AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

CHAMELEON

7th April 1961, Page 89
7th April 1961
Page 89
Page 89, 7th April 1961 — CHAMELEON
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?

Political C0112111elltarY

By JANUS

LEG1SLATION often presents a harmless appearance at first. The new Road Traffic Bill announces that it is intended "to make further provision as to road safety and road traffic," which seems unexceptional enough, but embedded in the measure is at least one provision that, when its implications are understood, will bring strong protests from commercial vehicle operators.

They will not necessarily deplore that the Bill tends towards greater severity. Largely because traffic is growing much more rapidly than the roads, the accident problem is continually becoming more acute. Whether heavier penalties will make the road user more careful is a debateable point, but they will certainly not have the opposite effect. For a number of offences, including speeding, failure to comply with traffic directions, leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position and parking without lights, the proposal is to raise the maximum fine from £20 to £50. For driving while disqualified, 12 months' imprisonment or £100 fine, or both, replace the present maximum penalty of six months or £50 or both. The way of the transgressor is certainly to become harder.

THERE are, however, some ways in which his lot is lightened. The Bill takes away some of the powers to imprison for minor offences. For example, there will no longer be imprisonment for the person who aids or compels an employee to exceed the speed limits. All the same, the general trend of the new Bill is definitely towards harshness and in this respect it appears to have the support of a large body of public opinion.

A schedule to the Bill classifies offences into three categories, two of them involving disqualification and the other made up of offences for which disqualification may not be the punishment. In the first category one offence means automatic disqualification for at least 12 months, This is the penalty for manslaughter by a driver, causing death by dangerous driving, racing, driving while disqualified, using a vehicle uninsured for third party risks and driving under the influence of drink or drugs. This last offence has had more than its share of public attention, partly because of the new definition which makes a driver liable to penalty "if his ability to drive properly is for the time being impaired," and partly because of the proposal that evidence may be given of the quantity of alcohol or drug in the blood. • Two convictions within 10 years for driving while under the influence of drink or drugs will lead to automatic disqualification for not less than three years. The penalty is 12 months for the second conviction within three years for dangerous driving. This offence will also count towards the total of three in the second category. If the total is reached in three years, then the period of disqualification is at least six months.

Even for a single offence in the second class the court has discretion to disqualify. Apart from this there is virtually no discretion. Once the number of three is made up, the punishment is certain. There is a half-hearted suggestion that the court may order otherwise if they think fit "for special reasons," but this can give small consolation to commercial vehicle operators. It is hard to imagine what exceptional circumstances would apply to the commission of offences by one of their drivers in the course of his dayto-day duty. The second category contains 16 offences. Apart from dangerous driving as a first offence, they include careless driving, disobeying a traffic sign or a police constable's direction, leaving a vehicle in a dangerous position, traffic offences on motorways and contravention of pedestrian crossing regulations. Any three of these offences, and some others besides, if they fall within the three-year period, will mean inevitably that the offender will not be allowed to drive his vehicle for six months and possibly for a longer period.

THERE must be added to the two categories what is perhaps more disquieting from the point of view of commercial operators. The same penalty of disqualification is attached to speeding. This is something new. Under the present law speed alone cannot lead to suspension. There is a fine of up to £20 for a first offence and up to £50 for each subsequent conviction. The maximum will now be £50 on each occasion and there is discretion to disqualify even the first time. What is far more serious is the automatic disqualification for three offences.

Like the chameleon the offence of speeding takes its colour from the surrounding circumstances. This applies particularly to the bus, coach and lorry. Apart from journeys on motorways they are restricted to a limit of 30 m.p.h. This may be wise, or even impossible to reach, in busy city streets, where there will always be support for discouraging the driver from speeding, by heavy penalties if necessary.

Outside the built-up area the situation is different. The commercial vehicle, but not the private car, is still legally tied to the limit of 30 m.p.h., although it may be on a wide and empty road where a materially greater speed may be reached in perfect safety. It is notorious, in fact, that a good many vehicles regularly exceed the limit. The argument has been put forward that on a good stretch of road the drivers are acting for rather than against the interests of road safety. Their powerful modern vehicles travel more comfortably and under better control, and other road users do not need to overtake them so frequently, so improving the general traffic flow.

DISCUSSION on the new Bill in Parliament (if sufficient time can be found for it this Session) may show more clearly what the Minister of Transport and the Government have in mind. In the meantime road operators have the opportunity through their organizations to make their objections plain and possibly to stir up public opinion. The unwelcome elevation of speeding to a high place among traffic offences will be one of the main targets of attack.

The idea that harsher penalties are a deterrent is becoming old-fashioned, but apparently not so far as traffic offences are concerned. The driver who speeds will continue to do so even if the Bill becomes an Act. The main result will be that, if he is caught often enough, he will lose his livelihood and his employer will lose a man who may well. be an excellent and skilful driver and who had never been, nor was ever likely to be, the cause of an accident. The choice before the Minister should admit of no doubt. He should either take speeding out of its present context in the Bill or should make more realistic speed limits for commercial vehicles.

Tags


comments powered by Disqus