ROAD TRANSPORT MATTERS IN PARLIAMENT.
Page 52
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Select Committee and Road Vehicles Regulation Bill. Excessive Speed of Motor Coaches. The Government's Bridges Bill.
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent.
/WM proceedings of the Select Committee on Lord Cecil's 1 Road Vehicles Regulation Bill, which commenced on February 15th, were quite interesting, but much of what was said in evidence has been heard before. The greatest practical advantage to be expected from the inquiry will be the strengthening of public opinion in favour of the introduction of comprehensive legislation at an early stage in the next Parliamebt, as there is very little prospect of the Government providing time in the House of Commons, in the remar.iing three months of this session, for a controversial Bill.
Official View on Lord Cecil's Bill.
ANR. H. H. Piggott, of the Ministry of Transport, was _Blithe first witness. He referred to the Government's draft Road Traffic Bill, which was published in March, 1927, and said that certain amendments were considered desirable. Suggestions by local authorities, manufacturing associationu and private individuals were being considered and discussed, The -proposals in Lord Cecil's Bill, if carried into effect, would be very expensive both administratively and from the point of view of applications for licences.
With reference to the proposed obligatory tests of physical fitness of applicants for licences, Mr. Piggott, whilst admitting that in none of the countries where the system had been estabiishad had it been abandoned, suggested that where substantial evidence was submitted to the licensing authority that a driver was physically unfit the authority should have power to suspend the licence until he had passed a test. The Minister would agree that this method would probably be more effective and less difficult to administer than the provisions of the Bill.
Excessive Speed of' Motor Coaches.',' LORD RUSSELL asked whether 20 miles per hour was not quite safe for heavy vehicles such as lorries and motor coaches?
Mr. Piggott replied that representations to that effect had been made regarding motor coaches, but it was a matter of opinion.
Lord Sandhurst suggested to the witness that if a maximum of 35 miles per hour were permitted it might be that the owners would arrange that the coaches should have to go at that speed throughout the journey.
Mr. Piggott said that there was the danger, although he did not think that speed by itself was an element of danger to the passengers. They did not receive information of many cases of accident caused by excessive speed of motor coaches. He admitted that the question of speed had a considerable bearing on the wear and tear of roads, as had been demonstrated in Constitution Hill when the heavy traffic from Piccadilly had to be diverted. The Office of Works complained that the traffic was damaging theroad, and a speed limit of seven or eight miles per hour was then imposed, with the result that the road highway hardly suffered at all at the end of the experiment.
He agreed with Lord Cecil that motor lorries could be seen in the country travelling ht anything up to 30 miles or 40 miles per hour, although they were not allowed to proceed at a speed in excess of 12 miles per hour.
The Ministry once received a complaint from a prominent man that, while he was driving his car at 52 miles per hour he was unable to pass a motor coach in front of him.
The chairman, Lord Weinyss, asked for official opinion with regard to compulsory insurante against third-party risks.
Mr. Piggott said there would be considerable difficulties. Insurance companies would have to be registered at •the Board of Trade to avoid policies being taken out with mushroom firms. Under such a system claims would increase in number and would be exaggerated, whilst juries might be inclined to increase damages in view of the insurance comparles being at the back of the person sued.
With regard to the proposal to have depressions with warning signs across the road at danger points, Mr. Piggott B26 said they would only make drivers slow up and, if the signs were to deteriorate or be damaged, there would be a real danger of drivers losing control at such depressions.
Lord Cecil said that when 5,000 people were killed and 200,000 injured each year something had to be done, and these remote dangers were not very convincing. He asked the witness if the Ministry could possibly draw up a set of regulations providing for the maximum amount of safety and embodying as much of his Bill as possible.
Mr. Piggott replied that it might be possible to do so, but he would have to consult the Minister.
Speed Limits and Tests Opposed.
M. O'GORMAN, vice-chairman of the Royal Auto ,almobile Club, made a plea for compelling both drivers on the roads and pedestrian's on the pavements to keep to the left. He was opposed to speed limits and tests of drivers.
He was in favour of warnings being placed where they might be the means for preventing accidents, and suggested that pedestrians must be educated regarding the use of the roads.
He was afraid that 60 out of a 100 accidents would not be cured whatever tey did to the motorist. Aceidents were only the symptoms of a disease, the disease being, mismanagement of road traffic.
The Minister of Transport had no control whatever over. 1,700 committees which were really misusing their powers of road management. There was no co-ordination.
The Automobile Club considered it was necessary to seek out a code of customs and give it publicity and authoritative support, avoiding rules that had not a moral sanction. For instance, there were occasionswhen exceeding the speed limit' was not its itself an offence.
Asked by Lord Russell if he would venture to enter the maelstrom of Pall Mall, when the theatres had closed and taxicabs and motorcars were racing along that thoroughfare,'by merely, holding out his hand. Mr. O'Gorman said he would not, but the whole trouble was that there was no canon of custom.
He contended that blind corners should be rounded off, and if the authorities used their powers a great deal of trouble would be overcome._ An authoritative statement as to what was the best custom in regard to the dimming of headlights was necessary.
Police Views of Speed Limit.
S. MYLIUS, traffic adviser and assistant secretary _LY_LTraffie Department of the Metropolitan Police, said it was desirable that there should be a test for applicants for driving licences, although with so large a number it was difficult to see how a satisfactory examination could be devised. In many cases danger did not arise from want of competence, but rather from want of consideration and undue trust in competence.
The Commissioner of Police suggested that the maximum speed limit should be 35 miles per hour.
Being asked by Lord Saddhurst whether the police had instructions not to interfere with motorists travelling between 30 miles per hour and 35 miles per hour, Mr. Mylius said that, roughly, that was so. He thought it was reasonable.
Lord Cecil remarked that it was possibly reasonable in the circumstances, but it was not a good thing from the point of view of law.
The witness further stated that be did not favour a mechanical check on speed, as its presence might conduce to accidents, and such a device could be tampered with, whilst continual inspection would be necessary.
The Government's Bridges Bill.
THE Bill which the Government redrafted on the lines of the Bridges Bill introduced in the House of Commons last March, by Colonel Windsor-Clive, has been unexpectedly Introduced in the House of Lords, where it obtained a second reading on February 14th. Several new clauses have been inserted and a few modifications made to safeguard the interests of railways and canals and public utility undertakings, and to exempt any bridges owned by the Manchester Ship Canal Co. and crossing the canal.
The Marquis of Londonderry explained that the Bill was the result of negotiations with the Railway Companies' Association, the Canals Association and the County Councils' Association, with the assistance of the Ministry of Transport, and its object was to facilitate the improvement and, where necessary, the reconstruction of weak bridges, for the maintenance and repair of which some person or body other than a highway authority was responsible. Dealing with the provisions of the Bill, Lord Londonderry said Clause 2 would enable highway authorities and owners of bridges to effect arrangements without the necessity for specific sanction in every ease. Tinder Clause 3 the owner of the bridge or the highway authority must apply to the Minister of Transport for an order for reconstruction, improvement or maintenance, such order modifying, if necessary, the provisions of a private Act relating to the bridge.
Clause 4 safeguarded the interests of railway and canal companies by placing various limitations on the provisions of orders. Id Clause 5 statutory rights of a public undertaking, such as the right of a gas undertaking to take mains across the bridge, were not to be affected.
Clause 6 dealt with the apportionment of the cost of reconstruction or improvement. In the case of the owner the cost of the work was limited to an amount equivalent to what his liability would be if an Order had not been made, the next clause providing for arbitration in case of dispute.
Freeing of Toll Bridges.
NECOTIATIONS have taken place between the County Council c,f Northumberland and the Wylam Bridge Co. with respect to the purchase of the toll bridge.
The Minister of Transport states that he has asked for certain information to enable him to reach a decision upon the application made for assistance from the Road Fund. He further states that he hopes, during the coming year, to assist some proposals for the acquisition and freeing of toll bridges by local authorities, with whom it rests to initiate such proposals.