Road Transport Activities
Page 82
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
in PARLIAMENT By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent • Highway Code Adopted.
BOTH Houses of Parliament have adopted the Highway Code—in the House of Lords after considerable discussion and in the Commons without discussion. In the former House, Viscount Cecil took occasion to insist upon the necessity of providing footpaths on. all main roads. He said that in the discussion of the Road Traffic Bill it was suggested by the Government that whenever it was called upon to contribute to the repair and improvement of a road and agreed to do so, the Ministry of Transport insisted upon footpaths being made. His experience did not conform with that.
Earl Howe's Views.
EARL HOWE said, as a member of the committee of the Royal Automobile Club, that the representatives of that body were much impressed by the way in which the Minister met all the points which the R.A.C. put before him. The Code, generally, was more or less an agreed Code. There were, however, one or two points to which he would like to refer.
He would have preferred to see every applicant fer a driver's licence required to pass an examination on the Code. He thought the Code might have been more emphatic upon the more importent rule of keeping to the left.
With regard to signals, it was not sufficiently realized that the signals pro
'sided were merely indicative of the intention of the driver and no power was given to him to direct other forms of traffic.
He regretted that it had been impossible to define "cutting in," but it would have been a good thing if the order "do not cut in" had been given in a more definite way.
Passing Tramcars.
W% regard to the instruction to the motor driver to watch carefully to see if passengers were intending to board or alight from tramcars, Earl Howe pointed out that' a new difficulty was arising on the roads, A new type of tramcar, which was totally enclosed, was being put into service. Passengers did not alight from the rear end as formerly and they themselves could not see motor traffic overtaking the tramcar, whilst the driver in an overtaking vehicle could not see passengers intending to alight.
Dangerous Driving.
IN connection with white lines, there had, Earl Howe stated, been several prosecutions for driving dangerously, the allegation being that those concerned
had ignored the white lines. For instance, at a crossing where on each side white lines defined the centre of the road, drivers had occasionally gone across the intersection and 'on the farther side had passed over the white line, because the highway was free from traffic. This had, it was said, been held in one or two places to constitute dan gerous driving. He did not know whether or not the instruction that even when the road appeared to be clear the indications given by white lines should be followed was intended to cover this point.
He next referred to the paragraph which said that, subject to any local provision to the contrary, tramcars might be overtaken on either side. In this country motorists were allowed to pass on either side, except in one or two places such as Edinburgh and Glasgow. He suggested that the Minister should in future secure some uniformity in this matter.
Use of Lights.
FURTHER, Earl Howe wished it had been possible for the Minister to be a little more emphatic in regard to the unnecessary use of headlights in places where the street lighting was sufficient. Nothing was said about reducing lights when meeting other traffic. On the Continent, he asserted, this was an offence. Some provision might have been included to enforce the use of either dipping or dimmine.' devices, or whatever device might be fitted.
There was another paragraph on the avoidance of leaving a vehicle at night facing the wrong way, unless the street were sufficiently well lighted to prevent other road users being misled. He should have preferred a definite prohibition of vehicles being left facing oncoming traffic.
With regard to the directions to pedestrians, Earl Howe thought something might have been said against crossing the road obliquely or crossing at points where roundabout systems were in operation. He emphasized the necessity of uniformity in the signals given by the police in different towns.
Lord Newton called attention to the right-hand rule for pedestrians and the left-hand rule for vehicles, which he described as absurd and illogical. The Code should have contained after " always walk on the footpath" the words "and preferably on the left-hand side thereof."
The Earl of Onslow thought it would have been useful to put into the Code directions to motor drivers on how to pass a led animal, and to people leading animals on how to pass a motorcar.
Parliamentary Secretary's Reply.
LORD PONSONBY, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Toesport, was glad that the Code had been received without any serious comment. He said that when a new road was built footpaths were constructed at the same time, The ,Minister was always con
sidering the point and when he gave a grant to local authorities for road construction this question of footpath"; always came to the front.
With reference to Lord Newton's statement, he would advise him not to walk on the left-hand side of the pavement. The important thing to do was to follow the Code's advice, which was, when stepping off the footpath, to look towards the oncoming traffic. He agreed that if pedestrians could be persuaded to keep on the left of the pavement they would face the traffic much more often when attempting to cross the street.
Lord Ponsonby welcomed Lord Howe's approval. The Code would, he said, be issued with all drivers' licences.
The "Cutting-in" Evil.
rIN the point of "cutting-in," he 1..Jr thought the word was now recognized and everybody knew what it meant. Perhaps a definition in more precise language might have been confusing. On the question of trams, representatives of the Scottish authorities which enforced the rule that no tramcar might be passed on its near side by a motor vehicle had been consulted and it had been considered whether by any uniformity of regulation some more definite advice could not be incorporated in the Code, but the conclusion had been reached that, beyond the caution which was necessary in passing a tram that was unloading, it would not be advisable to prevent motors from passing on the near side or to make them stop. As to signals by the police, these were uniform all over the country.
In connection with lighting, it was not desired to enforce instructions which could not be universally accepted, but the question of reducing lights when meeting other traffic would be dealt with in regulations which the Minister had at the moment under Consideration under the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927, which empowered him to issue regulations on this point. Lord Ponsonby agreed as to the importance of this matter, but pointed out that there were occasions when the dipping of lights when passing other lights was likely to obscure a cyclist. He expressed gratitude to all the bodies that had assisted in framing the Code and he thought they were satisfied with the result.
Lord Ponsonby said he thought the Pedestrians Association, of which Lord Cecil was a member, was doing valuable work. Be added that the Code could not be amended now, but in future it was within the power of the Minister . to re-issue it with such amendments as he thought advisable.
Post Office Motor Vehicles.
TT was announced by the Postmaster'General that the total number of motor _vehicles of all kinds at present in use by the Post Office was 5,899, of which 4,998 were of all-British manufacture. The remaining 901 were Ford vans with all-British bodies and with chassis of which four were of foreign manufacture, and the remainder of British manufacture, except for a small
percentage of foreign parts. No vehicles of foreign manufacture were on order, but 10 Ford vans were on order which would contain a small percentage of foreign parts in the chassis.