Speed Limits and Their Retention.
Page 1
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
T SEEMS QUITE. probable that the biggest change involved in the next revision of motorcar law will be the abolition of the arbitrary speed limit as applied to private • motorcars. Parliament may, perhaps, consider it necessary to retain for the 'Ministry of Transport the power to impose low speed limits upon certain stretches of read where it, is be lieved that speed per se. is dangerous. In general, however, people are beginning to realize that speed in itself is not dangerous. Moreover, there is not one motorist in a thousand who, whether be be ,a Cabinet Minister or a private individual, can honestly say that he does not break the existing. law as regards speed habitually.
It would clearly not be desirable to abolish speed limits for all road users. We must continue to pre scribe a maximum speed for road locomotives though the maximum should certainly be higher than that which is at present in force. Similarly, we cannot get rid of all speed restrictions in respect of heavy motor vehicles, because speed, taken in conjunction with great weight, must, admittedly, cause injury to the roads. Consequently, we ourselves, as being largely responsible for the cost of getting and keeping the roads up to a proper standard, cannot afford to have them broken to pieces unnecessarily. It is most undesirable that, in any forthcoming law, the exact speed limits for each class of heavy motor vehicle shall be specified. As time goes on, improvements both in roads and in vehicles justify increased speeds, and we do not want all the delay and formality of an Act of Parliament to precede every change. Consequently, it follows that the limitation of speeds for heavy. vehicles must be left in the hands of somebody, presumably the Minister of Transport. One would like, in this connection, to lay down minimum limits so as to curb his powers to some ex tent, but it i to be feared that this would be unworkable in practice, because there would 'always be a tendency for the minimum to Joe,. taken Without question as the maximum in official quarters. There is at least one probable development for which we must provide carefully. This is the likelihood of the much extended use of the large pneu matic and the cushion tyres. Just as higher speeds may be'perrnitted to solid tyred vehicles as compared With steel tyred vehicles, so the pneumatic or cushion tyred. vehicle should be given its Proper preferential treatment from this point of view. It is, in fact, questionable whether, in giving the Minister of Transport power to prescribe the speeds of heavy vehicles, provision ought not to be made to render this power inoperative in respect of all pneumatic tyred and, perhaps, cushion tyred vehicle's not exceeding an agreed and very substantial unladen weight.
The Taking of Intoxicants.
NOW THAT motor law, as a whole, is coming up for revision, no apology is needed for dealing somewhat frequently in these columns with small points, the proper determination of whieh may be of moment to motor users in the. near future. The law has always very properly provided heavy penalties in the event of any person in a state of intoxication, being found in charge of a motel. vehicle. Such a person is obviously a serious danger to the community, and no one would suggest for a moment that he should escape lightly. The bulk of members of the police force are reasonable men, but there are, of course, exceptions and, probably, a certain number of cases in which those who ought to be interpreting the law are, in fact, influenced by private grudges. The law often seeks to describe a person who has taken too much to drink as being "under the influence" of intoxicating liquor. The phrase is not a happy one. We know that any intoxicant even in -small quantities must necessarily have, some, if only a trifling, influence. A man is not necessarily unfitted to have charge of a motor vehicle because he has taken some small amount of intoxicant. There are probably times when his capabilities are positively benefited thereby—as, for instance, in extremely cold weather. It is only when the influence of the liquor is so considerable as to render him reckless, or to make his judgment unreliable, that he ought to Le in any risk of a successful prosecution. It is, therefore, important in the interests of equity that the law on this point should be so worded as to discourage purely vexatiOus and superfluous activity by the police. Probably, the best way out of the difficulty is to use the perfectly sound English word "drunk," but even the eMployment of this word is not altogether a solution of the trouble. There is room 'forplenty Of divergence Of Opinion as to when a man is drunk. There is an old . story of a small crowd gathered round a man 'found totally incapable and insensible in the street. A difference of opinion arose as to the cause of his condition. Someone suggested that he had had a fit. Someone else opined that he was driink, and a member of the crowd scorn fully remarked "he's not drunk ; why, he's breathing." Without regarding quite such an extreme view as this as reasonable, we must, at least, admit that many doubtful cases, may arise so that, whatever we may do, we cannot be quite sure of equitable treatment being accorded in every instance. We can, however, avoid a phrase which, if literally interpreted, certainly does not mean what we intend it to mean.
The Objectionable Level Crossing.
ALL ROAD USERS are agreed as to the unclesirability of level crossings of railways and. roads. Every such crossing constitutes, more or less, a, danger to the road user. In some cases, the danger is considerable, and, at certain times, every level crossing necessarily forms an impassable obstruction, causing delay to every road vehicle then in the neighbourhood.
Now, mach of .our expenditure upon road improvement, if not the whole of it, should) really be concentrated upon the main object of eliminating unnecessary delays. This is the principal purpose a all regulations of traffic in towns. By regulation we reduce congestion and so make a general speeding up possible. Similarly, when we spend money on improving a road ...surface, on strengthening founds,tions, or on getting rid of awkward corners, we are,
indirectly, if not directly, aiming at making higher speeds safe, and so improving the economy of transport.
At the moment there are several' Bills promoted by railway companies coming before Parliament. Many of these, if accepted as they • stand, will involve the -creation of new level crossings. In other words 'the railways seek.powers to iinprove the efficiency of their own system at the expense of the efficiency of road traffic. Clearly, this is a matter which needs watching, and this is particularly the case because it is one in which a composite body like the Ministry of Transport can hardly be expected to take a strong line on one side or the other. It is to be feared that, if anything, its weight would be thrown in on the side of the railways.
Meanwhile, the motoring community is handing over to the Government large sums of money for road improvements. As a consequence of the expenditure of this money, the utility of many roads will
certainly be enormously increased. Thus, a level lerossin,g which, at the moment, may seem to be negligible because the traffic on the road is small, may well, in a few years, come to, be an obstruction of a very serious kind.
The whole principle of level crossings is bad, and we cannot but think that it is necessary to prevent any increase whatever in the number of these objectionable obstructions.