Road -transport Activities IN PARLIAMENT
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The House of Lords Enters Upon the Committee Stage of the Road Traffic Bill By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent
TBE committee stage of the Road Traffic Bill was, on HE 12th, entered upon in the House of Lords and was continued last week. Many amendments were moved, but most of them were withdrawn after discussion, a number being adopted or left over for consideration before the report stage.
On Clause 1, Earl Howe moved to omit the proviso exempting from the provisions of the Bill tramcars and trolley-buses, authorized by Act of Parliament. He did not see why they should not be brought. under the regulations applying to other mechanically propelled vehicles. Lord Russell, who is in charge of the Bill, pointed out that those vehicles were regulated by the Tramways Act, 1870, under which special orders, by-laws and regulations were made by the Minister of Transport. The statutory companies had definite statutory powers' and it would be unsuitable to bring them within the Bill. He thought that it would be better to amend the Tramways Act. The amendment was negatived.
Lord Brentford moved to alter the definition of a heavy motorcar exceeding 2 tons by adding, "but does not exceed 7,1 tons or such greater weight as may be prescribed by the Minister by regulations." He desired the present limit of 7;1. tons to be maintained in the statute.
Lord Newton moved to exempt vehicles constructed within. 12 months of the coming into force of any regulations as ,to constructional weight and the use of any class of vehicle. Lord Russell thought this amendment was moved under an unnecessary fear of the action of the Minister of Transport. In any regulation that had been made, a saving clause had always been inserted regarding the vehicles in existence and in course of manufacture, in cases in which such a clause was desirable. The manufacturing interests were always consulted and under Clause 28 there was a statutory obligation to consult them.
Lord Brentford pressed for the amendment, remarking that the Minister of Transport might consult the manufacturers and yet make regulations which involved vast expense in altering machines that were nearly finished.
Lord Banbury also supported the amendment, on the ground that it was not certain that every Minister of Transport would act reasonably. . Lord Russell eventually accepted the amendment, on the understanding that it would be reconsidered by the Government before the report stage, and this was agreed.
Driving Tests.
ALONG discussion took place on Clause 4, which relates to the licensing of drivers. Viscount Cecil moved an amendment, the effect of which was to require that an applicant for a driver's licence would include in his declaration as to physical fitness a declaration as to his competence and knowledge to drive. Viscount Cecil also moved that it should be left for regulations to devise some precaution, either by examination or otherwise, to show that the driver was competent to drive.
He said the witnesses before the Royal Commission, who spoke against this proposal, appeared for the associations or clubs which were interested in the ownership of motors. There were other important witnesses in favour. Practically every other civilized country had tests.
Earl Howe was against compulsory examination, but favoured a voluntary test.
Lord Russell opposed the amendment, considering that a test of one or two hours by some official would not be efficient. The percentage of .aceidents, in 1928, attributable to inexperience, was only 1.4, which -was a very small figure. A searching test would take three weeks and cost £15. It was a fallacy to suppose that tests 'would diminish accidents.
Earl Howe observed that the reference to 1.4 per cent. did not take account of the report of the Royal Commission, which contained the following statistics :—" Inattentive, confused, or lacking in judgment other than as specified, 0 per cent.; lack of caution at road junctions, 5.8 per cent.;
improperly overtaking, cutting-in, etc., 4 per cent.;failing to keep to the near side, 3.1 per cent.; inexperience, 1.4 per cent."
Lord Russell put the proposition that the man who could drive really. well, if temperamentally ' reckless, became dangerous. 4t was a matter of temperament and not of skill. The members of the House would have an entirely false sense of security if they imposed the suggested test, which would not greatly add to the safety of driving.
On a division, the amendment in favour of tests was defeated by 57 votes to 30.
It was generally agreed that, in respect of a4olice constable's demand to inspect a driver's licence. .the clause should be amended to require that the constable should be in uniform or should produce his authority, but Lord Russell asked to be allowed to consult the Home Secretary, -before the report stage, and, accordingly, the amendment was withdrawn.
An amendment to allow the driver five days, instead of three, within which to produce his licence at the police station, was agreed. Earl Howe's amendment enabling a licensing authority to issue a certificate of proficiency in driving, after voluntary tests, approved by the Minister of Transport, was negatived.
Ages of Drivers.
TT was agreed to permit boys who were now driving /motorcycles, to continue to do so if still under the age of 16, which is the limit to be imposed by the Bill. Viscount Cecil moved to make the age limit 21 years for all drivers of motor vehicles, other than motorcycles, but the proposal was resisted by Lord Russell.
Viscount Cecil said that it seemed to be a grave form • of class legislation to allow private motorcars to be driven by boys between 18 and 19 years old, when it was not permitted that youths of similar age should earn their, living by driving motor vehicles. Lord Russell remarked that youths under 21 years old would lie able to drive a motorcar that came within the weight limits. The amendment
The Speed Limit.
ALENGTHY discussion took place on the proposed removal of the speed limit for light motorcars and motorcycles, and the schedule of speeds for other vehicles. Viscount Cecil moved an amendment to Clause 10, to provide that a person driving a vehicle at a speed greater than that specified in the schedule as the maximum for that class of vehicle should be deemed guilty of dangerous driving, unless he could show, that, in the circumstances of the case, such greater speed could not involve danger to the public.
Discussion followed on familiar lines, some peers advocating a fixed limit for all vehicles and others supporting the Government's proposals. In the end, the amendment was rejected by 63 votes to S.
. Unlawful User of Vehicles.
TEW clauses of the Motor Vehicles (Unauthorized User) Bill recently presented in the House of Commons by the Home Secretary were inserted in the Bill, in accordance with Lord Russell's intimation on second reading. The former Bill will, therefore, be dropped.
A discussion arose on Clause 31, which provides for-tompulsory insurance against third-party risks. Lord Sumner mentioned that the uninstructed public was under the impression that it was going to obtain free insurance against accidents, at the cost of motorists, which was not the case. Earl Russell agreed that such an impression had spread about.
The Government was neither nationalizing insurance companies nor taking control of their business. If premiums rose for actuarial reasons, those persons who were insured would have to pay them. An amendment to delete the first sub-section was negatived.