New Traffic Bill Shirks the Big Problem
Page 58
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Says Our Legal Adviser
IT is interesting to examine not only the changes in the law which the Government's new Road Traffic Bill proposes, but also to compare it with its ill-fated predecessor. A further comparison may be usefully made with ' the previous Bill in its altered state after it came down to the Commons With the Lords' amendments.
Perhaps, as a generalization before
• examining the new Bill in detail, one -May say that whilst it shows signs of being an improvement on its predecessor—it could hardly fail to be that— one looks in vain for any comprehensive and sweeping provisions to cure the creeping sickness on the roads.
This is but a hotch-potch of little measures—a sad spectacle of a Government concerning itself with such minutia as increasing the cost of provisional driving licences from 5s. to 10s, and the exemption from the operation of the Road Traffic Acts of pedestrian-controlled grass cutters !
Although the new Bill contains many individually necessary additions and amendments to the law, if shows every sign of being merely the result of someone in the Ministry of Transport having kept a notebook of little matters to be put right when an opportunity offered, rather than a bold measure.
Death by Reckless Driving
To the lawyer, the most important provision is the creation of the new offence of causing death by reckless or dangerous driving. This was not in the original Bill, hut was introduced in the Lords and has now been accepted by the Government.
The difficulty about manslaughter prosecutions is that even in the plainest cases within the definition of that crime---where a man doing an unlawful act not amounting to felony kills another by accident—juries simply would not convict, presumably because they feared the accused would suffer a savage sentence at the hands of the judge, who could award up to imprisonment for fife.
This was clearly illogical, for the same jury would then generally proceed without qualm to convict of dangerous driving, and yet if the accused was so doing, he was ipso facto doing an unlawful act within the definition of manslaughter!
The new offence will be punishable by up to five years' imprisonment and will be triable only at assizess. In Scotland, however, because of the anomalous difference in jurisdiction, it will be tried before the sheriff, with a maximum of only two years' imprisonment.
The biggest surprise in the Bill is one of omission rather than inclusion. After cl 8
virulent attacks from all sides on not only the principle involved, but also upon the practical application of it. the Government have abandoned entirely the clause in the previous Bill providing for the compulsory testing of vehicles. It is understood that the Minister intends to rely instead upon a greater use of existing powers of inspection by police officers and special examiners.
Under the Construction and Use Regulations there is power to inspect and test any vehicle's brakes, silencer or steering gear only, but it is probable that in Sections 3, 17,30 and 11 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930—under which the Regulations are framed—there is sufficient power in the Minister to makse rules for more comprehensive checks.
The old Bill contained provisions to enable licensing authorities to restrict the successive • issue of provisional driving licences. Now these provisions contain more specific rules than hitherto for the exercise of this refusal. Apart from this unimportant addition, every difference of note between the two Bills is directly attributable to amendments by the Lords to the first one, which have now been accepted by the new Bill's sponsors. To take these in the clause order in which they now appear:—
(1) Clause 4 amends Section 8 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which prohibits the sale or supply of vehicles for delivery in a condition in which their use would infringe Section 3 of the Act of 1930, by including in such prohibition the use of vehicles infringing any current Construction and Use Regulations.
A Loophole Planed
This is to get over the difficulty caused by the case of Vinall v. Howard (1954), where it was held that there was a distinction between a condition contrary to Section 3 of the Act of 1930 and one contrary to the Regulations—a small loophole, but one which is now to be plugged.
(2) In Clause 7, which creates the offence for pedestrians of failing to comply with traffic directions given by/ police constables regulating traffic, the proposal in the first Bill to visit such offences with penalties of up to £20 for a first offence and £50 for a second or subsequent offence, has given place to a lower scale of £10 and £25 respectively.
(3) Clause 9, which is the first of six clauses, plus the first schedule, which deal with the provision of parking places, has an additional provision missing from the first Bill. This lays down in measured terms under two heads the matters to which the Minister is to have regard when designating areas as park
ing places in the Metropolitan Police District or the City of London. These are (a) the need for maintaining the free movement of traffic and (b) the extent • to which " other " parking accommodation (not son highways) is available.
(4) Clause 15, which increases penalties for driving offences, now shows itself harsher on " speeding " second offenders; for whereas at present disqualification can be imposed on offenders only for the third time, it is now proposed that this may be imposed on second offenders if a period of three years or less has elapsed since their first conviction.
(5) Clause 17 enables a disqualified person to appeal against this penalty in the same way as he can against the conviction itself. This will enable a court's decision that there are no " special reasons "—which are now most carefully circumscribed by High Court decisions—to prevent automatic disqualification, to be tested by a higher tribunal other than the Divisional Court, with its attendant expense, (6) Clause 18 extends the obligatory " warning " of intended prosecution for certain driving offences within 14 days of the occurrence (Section 21 of the Act of 1930) to other offences, including failure to obey traffic directions or to conform to traffic signs, and leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position. This is a salutary amendment.
"Authorized Vehicle" Extended
(7) Clause 23, which sets out—as did its equivalent Clause 6 in the earlier Bill—to put right what the cases of Blenkin v. Bell and Woolley v. Moore had put wrong in 1952 as regards speed limits for goods vehicles, carries now an addition to the definition of "authorised vehicle" in Section 16 of the 1913 Act to cover vehicles or trailers in the licence holder's possession under hire purchase or a loan.
(8) Clause 24 sensibly provides that the installing of street lighting on trunk or classified roads shall not automatically carry with it the imposition of the 30 m.p.h. limit.
(9) Of importance to operators is the creation by Clause 26 of the right of appeal to the Minister against the refusal by the Traffic Commissioners to vary the conditions attached to road service licences. This is a further addition due to the Lords.
What has been noted are the changes from the original Bill and how much these owe to the Lords. There are, of course, other changes, but these are either of minor interest or confined to drafting principles or consequential amendments.
No change has been made in the proposals to amend the contractcarriage law.
The original Bill in its first-published form consisted of 25 clauses, whereas the new Bill runs to 33, in addition to many sub-clauses which are new. [The second reading of the Bill did not take place last week, but may do so shortly.]