CLAUSE 49.—(Penalties for neglect of traffic directions.) (Hansard, 10 July 1930)

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I beg to move, in page 45, line 18, after the word "constable," to insert the words "in uniform."
If a constable in charge of traffic gives directions which are not obeyed, the person who disobeys them is guilty of an offence under this Clause. I think there ought to be a condition that the constable should be in uniform.

§ The SOLICITOR-GENERAL
I think it is quite clear that in 999 cases out of a 1,000 a police constable on traffic duty will be in uniform. I thought we came to an agreement on that point during the Committee stage. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman asked for a definite assurance on that from the Home Office, and an undertaking was given by the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department.

§ Colonel ASHLEY
I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I beg to move, in page 45, line 20, to leave out from the word "any," to the first word "any," in line 23, and to insert instead thereof the words: traffic sign being a sign for regulating the movement of traffic or indicating the route to be followed by traffic, has been lawfully placed on or near any road in accordance with the provisions of the last preceding section.

§ Sir G. RENTOUL
There is one small point which I should like to raise on this Amendment. During the Committee stage a discussion took place on this Clause, and the Minister of Transport said that it was not intended that this provision should apply to the white line on the roads. The words of the Minister were: We do not feel that it ought necessarily to be an offence for a person to drive on the wrong side of the white line. If a person crosses the white line in a way that constitutes dangerous driving, he can be dealt with under Clause 11 or 12, but it may well be that to drive on the wrong side of the white line may not be dangerous. The line 756 itself may not be in the right place, or safety itself might demand that the driver should go on the wrong side. I do not, therefore, think that this should be made an offence unless it constitutes careless or dangeruos driving."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee C, 29th April, 1930; col. 805.] I am a little puzzled to know why the Minister has thought it necessary to move this Amendment, and why the words as printed in the Bill itself could not have been left, because the effective word used in the Bill as printed is "erected," which, it seems to me, would make an exception in the case of a white line marked on the road. I think it could be successfully argued that that was not erected, and that, therefore, it was intended to exclude a white line. These new words, however, would undoubtedly cover the white line as well as every other sign of every sort or kind that is either erected or placed upon the road, and, that being so, and having regard to what the Minister said in Committee, I should be very much obliged if he would explain his view with regard to this Amendment, particularly as it bears on the question of the white line.

§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I confess that I felt some nervousness when the hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to this point, but I am advised that a white line would not of itself come within the wording of this Clause. The word "Stop," or "Slow," or signs of that kind, would come within the Clause, because they would be very clear traffic indications, but the white line of itself is not a clear indication of the route to be followed, and, therefore, it would not come within the Clause. I am bound to say that, on first reading these words, I thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman might be right. We will read them again, and, if I feel that we ought to alter them so as to exclude specifically the white line, I will consider the matter. I am not sure, however, that I should wish to exclude it to that extent, because it might be difficult to do so without excluding something else, but I think it is clear that it is not now within the wording of the Clause, because it is merely a white line, and not a clear indication of the route to be followed.