ROAD SAFETY MEASURES (Hansard, 19 October 1954)

§ Mr. William Keenan (Liverpool, Kirkdale)
I have waited a long time for this opportunity, and I wish to start by giving figures in regard to what appears to myself and many others to be a failure in much of our road safety work. In certain categories the figures for the last two years give a clear indication of the tragedies which have taken place. In 1952 there were 4,706 deaths on the road, of which 786 were of children under 15 years of age. In 1953 the number had increased to 5,090, the number relating 1166 to children under 15 being 797. Many of us feel very strongly that it should be described more as murder rather than death on the roads. In 1952 there were only 68 charges of manslaughter, and in 1953 only 39. Total accidents of all kinds on the roads in 1952 amounted to 208,012, of which 40,927 involved children under 15. In 1953 the total number of accidents had risen to 226,770, and 44,246 were to children under 15.
These statistics are supplied in official documents, and the Parliamentary Secretary has brought me up to date by letting me have an early copy of the 1953 figures, which are not yet in print. These figures disclose that in 1952 charges of dangerous driving numbered 4,846 and charges of careless driving numbered 29,773. In 1953 the figures for dangerous and reckless driving had risen to 5,255 and careless driving 32,061. In 1952 charges of driving or being in charge of motor vehicles while under the influence of drink numbered 3,150 and in 1953 3,258.
In spite of all our safety precautions, tragedies on the roads occur every night of the week. Nearly 12 months ago I mentioned that after 10 o'clock at night the accident and death rate increases. While I am now speaking, between the hours of 10 and 11, drunken drivers of motor cars will leave the public houses and will cause more accidents. My assertion is based upon statistics for the last two years. This is an aspect of the problem that I am very much concerned about. Nearly every public house and hotel has a car park, and we have all seen people leaving those places. I appreciate that there are not enough policemen to catch all these people, and the records of people charged with dangerous driving and being drunk in charge are only of those people who are picked up by the police. I want the Minister to tell us what he is going to do about this situation.
The number of those failing to report after accidents in 1952 was 8,133, and in 1953 it was 8,897. In 1953 there were 14 deaths each day on the roads, and for children under 15 the average was over two every day. In 1952 there were 572 accidents every day, out of which 112 were to children under 15 years of age. In 1953 it was worse. There were over 621 accidents every day out of which 121 were to children under 15. In 1952 out of 4,706 killed on the roads, 2,063 were 1167 pedestrians. In 1953 2,233 pedestrians were killed out of a total of 5,090. Of the 208,000 accidents in 1952, 54,503 were to pedestrians, and in 1953 the number of accidents had gone up to 226,770 out of which 58,000, or over a quarter, involved pedestrians.
I want to comment upon some factors which arise out of those figures, because I believe that they merit consideration. Most of our efforts—with a great deal of justification—are concentrated upon preparing our children to be more careful, but we should pay more attention to the motorists. Accidents are always, apparently, the fault of the pedestrian, but the pedestrian does not knock the motor car down; it is the motor car which knocks down the pedestrian.
When we hear talk about the difference between today and the old days, and hear motorists shouting that the roads are not wide enough or well made enough to enable them to go faster, we must remember that the roads were here before the motor cars. The pedestrian does not seem to have any right to be on the roads today. I want to repeat what was said by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on 19th May of this year, in answer to the Question: … to what extent an area has to be built up, and how far the total of road accidents is taken into account before he"— that is, the Minister— imposes a 30 miles per hour speed limit on an urban road in a development area. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said this: We do not believe that any useful purpose would be served by imposing a speed limit restriction in areas where it is not likely to be observed by motorists."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1954; Vol. 527, c. 2071–2.] Is the motorist to determine the speed limit? Are the people who are responsible for these deaths on the road to decide how fast they shall go, and whether there shall be a restriction?
I now come to the question of the zebra crossings, which are supposed to afford protection to the pedestrian. What protection does he get from them? There are more accidents today than ever, including those on zebra crossings. I should like to tell the Minister my experience in the last week or so in Liverpool. Last Monday morning, at half-past 1168 eleven, I waited outside Tithebarn Street Station, which is the oldest of the two stations on the Lancashire and Yorkshire line, outside which there is a zebra crossing, and I found two motors parked inside the prohibited area, outside a public house. A constable asked me if one of them was my motor car and I said, "No, it has no right to be there." The constable just laughed, so I went to see the chief constable, who promised to see what he could do about it. Last Thursday morning I went to the same spot and there again, parked inside the prohibited area by the crossing, were two cars. I have written to the chief constable, and it is because I have had no reply from him that I am referring to this question tonight.
A zebra crossing has been taken away from the worst spot in Liverpool—outside the Rotunda Theatre—because there is periodic police control. I should think that at least 30 bus services go past the spot. Nearly all the traffic to the East Lancashire Road, and all the bus services to Bootle, Crosby and the East of Liverpool go past it. It reminds me of a speed trap that I have mentioned before, at a place where there were 139 accidents. Commencing next month there is to be a campaign for safety. The local trades people spent some time considering it.
But the zebra crossings have been taken away. Nobody knows where to cross now. They have taken them away from outside Lime Street Station in Liverpol, so that there is no proper place there for crossing. In some places the distance between one pedestrian crossing and another is half a mile, or three furlongs at least. I believe it is so at Bootle. Where does anyone with children cross the road in safety? Three years ago the number of crossings was reduced, but now the position is worse. "I believe in zebra crossings" says the Minister, but he is not allowing those responsible to operate them.
The penalties for dangerous driving are not enough. I hope that when the time comes for a new Road Act the Minister will make provision for severer penalties and disqualifications. A dangerous driver should get at least 10 years' disqualification. If we want road safety, stringent measures must be taken. People say that we should make the roads wider. I object to the roads being made wider until there 1169 is a better sense of responsibility among the motoring fraternity. I think we ought to do what they do in France and elsewhere where there are dangerous areas, and that is put down cobble stones to prevent speeding.
Speeding worries me more than anything else. Youthful motor cyclists can get driving licences and can then drive the most powerful motor cycles, and we know how dangerous motor cycles are on our roads. Motor cycles need competent drivers. Can anybody dispute that very few motor cycles go at less than 30 miles an hour even in the towns and villages?
Generally speaking, the speed on the roads is too great. Nearly every bus goes over 30 miles an hour day or night, and sometimes even in restricted areas. Unfortunately, the Ministry, as I see it, as well as the local authorities and the police, believe in getting the traffic moving along quicker to do away with the congestion that takes place on the roads. I say that speeding up is responsible for the deaths on the roads more than anything else.
I am sorry I have not had longer to make this case, but I must leave the Minister time to reply. He must consider the murder of our kids on the roads. That is what it amounts to. We expect children of two, three, four and five to be able to approach this problem, to be able to protect themselves. The figures show they do not. What do we do? We promise the motorists better roads so that they may go quicker. They are going too quickly now for the pedestrians. How little is done. I do not know whether the police are to blame.
Although I have not had longer to speak, I have said enough to show how serious the matter is. I have not spoken nearly strongly enough to show how deeply I feel about the matter, to show how strongly the mothers and fathers, the pedestrians and their societies feel about it. Nothing has been done and nothing is being done about the problem of motor drivers who drive at night when they have visited the public houses and the hotels. Tonight there will be thousands of motor drivers who will leave those places, and who will not get caught, but whose driving will show that they really have no right to be in charge of motor vehicles. For these reasons, I now ask the Minister what his Department is going to do. 1170 Although we have an elaborate new Highway Code, it does not go far enough. It says that the motorist should do this and that, but I suggest it should say they must do it and it should penalise them if they do not. I hope I have given the Minister enough time to answer my remarks.

§ Mr. Paul Williams (Sunderland, South)
Would the hon. Gentleman confirm one point that comes to my mind. If he is willing to ask for more regimentation for the motorists, will he ask for more regimentation for the pedestrian?

§ Mr. Keenan
As far as I am concerned, I believe the penalty should be on both sides. But what I do say is that the pedestrians are regimented enough at 5,000 deaths a year, or 14 a day. Does anyone want a greater penalty than that?

§ The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Hugh Molson)
The hon. Member for Kirkdale (Mr. Keenan) has done a public service in alleging on the Floor of the House that our road safety measures have been a failure.

§ Mr. Keenan
I do not want to be mistaken. I do not say a failure. I want to see more of them, but they have not succeeded as we had hoped.

§ Mr. Molson
What the hon. Member put down as the subject for his Adjournment debate was "Failure of Road Safety Measures." He might as well stick to the title—

§ Mr. Keenan
I will do so.

§ Mr. Molson
—of his own Adjournment.
I am glad to have an opportunity of citing a few figures and facts to show that, so far from that being the case, what has been done by my Department under successive Ministers of both political parties has been remarkably successful during the last few years. We are far from being satisfied, but it is because of what has been done to improve road manners during the last 20 years that we are able to move forward with some confidence to obtaining equally successful results in the future.
1171 The first fact to give us satisfaction is that the crude accident rate in 1953 was lower than it was in 1934. The number of killed fell from 7,343 to 5,090 and the number of injured from 231,603 to 221,680. Those crude figures show an absolute reduction in the number of killed, a reduction that is no measure of the improvement that has taken place in road manners during that time. There has been a steady increase in the population, a still greater increase in the number of aged and there has been a remarkable increase in the numbers of vehicles on the roads. The best way to measure the real improvement is to calculate the number of casualties per 10,000 vehicles upon the roads.

§ Mr. Keenan
I will not accept that.

§ Mr. Molson
The hon. Member may not accept it, but that does not alter it from being a fact. The number of fatal casualties per 10,000 vehicles was 32 in 1930, 30.5 in 1934, 22.5 in 1938 and only 9.6 in 1953. The hon. Member has seen fit to disparage our road safety propaganda. It is difficult to persuade people of his generation to listen and to learn about the need to recognise—

§ Mr. Keenan
Might I ask what the Minister refers to when he speaks of my generation? Am I somebody aged and infirm, who cannot judge? Is that what he is implying? I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman is 10 years younger than I am.

§ Mr. Molson
When it comes to adopting the humility of being junior, I am always willing to do that when debating with the hon. Gentleman. It is difficult to get the older generation to adopt the measures that are necessary to avoid accidents upon the roads. The same is also true of children under five.
However, we can get at the children of school-going age. During the last 20 years, owing to the public spirited co-operation of the teachers, there has been a very remarkable improvement in the figures for accidents to children of school age. In 1938 the number of children of school-going age killed on the roads was 792. In 1953 it was 510. Since 1934 the number of children of all ages killed per 10,000 vehicles upon the roads has been reduced to one-third. That shows a very remarkable improvement.
1172 This is proof of the value of road safety propaganda. It is a startling improvement when one takes into account the fact that the number of children of school age has increased by about 500,000 and the number of vehicles has increased by 2 million. When considering the tremendous improvement which has taken place in the figures for accidents as a whole one must take into account the number of the aged who are particularly prone to accidents upon the roads and the number of children under the age of five.
The hon. Member asked what more we proposed to do. He referred to the new edition of the Highway Code, which is at present lying on the Table of the House. In view of the constructive criticisms that have been made by hon. Members, by the Press and by others, my right hon. Friend is withdrawing it and he hopes to present a very slightly amended version next week. We hope that the House will approve it before the end of the Session.
We have just completed a three-month campaign in which the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents and the Ministry of Transport has been concentrating on the need for greater care with children under the age of five. Their parents should never allow them unaccompanied on busy streets. I have visited four provincial centres and I have tried to stress the importance of that statement. We have also been emphasising the need for training and testing child cyclists before they go out on the road. The number of accidents which occur to child cyclists is a most serious matter.
The hon. Gentleman has been talking about pedestrians. I very much regret that the Pedestrians' Association refused to associate itself with the propaganda which we have been carrying out during the last few months.

§ Mr. Keenan
On what grounds?

§ Mr. Molson
We are constantly issuing regulations which, like those requiring twin reflectors on cars and forbidding stopping within 45 feet of the approach side of zebra crossings, are intended to promote safety. My right hon. Friend is also devoting a good proportion of the money available for roads to the elimination of the black spots where most accidents take place.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)
That is on the pedestrian crossings.

§ Mr. Molson
I will now answer one or two of the other points which the hon. Member for Kirkdale has made. We do not intend to increase the number of pedestrian crossings. He and his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Brixton (Lieut.-Colonel Lipton) have been making encouraging noises to each other during the debate, but, whereas the hon. Gentleman would like to see more pedestrian crossings, his hon. and gallant Friend would like to see fewer of them.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Lipton
Hear, hear.

§ Mr. Molson
We have adopted the objective of the right hon. Member for East Ham, South (Mr. Barnes), to reduce the number of pedestrian crossings to one-third. Nor is it our wish to increase the number of 30-mile an hour speed limit areas. For the reasons that I gave, and which the hon. Gentleman quoted, we believe that they should apply only in what are built-up areas. On the contrary, my right hon. Friend has asked the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee to consider whether, in that area, there are cases where the 30-mile an hour speed limit could be done away with.
Just as aviation involves air accidents, so modern road transport involves road accidents. Despite the great increase in the speed of road traffic, the measures taken by my Department under successive Ministers of both political parties, with the efficient and public-spirited help of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, has greatly reduced the accident figures.

§ Mr. Keenan
It has not.

§ Mr. Molson
The number of hon. Members who desire to see the improvement and development of traffic held up in the way that the hon. Gentleman has advocated tonight is very small. But we all desire to see a reduction in accidents, and I am glad to be able to state some figures which show the great improvement in road manners which has taken place in the last 20 years.

§ Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton (Brixton)
The Parliamentary Secretary has not dealt with one very important and serious matter. He has not explained why the number of persons killed and injured on zebra crossings is steadily going up. I ask him to publish the figures for the second quarter of this year, which, as in the case of the figures for the first quarter, show an increase in the number of persons injured. He has worked out figures for each 10,000 vehicles on the road, but here we have a device which is supposed to provide safety, a device which he himself admits is unsuitable for old people and young children.
The hon. Gentleman is now going to cut down the number of zebra crossings because he knows that they provide no safety—