 recommends the adoption of the suggestion for which the Editor of this journal was responsible in the course of his evidence. It reads: " It is also desirable that the use of horns of great variety should be restricted. It is found in experience that the distinctive gong of the tramcar has a marked advantage in warning people of the kind of vehicle to be avoided, and the use of horns of a standard type on other vehicles would be helpful in a like manner."
Slow-moving Traffic.
The Committee generally agrees that slow-moving traffic should keep to the left or near side of the road, and it quotes a variety of recommendations in support of this conclusion. We are in cordial agreement with the Committee here.
Breaking Open of Streets The Committee refers to the complaint of Mr. Stanley as to the inconvenience to motorbuses due to the breaking up of streets in an irregular manner, without regard to the condition of neighbouring thoroughfares, but it makes no recommendation on this subject. Why? Is it because the tramway undertaking is itself one of the worst sinners in this regard, and because the L.C.C. tramcars alone, by reason of track repairs, probably cause a loss to the commercial community in excess of their total annual revenue ?
Tramway Dead Ends.
The Committee recommends that these should not he allowed to continue in existence, but it naturally, as further evidence of its pro-tramway tendencies, foreshadows the extension of the existing lines along busy central thoroughfares, in order to link up the tramway system. This is not the proper course to be adopted, we may point out ; the proper course is to follow the practice of Paris where the tramway undertaking has to choose quiet thoroughfares for turning purposes, in which respect the L.C.C. would undoubtedly have to acquire considerable property. Extensions of the tramway rails through the centre of London is now generally held to be quite beyond eon tem plation.
Delays and Unsound Vehicles.
The Committee is strongly of opinion that the delays which sic due to the loading and unloading of vans should be obviated by new legislation, and that the present impediment to successful prosecution—inability to prove that "the van stayed longer than is necessary for loading and unloading "-should be removed. As regards unsound vehicles on the streets, which break down, and which the report states (paragraph 145) reached 530 on the L.C.C. tramway tracks in one month, the Committee recommends that this should be dealt with by a by-law. The report proceeds (paragraph 146): "Your Committee regards the presence in crowded streets of vehicles that are structurally unsound as a serious menace to public safety, and in view of this they consider it desirable that a by-law should be framed imposing penalties on any owner or driver who knowingly sends or takes an unsound vehicle into the streets." Financial Considerations.
The Committee-(paragraph 163) appears to have accepted the assertion that the tramcars bear a charge of about 1200 per car annually in respect of " paving the track and a portion at each side, rates and taxes." It is very wisely stated: " These costs, with rates and taxes, are represented as being a charge of about 1;200 per car annually." The italics are ours, and we ask why this assertion was not made the subject of analytical inquiry. How much of this alleged 1200 pen ear per annum is due wholly to expenditure upon the electrical portion of the track We think a quieition on that subject should be asked in Parliament. Paragraph 163 contains an uncharitable reference to 8ir Herbert Jekyll, and by no means disposes of the fact that London tramcars, which possess the monopoly of the smooth rail, are less unfavourably situated in regard to taxes and rates than are motorbuses, which are open to competition, and which possess uo monopoly of any kind.
The Borough Council Veto.
The Committee objects to the maintenance of the veto of the Borough Councils upon proposed tramway extensions. We do not know how it reconciles its recommendation as to the abolition of that veto (paragraph 174) with its conclusion, to which we have already referred, of paragraph 11, that "the control of the streets is essentially a. municipal function." The correctness of the view that questions both of streets and traffic really concern the Metropolitan Borough. Councils primarily, and not the London County Council, is borne out by the Committee's reference to the actual highway responsibility of the L.C.C., which references are given in paragraph 150 of the report This reads "The Council's powers as a street authority extend over the Victoria, Albert and Chelsea Embankments, and the roadways of county bridges, and wherever there is a tramway the Council is responsible for the good repair of the road 18 ins. beyond the rails. Although not the road authority, as will be seen lower down, the Council has the power to break up streets for sewage purposes, for tramway purposes (on giving seven days' notice), and for improvement purposes where it is making improvements." In these circumstances, why ignore the true municipal authorities --the Borough Councils ? Again, in paragraph 158, the Committee acknowledges : "The Metropolitan Borough 'Councils are the authority for the paving, lighting, maintaining and improving of streets."
Control of Motor-omnibus Routes.
The Committee, in paragraph 175, reaches its objective—the control of the motor omnibuses. We read, in this paragraph, the following incorrect assertion : "It (the motorbus) has approached too closely to the tramway standard of bulk to be allowed to choose its path unrestrained and uncontrolled. How best to regulate it and give it a permanent position is the great problem of local government in London at present, and your Committee, in devising means to achieve the object of their reference, cannot see that that can be done without the recommendation of measures which may touch issues beyond their immediate task." The italics are ours. The Committee must be remarkably ignorant, if it really believes that a London motorbus is more than half the size of a London tramcar, and if it is unaware of the feet that theetmladen weight of a London motorbus is about one-fourth that of an unladen L.C.C. tramcar. Why include such balderdash in a report? Who did so? It reduces one's respect for the drafter.
The Duties of the New Traffic Branch.
The duties of the new traffic branch, the formation of which is the Committee's chief recommendation, are stated, in paragraph 190, to include the following:— All schemes relating to London Traffic presented to Parliament should be examined and reported upon bx
it, and no other Department should report to Parliament, except through it. It should actively concern itself with the traffic problems of London, working through and in harmony with the various Existing bodies responsible for the various areas.
It should bold conferences, if requested or by its own motion, with the representatives of various municipal authorities concerning the development 01 through traffic routes, and other matters in which commun action or agreement is advisable. It should have power to hold public inquiries in order that the interests of localities may be ascertained, and due weight given to them in consideration of all projected undertal:ings or new by-laws. It should have power to bin-Dnion witMOSSE3. All by-laws relating to London traffic should come before it for confirmation. It should be the confirming authority for the regulations of County Councils and County Borough Councils as to routes, etc., of stage carriages; and should hear appeals from the decisions of Councils.
It should fix where it considers necessary, on the application of a local authority, special speed limits for maw. omnibuses and speed limits for all motor traffic.
It should have power to regulate the structural character of all stage carriages.'
It should receive reports, from the police and parties concerned, of ail traffic accidents, and special reports from coroners of inquests.
Other duties might be laid or devolved upon it as experience suggests.
Summary.
The final summary of the Committee's recommendations are as under :—
(1) That in all Metropolitan Traffic matters Parliament should be advised by one Department, which should combine the traffic duties of the Home Office, Local Government Board, and Board of Trade, including the confirming of by-laws.
(2) That a New Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade be set up to perform the above and other duties.
(3) That the veto of Borough Councils in regard to Tramway schemes be replaced by a full hearing before the New Traffic Branch, which shall report to Parliament. That Standing Order 22 be revised.
(4) That County Councils in the Metropolitan area should have the widest possible by-law making powers, subject to confirmation by the New Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade.
(5) That all mechanical stage carriages and hackney car-. riages he brought under closer control; that the routes, timetables and number of stage carriages be Flibject to County Council Regulations confirmed by the New Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade, with a right to Local Authorities and other interested parties to be heard, such right to extend to any decision of a Council relating to these matters, or the refusal or neglect of any Council to take action when requested to do so ; that the design of mechanical stage carriages be subject. to the New Traffic Branch, which should have independent expert advice.
(6) That the _licensing of stage carriages and hackney carriages he a duty of County Councils and County Borough Councils, subject to a right of appeal to the New Traffic Branch (7) That special speed limits for motor omnibuses and other heavy motor traffic be imposed where conditions are especially dangerous.
(8) That closer control of traffic be exercised by the Police.
(9) That traffic points he fixed at a greater number of crossings.
(10) That more refuges be provided.
(11) That so soon as practicable means be taken to remove the congestion caused by dead ends of tramways, street markets and roadway obstructions.
(12) That the measures already tatten through the schools to warn children and parents as to street dangers suould be continued and extended.