GREEK GIFT
Page 48
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
SINGULARLY little comment has been forthcoming about the speed limit increases that are now almost certain to come into effect. The most important change is that the majority of commercial vehicles will be permitted Lo travel at a maximum speed of 40 m.p.h. When there was an increase five years ago from 20 to 30 m.p.h. in the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles, it was preceded by several years of tedious argument, and the interests in favour of the uplift found it necessary to set up a special organization to promote their cause. This time, it would appear, the change is being made entirely on the initiative of the Government, and, for the most part, the people concerned seem to be content with this way of doing things.
Another explanation of their lack of response may be that they are suspicious of Mr. Ernest Marples—as the Trojans ought to have been of the Greeks—when he offers them a gift. They know why he has chosen the present time for a change in the. law, and indeed he has made no secret of his reasons, The -Road Traffic Bill, now well on its way through Parliament, will make disqualification automatic for any driver who is convicted for a third time in three years for any of a long list of offences, which include speeding. If the present speed limits remained unaltered, this extremely harsh penalty would fall upon any commercial vehicle driver (including the driver of a van built on a car chassis) who travelled at more than 30 m.p.h. on any road except a motorway.
The Minister of Transport is aware that this speed limit is not realistic and is widely disregarded. He can hardly allow it to remain on the statute book at the Same time as the widely criticized Clause 3 of his •Bill. If an increase has • to be made, the new limit of 40, in.P.h. is likely, to be generally acceptable.. It will not, too, greatly affront those organizations that might be expected on principle to oppose any increase, and it should seem a reasonable limit to the manufacturers and users of commercial vehicles. Their design and construction these days make 40 m.p.h. completely safe in normal conditions, The Minister may safely feel that he is regularizing an almost universal practice that would be accepted. without comment if it did not happen to be breaking the law.
DESPITE this, or perhaps because of it, the opposition to Clause 3 is not going to be assuaged. The principal benefit for operators and drivers is that they need no longer experience any distracting anxiety because, on a clear, wide stretch of road, their vehicles happen to be travelling at a speed nearer 40 than 30 m.p.h. This is an advantage worth having. But for some time it has ceased to have much practical effect. According to reports, there have been remarkably few prosecutions, let alone convictions, over the past few months where commercial vehicles have not too flagrantly exceeded the statutory limits.
There seems a tacit general agreement, in any ease, that it is not worth while going to court for any speeding offence involving a vehicle which was checked arid found to be travelling at less than 40 m.p.h.
In view of this, the driver cannot expect to notice much difference when this becomes the official limit, and the employer also will no doubt find that his vehicles travel at the same speed as previously. There may even be an increase in severity and in willingness to convict. At present (-8 there is considerable sympathy for the commercial vehiele driver tied to an out-of-date limit. As a result, the law may be tempted to turn a blind eye, or to take a lenient view, more often than it would in other circumstances. The increase in the limit may be coupled with a drive for the more striut observance of the new rules. This could mean. paradoxically, that a driver would actually run more ..risk of a prosecution than at present. .
This possibility becomes even more serious when it is remembered that the prosecutions would be taken in accordance with the terms of whatever Act finally emerges when Parliament have finished with the Bill. Assuming that no change takes place, there will be a substantial increase in the maximum permissible fine for speeding. Even one such offence could mean disqualification for whatever period the court may think fit, and, if it is one of three offences within three years, the disqualification becomes compulsory, "unless the court for special reasons thinks fit." It appears to be the general opinion that these mysterious special reasons would not include the fact that the commercial driver who automatically loses his licence is doubly punished by the equally automatic lass of his livelihood.
The Minister of Transport has a complete and logical case for raising the limit. Generally speaking, heavy goods vehicles are well maintained and well driven, as well as being built for speeds considerably in excess of 30 -m.p.h. By adhering to this limit their drivers would often add to the hazards of the road, rather than decrease them. Traffic flow and lane discipline are helped when vehicles are not travelling at too widely different speeds. The faster cOmrnercial vehicle would. not need to be overtaken so frequently.
THE case is not nearly as complete for a subStantial increase in the penalties for the offence of speeding, whether or not it is accompanied by danger. The Minister has himself given the answer. He has accepted that there should be no speed limits on motorways, either for cars or commercial vehicles. Even when on occasions there is a demand for such a limit there remains agreement that the figures should be well above those applying to other non-special roads.
In effect, therefore, nobody denies that on certain stretches of road a high speed limit, or none at all, is desirable and safe. It is possible to apply this belief to motorways, usually of considerable length and distinguished in many ways from other roads. On those roads there must also be many stretches that are just as safe as a motorway and that could be traversed by all vehicles at high speeds without danger.
Admittedly, it would hardly be practicable to provide a special dispensation over these stretches of road. They would usually be no more than a mile or so long and there might be several of them on the same road. It would be confusing, and at times dangerous, to allow frequent changes of speed limit up or down. The only specific on ordinary roads' is a uniform limit. Once this has been accepted it follows that there must be enforcement of whatever limit is fixed and there must be penalties for infringement. It cannot be right, however, to suggest that -each infringement is equally serious, and that a remarkably heavy punishment must be inflicted with no regard at all to the circumstances in which the offence was committed.