Speed Limit Discussions in the Doldrums?
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WFIAT has happened to the proposal to increase to 30 m.p.h. the speed limit for heavy Vehicles? Another meeting of the Road Haulage Wages Council has taken place, and so far as can be ascertained, the question was not even discussed. The Ministry of Transport is equally silent on the subject. There might almost be a general conspiracy to say no more about it.
The point of view of each of the interests concerned is fairly, easy to see. The drivers, or, at any rate, their representatives, have seldom dissembled their wholehearted opposition. They have said—or it has been said on their behalf—that the higher speed limit will mean increased danger to the public, " especially. children and old people," hardship to the drivers, and lower wages. It is also said that many heavy-vehicle drivers already travel at 30 m.p.h. or more, and such drivers will have less time to waste if their schedules be speeded up.
A Concealed Wage Increase Some time ago, according to report, a bargain was struck on the Wages Council that opposition would be withdrawn if the employers agreed to changes in classification which, in effect, meant a wage increase in disguise. The agreement, it is understood, was that the higher speed limit would not apply to vehicles registered' before April I, 1938; and a request was subsequently made that certain questions should first be settled concerning running schedules and other matters. Practically all the organizations concerned were then approached by the Ministry of Transport, and expressed approval of the proposed increase.
At this point everything seemed set fair for the introduction of*the necessary legislation; but the opponents of the increase still had to be reckoned with. Vigorous protests were made by cyclists' and pedestrians' organizations, by some local road-safety committees and local authorities, and by certain of the drivers' own representatives. The reply to this campaign of protest was feeble• and ineffective, possibly because the employers did not wish to prejudice the issue while they were negotiating with the workers on the Wages Council. In the end, the Minister of Transport referred the matter to the Wages Council once more. Which, as the cinema addict says, is where we came in.
Workers Shelve the Question The workers appear to have been successful so far in shelving the question completely. Even the employers may not now be as keen as they were two or three years ago. The R.H.E. does not need to hold A or B licences, and its representatives are not eligible to 'sit on the Wages Council. The composition of the employers' panel of the Wages Council is gradually changing as members whose undertakings have been acquired drop out and short-distance operators take their place. Generally speaking, the short-distance operator uses the lighter types of vehicle, and is less interested in the proposed speed-limit increase. He may feel. that, if he takes the matter up strongly at this stage, he is merely pulling the chestnuts out of the fire for the R.H.E.
The R.H.E. keeps singularly quiet on the subject of speed limits. It still has to test out its relations with the nationalized workers, and probably prefers to leave the more thorny questions until a little later.
The Ministry of Transport also seems unlikely to take action if left entirely, to its own devices. As long ago as 1944, a joint committee of commercial-vehicle manufacturers and operators sent a memorandum to the Minister on the subject, and three years later his own Committee on Road Safety recommended, in general terms, that the limit for heavy goods vehicles should be raised to 30 m.p.h. Since then the Minister has more than once shown his approval of the proposal. In December, 1948, he said that he expected "to make a decision in the very near future," but somehow or other he still finds himself unable to introduce the necessary legislation.
Other people are less hampered by conflicting interests. Trade and industry—including the C-licence holder, who has, so far, had little to say in the matter— are protesting at what they must regar'cl as an unnecessary delay. For example, at a recent meeting of the council of Birmingham Chamber of Commerce, Mr. C. E. Jordan stressed the absurdity of permitting a corporation bus, with an unladen weight. of 7i tons and carrying 50 passengers, to travel at 30 m.p.h. in a builtup area, whereas a goods vehicle, with half the unladen weight, carrying general merchandise, is restricted to 20 m.p.h. on an open country road.
Safety Committee's Support
The growing impatience of traders and manufacturers
is easy to understand. There seem to be so many reasons for levelling up the speed limit, and so few reasons against it. The findings of the Committee on Road Safety should have disposed once and for all of the bogey of danger to the public. A uniform permitted speed would take away at least one problem from the vehicle manufacturers, who find it necessary to sacrifice many desirable features in order tokeep the unladen weight of their vehicles within the 3-ton limit.
Even more important is the saving that would be effected in time; money and patience. The new British Road Federation film, "One Way Only,shows, in a form that the public can understand, what an enormous saving would be possible if the country had an up-todate road system. The film assesses the amount at £60,000,000 a year, nearly half of which represents the saving of time. A step in this direction could be made at once by the proposed speed-limit increase.
The, cheaper rates that would result would mean a general reduction in costs, and another step towards financial solvency, which we are continually being -told is the country's only hope. With so much at stake, it is hard to understand why the comparatively unimportant objections of certain interests, should be allowed to hold up a change of such great advantage to the community as a whole.