Political Commentary By JANUS
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Sound Barrier
WHATEVER the representatives of trade and industry may feel has been gained by the number of meetings with the Minister of Transport to discuss the raising from 20 to 30 m.p.h. of the speed limit on heavy goods vehicles, few people at this stage are likely to be satisfied until they see the appropriate regulation in black and white. Nobody who listened to a pleasant little hour's discussion in the House of Lords two months ago could have been blamed for supposing that the Government were just on the point of lifting the limit and that no more lobbying was required. Lord Lucas from the Opposition side asked for the necessary amending legislation to be introduced. He marshalled so many of the telling arguments and put forward so many facts and figures that the remaining speakers seemed for the most part to be echoing his remarks. Lord Leathers, who closed the debate, was in a mood to agree with almost everything that had been said. A few quotations show clearly the tenor of his remarks and the effect they are likely to have made upon the House:— " In my opinion the situation gained quite a new look when in 1947 the Committee on Road Safety said that they had no objection to the proposal.
" This very restrictive provision is a handicap to our motor manufacturers in their efforts to capture markets abroad.
"It is common knowledge that this speed limit is frequently disregarded.
"The Party opposite failed to come to grips with this deadlock between the two sides of the industry.
1 believe that if Parliament had made the change, the negotiating machinery between the two sides of the industry would have acted effectively, and that a reasonable and satisfactory solution would have been found.
"We should therefore propose only to make the regulation effective as from a date some little way ahead." Not unnaturally, this was interpreted as meaning that the 20 m.p.h. limit was bad, and that the Government proposed to take positive action on a situation the Socialists had mishandled. The strong deputation from manufacturers, operators and users, under the chairmanship of Sir Leonard Browett, which met the Minister of Transport on February 18, had every right to feel optimistic. It is no secret that they came away with the impression that the case was won.
Tedious Repetition
Accordingly, there was something like dismay when, a month later, the Minister replied to Lord Hinchingbrooke that he was "not at present in a position to add to previous statements on this matter." The supporters of a change in the speed limit must be of the opinion that the Minister's words apply also to them. They have stressed so often the many excellent reasons for their proposal that the repetition has become tedious and they are not "in a position to add" anything further.
Some of the items on the other side of the account are well known. A section of the trade-union membership has chosen to fight the proposed increase on the ground that in some cases it will reduce the number of hours worked in a week and consequently the amount of wages received. Certain road safety committees and
c I 6 organizations representing pedestrians and cyclists are also among the opposition. They maintain that the increase will lead to more accidents on the roads.
Against this background the Minister's hesitation can at least be understood. At the present juncture he has no wish to become embroiled in an argument with the trade unions, or even with a section. The recent disappointing rise in the number of road accidents may also cause him to have second thoughts. Whatever their numerical strength the pedestrian and cyclist organizations have many ways of arousing public opinion on matters where they feel strong opposition is justified.
It is easy to see that the arguments against the change have little or no validity. When it was first introduced, • the variation in the permissible speed limits of commercial vehicles reflected doubts as to whether the standard of all heavy goods vehicles was sufficiently high to enable them to travel safely at 30 m.p.h. It was not introduced so that men could work 66 hours between Sunday morning and Friday night. Drivers of lighter goods vehicles and of buses and coaches do not complain of an excessive speed limit, and the minority of drivers of vehicles now subject to the 20 m.p.h. limit would have had no complaint if 30 m.p.h. had been the maximum from the beginning.
Largely Disregarded In fact, as Lord Leathers pointed out, the speed limit on heavy goods vehicles is largely disregarded and in the opinion of the experts its increase to 30 m.p.h. would have no effect upon road safety. There is more danger in two streams of traffic travelling at different speeds than if the maximum permitted speed were uniform. It would be more logical, even if not more sensible, for the organizations that oppose the increase to suggest instead that all commercial vehicles should be restricted to 20 m.p.h.
The hysterical and exaggerated indignation that greets any suggestion for raising the speed limit camouflages a far more important issue. The basic conflict is between those people who hope to solve the road safety problem by means of restrictions and those who think it more sensible to build better roads to fit the traffic. To the first party all restrictions are good and it scarcely seems to matter whether or not they contribute towards the desired result. To give way on the 20 m.p.h. limit would be to open the gates and let in the barbarians.
Against this romantic folly one can only persevere and hope that commonsense will in the end prevail. Valuable though the results of the change will be, they must sometimes seem out of all proportion to the effort expended. Parliamentary questions and sometimes debates on the subject stretch back over many years. In each case the reply of the Government, whether Labour or Conservative, has been as carefully non-committal as Mr. Lennox-Boyd's statement.
Whenever the subject is brought up again, the Government must expect a barrier of sound which must first be overcome before this country falls into line with the rest of the world. .Possibly there are few votes to be gained, but the benefit to manufacturers and the improvement in transportivity are so obvious that sooner or later the step must be taken by some Government or other, and it may as well be this one.