ROAD TRANSPORT MATTERS IN PARLIAMENT
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Road Vehicles Regulation Bill. The Committee on Licence-issuing. Disagreement with Mechanical Speed Checks. Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic.
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent.
Ai THEN Lord Cecil introduced his Road Vehicles V V Regulation Bill doubts were expressed as to the advisability of attempting legislation at a moment when the Government had a Road Traffic Bill on the stocks and when the Royal Commission on Transport was making a wide survey of all the problems connected with road traffic. Lord Cecil has, however, succeeded in drawing attention to the need for early legislation and the report of the Select Committee of the House of Lords, which considered the Bill, will no doubt hasten Government legislation in the new Parliament, although the committee finds it impossible to amend the Bill or redraft it in a way to ensure for it a chance of success, and it recommends that there be no further proceedings.
The Committee on Licence-issuing.
THE committee deals with the main proposals of the Bill in its report. It thinks that the most satisfactory method of limiting the issue of licences would be to make the applicant sign a definite statement as to his physical fitness and as to his knowledge of the rules, conventions and courtesies of the road, with some guarantee that his attention had been called to them.
The evidence given before the committee was to the effect that the working of the provisions of the Bill would be very expensive and that such tests of ability to drive would tend to become perfunctory. It was pointed out that the most rash and dangerous drivers would be able to pass any test without difficulty, whilst beginners, who are usually timid and cautions and, consequently, safer and less likely to cause accidents, might have great difficulty in passing it.
Braking Regulations and Insurance.
rilHE committee is agreed that the regulations for 1 braking should be brought up to date. It considers that it is not practicable to make effective regulations to prevent dazzle, nor to define the strength of lights to be carried on vehicles.
The committee, although approving of the principle, is not prepared to recommend the adoption of provisions to compel motor users to insure against thirdparty risks, owing to the great technical difficulty of the subject and the fact that its bearing on safety, which is the primary object of this Bill, is only indirect.
Disagreement with Mechanical Speed Checks.
Tcommittee does not recommend that motor vehicles should be provided with a mechanical check on their speed. The evidence showed that this might actually prove a source of additional danger on the road, as sudden acceleration frequently enables a driver, to avoid an accident. Evidence was also given that previous efforts in this direction have not proved a success. Even witnesses who were in favour of the retention of a speed limit were opposed to this provision.
The committee considers that the present regulations with regard to speed are so habitually disregarded that they tend to make the law contemptible.
Some police evidence, chiefly from the Metropolis, was given in favour of retaining a speed limit, as, in the opinion of the police, it acts as a deterrent to dangerous driving and facilitates charges being made
when evidence of dangerous driving is difficult to obtain. Almost all the witnesses were in favour of the retention of a speed limit for heavy motor vehicles. The Traffic Adviser to the Metropolitan Police Force advised that the speed limit for light motor vehicles should be increased to 35 miles per hew. Evidence, on the other hand, was given that the majority of the chief constables wished to see the speed limit for light motor vehicles abolished. A graduated scale of speed limits for different types of motor vehicle was also suggested.
The committee recognizes the possible abuse of the abolition of the speed limit, but is of opinion that no limit should be made that cannot be enforced.
Alteration of Road Levels and Suspension of Licences.
MEE committee is strongly opposed to any obstruc tive alterations being made to the levels of the road and is of opinion that varying the levels would increase, rather than decrease, the number of accidents. The evidence against this proposal was unanimous.
The committee approves of the principle that persons convicted of dangerous driving should have their licences suspended automatically unless the court, in its discretion, thought there were special ciscurastances for remitting such suspension. The committee considers that regulations, 'subject to the assent of Parliament, for the avoidance of accidents should be framed by the Minister of Transport.
Urgency of Enforcing Regulations.
T"committee concludes its report with an earnest recommendation that the Minister of Transport should present his own Road Traffic Bill to Parliament without further delay. That Bill was drafted and published in 1927, but was never presented, and this prolonged delay has caused great unrest and anxiety aniOnguL those interested in this subject.
The hope is expressed that regulation, accompanied by proper enforcement of the law, will be undertaken in the immediate future. It is pointed out that fatal accidents in the Metropolitan Police area increased from 960 in 1927 to 1,230 in 1928.
Co-ordination of Passenger Traffic.
..THE Select Committee of the House of Commons, 1 which has been considering the two Bills promoted by the London County Council and the Electric Railway Companies to enable agreements to be entered into for common joint management ana a common fund in the working of London passenger traffic, found the preamble proved in both cases and it is expected that the Bills will receive a third reading in the House of Commons before its dissolution.
The Bills will be carried over to the next session and the House of Lords will dispose of them before the summer adjournment. In the probable event of their being passed there is every likelihood that measures will be promoted in the autumn for the building of new tube railways and the extension of existing tubes to relieve congested traffic.
The concessions made in the committee stage of the Traffic Co-ordination Bills have lessened the opposition to the proposals, although the eight borough councils and the East Ham and West Ham Councils are still against the scheme,