HC Deb 15 September 1948 vol 456 cc216-28

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Snow.]

9.57 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton (Sudbury)

During the past 22 years there have been killed on our roads about 144,800 people, and a large proportion of them children, valuable future citizens. I think there is no question that this problem is of tremendous gravity and, further, we have not so far, with all our efforts, gone any distance towards solving it. Last year was a better year than many of the years past but, even so, we killed on the average 13.4 a day. I ask the House to agree with me that until we have reduced that figure to something like a quarter of what it is now, we cannot consider that we have in any way solved this terrible problem.

If we are to do that, it is quite obvious that our approach will have to be much more drastic than it has yet been, and there are various elements that will have to be considered. The one I think is more important than any other is the question of limiting speed. We must, of course, tackle the human factor also, and that is a point that might be discussed on another occasion. It concerns the Home Secretary perhaps more than the Minister of Transport, but speed is particularly the concern of the Minister of Transport. He has great powers to limit, if he so decides to do, and that is the point I want to stress tonight.

There is a tremendous amount of misconception of this whole subject of speed in connection with accidents, and yet there really should not be any mystery about it all. Lord Cecil, in another place, pointed out that there was no problem of road slaughter before the coming of the motor vehicle. Why not? Is it because the horse vehicle was easier to control? I think we must all agree that the opposite is the case. The only difference is that the motor vehicle goes much faster. Really it is just a matter of simple mathematics. If I am going along a fairly open road and a child darts out, as children will, from a gap in a hedge or from behind some stationary object—

It being Ten o' Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Simmons.]

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

If a child darts out, what are its chances of escaping death? They depend on three factors. First, how soon I begin to slow up; secondly, how long it takes me to come to a stop; thirdly, if I do hit the child, how hard I hit it. All those depend on speed. If I am going at 60 miles an hour, I shall travel—

Mr. Speaker

If I may interrupt the hon. and gallant Gentleman a moment, the speed limit is a matter which I think is dealt with by law. Therefore, a reduction or alteration of the speed limit would mean an amendment of the law, and an amendment of the law is out of Order on the Adjournment.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think the Minister has powers to alter the speed limit. Is that not so?

Mr. Speaker

The Minister can inform me about that. The hon. and gallant Member may point out these dangers without advocating any reduction of the speed limit, and that would be in Order, but it might be difficult then for the Minister to reply. The Minister would then be out of Order, and that is my difficulty.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Callaghan)

On the simple question of fact, I think it is the case that if any alteration should be proposed in the present speed limit, the matter would have to come before the House.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

I will address my remarks to explaining why I think that the moderation of speed is of great importance.

Mr. Speaker

The hon. and gallant Member can talk about speed.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

To continue my illustration, if I am going at 60 m.p.h. I shall get 88 feet nearer to the child before I even begin to slow up. If I am travelling at 45 m.p.h. I shall only have 66 feet, and the proportion varies as my speed grows less. As I begin to slow up, the distance I shall have depends on the square of the speed; that is to say, I should go four times as far at 60 m.p.h. as I should do if travelling at 30 m.p.h., and twice as far as at 45 m.p.h.

Mr. Speaker

I must interrupt the hon. and gallant Member, who is putting forward a problem which can only be answered by the Minister by saying that it means an alteration of the law. I have ruled before that a speech cannot be made on the Motion for the Adjournment which means that the Minister is placed in the position of being out of Order because he can only answer by saying that it will mean an alteration of the law. I am sorry, but that is the position. Indeed. I do not know how the hon. and gallant Gentleman can really make his point, because it must be the case that, if he urges an alteration of the speed limit, it must mean an alteration of the law, and, therefore, that is out of Order.

Mr. Skeffington (Lewisham, West)

Would it not be possible to refer to the fact that speed is a factor in the death rate on the roads, and, therefore, as a re- sult of this Debate and of any campaign which the Minister may initiate, the speed at which one drives a vehicle is important? That surely, does not involve the question of altering the present legislation, but simply suggests that motorists should be more careful?

Mr. Speaker

That is laying down what the Minister may say in answer. That is not fair upon the Minister, who must have the whole field before him. I have ruled before that a speech on the Motion for the Adjournment which might involve legislation is not in Order, because the Minister is placed in an unfair position since he cannot put the whole picture before the House because, as in this case, and, I think, in another case of which the hon. and gallant Member also knows, it might involve legislation. I am sorry, but that is the case.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

The Minister is allowed to put on speed limits at the request of local authorities from whom he frequently gets applications.

Mr. Speaker

Yes, if it is a question of putting on speed limits at the request of local authorities, well and good. I am interested in keeping the hon. and gallant Member in Order and I want to keep the Minister in Order as well.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

If I may refer to the Minister's power to impose speed limits in particular cases at the request of local authorities, I think that does justify me, if you will allow me, Sir, in pointing out how great a factor speed is in this question. of road safety. I pointed out how an accident will depend almost entirely on the speed at which a motorist is travelling and I wish to deal with one or two of the arguments which are brought against this point of view. One argument is an appeal to statistics. Police statistics show that about 22 per cent. of accidents are due to excessive speed, which does not sound very much, but I would like the House to consider two points in regard to that.

As we all know, in a great number of actions there is no real evidence to show what happens, as the principal witness probably is dead. Secondly, I am not considering blameworthiness—an accident will only be shown to be due to excessive speed if definite blame was attached to the motorist in question—I am dealing with the question of safety and from that point of view it is quite obvious that even though a motorist may be going at some speed which at that time is regarded as within the law, he may none the less be going fast enough to cause an accident which he would not have caused if he had been going at a more moderate speed.

Another argument is that of skill. It is said that a good driver is just as safe at a higher speed as a poor driver at a lower speed, but that argument does not really apply, because the good driver and the bad driver would be much safer if they were going at a more moderate speed. I emphasise this because there have been several cases put up by the Minister in which local authorities have asked permission to put on speed limits and it has been refused. I think the whole indication is that the Minister does not realise what a very important factor speed is in the causation of accidents. I could call other evidence. Sir Alker Thripp, late Assistant Commissioner of Police in London, has put the matter very simply. He says that if a man inadvertently steps off the pavement, as men do, and a vehicle comes along, if it is a Wall's ice cream vehicle going at 10 miles an hour there is no collision, but merely an exchange of language. If the vehicle is going at 25 miles an hour the man will be hurt, and if it is going at 40 miles an hour probably he will be killed. That is within the observation of us all. I could point to the very remarkable results achieved in some places when care has been taken about the moderation of speed.

Of course, speed is not the only consideration. We also want to make motorists more responsibly minded. They must realise that they are operating a lethal weapon and that accordingly there is a special responsibility upon them on the roads. There are many ways in which we can help them to achieve sense of responsibility. At the time of the training test a good deal more emphasis could be put upon that aspect. I was shocked the other day to hear of a case in which a lady I know, quite a competent person, was to her great surprise turned down in her driving test. The reason was that she was not ready enough to go fast when it appeared possible to do so. I hope that that is an isolated case, but there it is. To my mind it showed a wrong point of view on the part of the examiner.

When I put forward the point that at the time of being tested for a licence it would be a good thing for the candidate to be asked questions on road safety and for the great responsibility that lay on him to be emphasised, my suggestion was turned aside somewhat with contempt. I regard it as important. That is the time when these things should be emphasised. Further, when accidents take place the inquiry might be much more thorough than it now is. In addition, it would be a very good thing if a record were kept of every motorist and of any accidents, etc., which have happened to him. I know that that has been considered and turned down by a committee, but I think it would help to develop the sense of responsibility in motorists, which is so important.

I also think that it should be impressed upon magistrates that they must detach themselves when considering road offences. There is much too great a tendency, a natural one for a magistrate to say, "There, but for the grace of God, go I." Many do detach themselves and treat these things as they should he treated, very seriously, but there are still too many who do not. I think that if we could get accepted the point of view that this is a very serious matter, that aspect could be improved.

There is no doubt that there will be great opposition of the part of the motoring world to any attempts to restrict their freedom to enjoy speed or anything else as much as they like. They are very powerful. I was speaking some time ago to a young woman who is warm-hearted and fond of children, and when I drew her attention to the heavy slaughter on the roads she was duly impressed. But as soon as I suggested that it could be reduced if motorists went slower, what a change there was. In other words, motorists as a whole are all out for road safety, all out to save life, with one great reservation, that there must be no interference with their own enjoyment, and that vitiates the whole position.

Mr. Speaker

The limit which can be discussed in this Debate is not the general speed limit. The Minister has only powers covering the 30 miles per hour speed limit. Anything outside that would require legislation, and is out of Order.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

It is true that any sort of limitation would be resisted. I do not speak specifically of a new speed limit or anything like that. I would, however, include a more rigorous enforcement of existing speed limits which are at present, in my experience, frequently treated with little respect. It may be for lack of sufficient police or for other reasons, but it will be agreed that at present speed limits that are the law are not strictly observed. I should like to see them much more strictly observed and enforced than they are at present.

I was speaking of the fact that there are powerful interests on the side of the motorists. I think it should be recognised that this is so. It is natural, because most people of any means are motorists nowadays and as they are human they naturally, like anyone else, like to have their own way. The people who mostly get involved in accidents are not very articulate and the only society of any power which is engaged in the promotion of road safety is the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, which itself is very motorist-minded. It is the society which the Ministry subsidises to a very high degree and the only one which it subsidises. We have only to look at its propaganda to see how onesided it is. It is directed almost entirely to keeping the victim out of the way of the lethal weapon, rather than to encouraging the man who wields the lethal weapon to handle it much more carefully. I think that is a pity.

I think it is all to the good to train children and parents to be careful, but I feel that other training—that of training the driver to be careful—is more important still. I trust, therefore, that the Parliamentary. Secretary will pay attention to these points when he continues the efforts, which he has already started with great vigour, to deal with this question of road safety, because I think he ought not to be satisfied with the present state of affairs. True civilisation does not mean rushing about ad lib. regardless of accidents. It surely means something better than that. We should surely be prepared to limit our enjoyment of speed in order to give other people more freedom to enjoy their lives in safety on the roads.

10.17 p.m.

Mr. Skeffington-Lodge (Bedford)

I rise to lend my.support at this late hour to the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) in raising this most important matter. I will keep off the speed aspect of the subject. One of the most deplorable things is the general apathy in the country towards this intolerable toll of sorrow in the homes of our countrymen as a result of carelessness on the roads and this mounting toll of accidents both to motorists and pedestrians.

It is a fact that the monthly average of people killed and injured is in the region of 300 killed and 1,200 injured. Far too many people are looking at these figures as being inevitable—figures for which there is no remedy. I think the remedy lies in three things. First of all, in engineering—in improving the road system of the country. Secondly, in discipline, and under discipline I think we can look for a better spirit of good neighbourliness among our people in order to enforce the rules and regulations which have been laid down for all road users. Thirdly, I think the remedy lies in increased education, and I am glad that the Ministry is alive particularly to the last aspect of this vital matter—namely, increased education. Some of the propaganda which has been going out lately is really first rate and especially was I impressed the other day by a film which I saw. I would urge the Parliamentary Secretary to continue that good work in language which will fasten the attention of the public on this really vital matter—and it is a vital matter—this great human question in which far too many people seem to be little concerned. I look for an encouraging reply from him.

10.19 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. James Callaghan)

I am sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Sudbury (Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton) should have had to grapple with rules of Order in a way which rather circumscribed his contribution, especially as I know the very great interest which he takes in this question of road safety. He is, among other things, secretary of the group of Members in this House who pay considerable attention to this question and, I am sure, give the Ministry and the Minister considerable support in the efforts the Minister is making. The contribution which we get from the hon. and gallant Member for Sudbury and others on that committee is of very real assistance to us.

I have no intention of discussing anything tonight which would require legislation but I would like to offer one or two opinions about the 30 miles per hour speed limit in explanation of what it is. It is not, if I may start by saying what it is not, a licence to drive at 30 miles per hour on all occasions, irrespective of the circumstances and the traffic in which the motorist happens to find himself. It is a maximum speed at which a vehicle may be driven. The proper speed at which it should be driven depends upon the traffic and the circumstances, and, therefore, it would be no defence on the part of anyone involved in an accident to say,—it may be a legal defence, but it would certainly not be a moral defence—"I was doing less than 30 miles per hour," if in the circumstances he was driving at a speed which was dangerous to members of the public using the King's highway.

I think that it is important to make that point because consistently one sees in towns efforts to creep up to 30 miles per hour on the speedometer, and to keep there, recognising that it is the legal limit at which the driver may stay. It may be that the proper speed would be less in certain circumstances in order to ensure safety. I would emphasise that point by way of explanation of what the 30 miles per hour speed limit is intended to do. My hon. and gallant Friend referred to the fact that we in the Ministry were not quite cognisant of the effects of speed on accidents, because of the number of cases we have turned down when application had been made by local authorities to the Ministry to apply the 30 miles per hour speed limit in their localities. Let me assure my hon. and gallant Friend that every one of those cases, in the last resort, finds its way on to my table, and I assure him that it does not have a cursory examination. Every one of these cases is examined very thoroughly, and the observations put forward in support of the claim in proposing the 30 miles per hour speed limit are examined.

I would say to him that it is 13 years since the speed limit was first imposed.

Thousands of them exist in all parts of the country. The 30 miles per hour speed limit sign is one of the most familiar on the roads today. Is it not likely that after the constant and detailed scrutiny of applications during 13 years that we are bound to get a number of cases of rejection? I have figures to show what we do. I find that in the last period of 12 months, I examined 205 proposals for enforcing the speed limit in particular areas. Of these, 101 were agreed to, and 104 rejected. That does not indicate that they were turned down out of hand. There are numbers of cases, in which there is no real evidence at all in support of the imposition of a speed limit, and where it would be an unwarrantable interference with the legitimate demands of traffic, and in those circumstances the case is turned down. In all these cases, we have the advice of the highway authority, frequently that of the county council, always that of the police who know the area and of our divisional road engineers, and frequently there are other local representations. These decisions are taken by reference to their careful examination.

My hon. and gallant Friend said he had heard of a lady who was failed in a test for driving too slowly. I can quite understand that might be a reason for failing someone. I believe it to be fairly commonly accepted that the way to avoid accidents is to have a free flow of traffic moving at a constant speed, and one can envisage a situation in which someone travelling at 15 or 16 m.p.h. might very well be a menace if other people travelling behind on a perfectly good road are thereby driven to overtake—compelled almost to overtake—in order to continue their journey at a reasonable speed. In such circumstances I can conceive that a person travelling slowly might be a danger.

Lieut.-Colonel Hamilton

In this particular case that was not so. Her trouble was that she did not overtake and pass a vehicle when she might have done so.

Mr. Callaghan

Well, I really do not know the details of this particular case, so I cannot very well comment on it. Perhaps I should not have started to, but I wanted to deal with the general point. I can say that on the whole the tests which are applied by the Ministry of Transport's examiners meet with approval by everybody who passes, but usually they are met with obloquy by those who fail. But perhaps that is due to a defect in human nature.

My hon. and gallant Friend suggested that when these tests are undertaken questions should be asked about the Highway Code and matters of courtesy on the road. That is indeed the position now; at the end of tests people who are being examined are asked questions in order to determine whether they have in fact studied the Highway Code and understand what it is about.

I must reject the suggestion that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is "motorist-minded" and issues one-sided propaganda. That really is not the case. I see the whole of the propaganda they issue, and it is directed consistently to all members of the public who use the roads in any case. I would conclude what I have to say about that by adding that, whilst my hon. and gallant Friend fastens and concentrates upon the factor of speed in accidents—which is, of course, a considerable factor—there are other factors, too: the condition of the vehicle, the carelessness and selfishness of those who use the roads—they are frequently the causes of accidents—the construction of the roads themselves which have been far overtaken, I regret to say, by the development of the internal combustion engine. All those factors enter into this problem of accidents, and we must deal with it on a number of lines.

My hon. Friend the Member for Bedford (Mr. Skeffington-Lodge) was good enough to say that some of our recent propaganda met with his commendation. I am glad that should be so, for we have taken very considerable pains indeed about our recent and coming campaigns. I would propose, if there were any desire in the House, to place in the Library a folder which would enable hon. Members to see exactly what we are doing in the way of public propaganda and education. There is a great deal to be done in that direction, and a great deal is being done.

As to the future, what I should like to do is to focus attention throughout the country at one period in time, on particular aspects of road safety, so that we can have a national campaign over a period of, say, a week or two weeks; focused on some particular aspect of road safety and drive that home to everybody. If we take a particular case in that way and really hammer it home we perhaps stand more chance of making an impression on public opinion than we should by diffusing our propaganda over the whole range and field of road safety. At the moment, I am engaged, in a preliminary way, in working out plans for picking out some really vital aspect in order to concentrate all our efforts nationally and locally on it during a particular week or so that lies ahead.

I welcome this Debate, and I wish we had more of them. This subject is one about which anyone who is brought into contact with it must feel very deeply. If every member of the public could sit in my chair and see the reports of tragic accidents that are placed in front of me from time to time, the way in which parents are deprived of their children, and the way in which children find themselves left orphans because of some carelessness, some avoidable step that has been taken on the road, then I think all of us would be more careful. This is one of the biggest jobs that falls to the lot of succeeding Parliamentary Secretaries to the Ministry of Transport. It is a job to which every succeeding Parliamentary Secretary becomes deeply attached because of its significance in the saving of human life that is today needlessly thrown away; and it is a job in the field of which I and, I am sure, my successors will continue to do all we can.

Question put, and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o' Clock.