AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Government Tidy Up Traffic Bill

6th July 1956, Page 51
6th July 1956
Page 51
Page 51, 6th July 1956 — Government Tidy Up Traffic Bill
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

"Review Penalties," Lord Chancellor Warns Courts : Test Scheme Attacked

BY OUR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT

A FURTHER tidying-up of the Road Traffic Bill began in the House 4-1 of Lords on Monday with the opening of the committee stage. Government amendments were accepted in quick succession but others had little success.

Monday's proceedings were concerned mainly with vehicle testing and the Government came under fire from all sides.

Lord Lucas spearheaded. another attack on the use of private garages for car testing with an amendment to exclude them from the Bill. There would, he said, be about 15,000 testing stations, and he did not "see how the Government could police them. The Government should try out the scheme with their own inspectors.

Possibility of Graft Earl Howe declared that "the moment you bring in the commercial garage you open the door possibly to revery sort of hanky-panky." It was easy, if one wanted priority, to slip half-a-crown into someone's hand at a garage. They did not want that to happen in connection with this scheme, but it was more than likely.

Lord Attlee thought the garage proprietor operating the scheme would, consciously or unconsciously, have regard to his regular customers. People were being placed in an invidious position and given powers over the ordinary citizen. It should not be allowed.

Lord Selkirk, Chancellor of the Duchy, said the idea was not to select garages, but to accept any garage which qualified and could satisfy the Minister that it was competent and reliable for the work. The Government wanted a large number of garages in the scheme, so that the motorist could have powers of selection.

The amendment was defeated by 50 votes to 10.

Testing Simplified

A Government amendment was approved to simplify the testing procedure. It enabled the Minister to set different periods for different classes of vehicle when the scheme was brought in, so as not to overload the testing stations.

A new clause was agreed on Tuesday to give the Government power to charge for parking in the Royal Parks. Lord Selkirk, for the Government, said there was no suggestion of putting up parking meters, but they considered that it might be necessary at some future date to charge for parking in • the parks.

Lord Lucas moved an amendment to provide that in cases of reckless or dangerous driving, careless driving and driving "under the influence," courts should impose a fine of not less than £50 except for reasons "special to the facts of the case or to the circumstances of the offender."

There had this year, he said, been a substantial increase in the number of persons killed on the roads. The total for the first five months, from January to May, was 2,001 as against 1,841 in the same period last year. The number seriously injured had gone up from 20.996 to 22,601; of slightly injured from 67,919 to 74,424.

In 1952, convictions for exceeding the speed limit numbered 87,345. and the average fine was £2 3s. By 1954 the number of convictions had gone up to 89,714, and the average fine was £2 8s. For careless driving the number of convictions in 1954 was 29,614 and the fine had gone down by Is., from 1952, to £3 16s. For dangerous driving the 1952 figures were 3,337 convictions, average tine £10 10s., and in 1954, 4,202 convictions, with the average fine down to £10, For driving under the influence in 1952 there were 2,099 convictions and the average fine was £19 15s. In 1954 there were 2,806 convictions, and the average fine was £16 4s. Why did not magistrates impose harsher penalties when these were open to them under the law, asked Lord Lucas.

Pointer to Magistrates The Lord Chancellor, for the Government, said Lord Lucas had tried to give a pointer to what magistrates should do.

"It is recognized that some courts do not impose adequate penalties for motoring offences and courts do not make as much use as they might of the powerful weapon of disqualification," he said.

"Disqualification serves a double purpose—it is the punishment most feared by motorists and the most important deterrent, and it keeps the careless or dangerous driver off the road for a period."

He was concerned that the very attention which the amendment gave to the question of fines might have the effect of deflecting the benches' attention from disqualification. The Government had revised the current penalties for driving offences and had embodied their conclusions in the Bill.

He thought that magistrates might be well advised to review the scale of the penalties they customarily imposed for driving offences and to decide, in the light of the grave situation with regard to road safety and the fall in the value of money, whether they were adequate.

Lord Lucas withdrew his amendment.

Lord Elton moved an amendment to permit benches, if they wished, to suspend a licence for not longer than three months on a first conviction for reckless or dangerous driving, instead of only after a second offence, as at present. A resolution passed by the Magistrates' Association had sought similar powers, but without specifying a maximum period.

The Lord Chancellor replied that the law as it stood was more severe than Lord Elton proposed. Under Section 6 of the 1930 Road Traffic Act, courts had the power to disqualify for a first offence and frequently exercised it.

Lord Elton hoped that this knowledge would become general. He was sure that many magistrates and lawyers were unaware of it.

The committee stage was adjourned.

APPEAL WITHDRAWN AFTER AGREEMENT

AN appeal by the British Transport Commission against the Northern Licensing Authority's addition of two 3-ton tippers to the B licence held by J. and W. Watt, Ltd., Carlisle, was withdrawn in London on Tuesday when the two sides reached agreement.

As Mr. J. Amphlett, for the Commission, was opening his case, Mr. Hubert Hull, president, asked: "I suppose we must take it there is no chance of an accommodation at this stage? "

Then Mr. Amphlett and Mr. T. H. Campbell Wardlaw, for the respondents, adjourned to consider the matter. Later Mr. Amphlett told the Tribunal that they had come to an agreement that the two additional vehicles should be licensed as applied for, with minor adjustments.

Mr. Hull said that a copy of the draft Order would be sent to the parties before it was sent to the Licensing Authority.

P.V.O.A. IN BOURNEMOUTH FIGHT

AT a meeting in London on Tuesday, the Passenger Vehicle Operators Association decided that they would be represented at the hearing of the proposal by Bournemouth Corporation le direct all express coaches now using the Avenue Road car park to the King's Park coach park at Boscombe.

The King's Park coach park is nearly two miles from the centre of the town, and is claimed to be totally inaccessible and inconvenient for both passengers and operators.

The Association state that opposition is important not only in the interests of express services, but also to ensure that the proposed restrictions will not ultimately be enforced for excursions and tours and contract carriages which now use a site at Glenfern Road.


comments powered by Disqus