Political Commentary By J ANL/ S
Page 56
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Best Offenders
ALTHOUGH more people were hurt on the roads of Great Britain in 1956 than in any previous year, the number of goods vehicles involved in accidents dropped slightly from 58,278 to 57,712. The figures are taken from a recent publication of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, "Road Accident Statistics, 1956." The exact increase in the number of goods vehicles on the roads is not yet known, but is likely to be around 50,000. With more vehicles and fewer aecidents, the implication is that lorry drivers improved their standards in 1956, and that operators are entitled to some of the reflected glory.
One might expect that Socialist M.P.s, who year after year have reproached hauliers when the number of goods vehicles involved in accidents has risen, might now claim a share of the credit for reversing the trend. This does not appear to be the intention. Whatever the statistics may say, the Socialists continue to accuse the haulier of causing more and more accidents. By way of accom• paniment to every official Socialist statement on road transport is a campaign to prove that hauliers break every law in the book.
Plenty of advantage was taken of the opportunity given by the recent debate in the House of Commons on the ninth annual report of the British Transport Commission. Although increasing railway deficits, side by side with much-publicized efforts at improvement, Seemed to provide enough scope for oratory, at least one Labour M.P. chose as the subject of attack a section of the transport industry that the Commission themselves had completely ignored.
Technical Breaches
Mr. G. Lindgren, M.P. for Wellingborough, not only spoke of the widespread " violation " of Section 19, but accused the Licensing Authorities of turning a blind eye. In almost any other walk of life, the allegation that a regulation is more honoured in the breach than the observance would be the prelude to a demand that the law should be altered. When hauliers are accused of getting more work from their drivers than the Road Traffic Act intended, the reaction is one of horror rather than of sympathy.
There is one obvious reason. Section 19, and other provisions ofthe Road Traffic Act, were drafted to promote safety on the roads, and must not be consistently and grossly ignored with impunity. On the other hand, many breaches of Section 19 are venial. To make too much fuss about them is something not far short of hypocrisy. Few of the critics, for example, if they own cars, can say with truth that they have never driven in a built-up area at a speed in excess of 30 m.p.h.
The case quoted by Mr. Lindgren was by no means trivial, although it remains to be proved. He alleged that an operator was sending vehicles from Northamptonshire to Durham and that the drivers were returning the same night. This was typical, he said, of all hauliers except a few large concerns, who "played the game" only because their employees were trade unionists. If true, his accusation was serious. He confused the issue by bringing in the trade unions, and by appearing to regard all offences against Section 19 as being equally heinous. What is the real position? Almost certainly, numerous infringements of the law affecting drivers' hours and records take place. Most of the offences are trivial, a few are not some are occasional, others take place regularly. British Road Services and the larger independent hauliers have a better reputation than many smaller operators, but that reputation is not completely unsullied. All operators occasionally offend, or at least are prosecuted successfully. It may be said that they are among the best offenders.
In one respect, it is easy for the larger concerns to avoid breaking the law. They require a more rigid organization. Many of their vehicles are on scheduled services, and the operators naturally arrange these so as to conform with the law. For this same reason. therc are relatively few complaints of infringements of Section 19 by bus operators. Membership of a trade union, although it is more frequently to be found in a large company, has little to do with observance of drivers' hours or the correct keeping of log-sheets.
No Coercion
Equally erroneous is the suggestion that drivers are to any great extent coerced into breaking the law. By working longer hours, a man earns more money, and this may make him eager to keep on the road as long as possible. He does not visualize himself as a criminal, and is inclined to forget the worthy motives that restrict his working day. Section 19 seems more sensible to him in theory than in practice.
There are what must seem like anomalies in the law. They arise mainly from the need to define driving time. So long as the vehicle is not on a road, driving time does not count as such if it is spent on a vehicle engaged in forestry or agricultural work. During that part of the day when he is not driving, a man is free to indulge in whatever activities take his fancy. He may, if he wishes, take another job by day and drive by night. He has the right to 10 consecutive hours in every 24 "for rest," but there is no obligation.
Shorter Day It can hardly be suggested seriously that Section 19 should be relaxed except to a very small degree. There is no rational obligation to regard the section as beyond the reach of change. It has remained practically the same for nearly 30 years, during which vehicle design and comfort have improved enormously. One might argue that the need for the section in promoting safety is less. But the time when any such arviment could be used is long since past. The general tendency is towards a shorter working day and week, and the unions have made some headway with a demand for a maximum of 10, rather than 11, hours in a day.
If, because of this, Section 19 is to come up for review, its general application might well be reconsidered, as well as the use of log-sheets. The aim might be to remove from the statute book those offences that do not really matter to road safety, leaving the field clear for the prosecution of major offenders, who all political parties and transport associations are agreed would be best out of the industry. Their expulsion would be welcomed by everyone.