HC Deb 14 February 1958 vol 582 cc805-18

3.20 p.m.

Sir Charles Taylor (Eastbourne)

I beg to move, That this House is seriously perturbed by the large number of road accidents, and is determined to do all in its power either by regulation, legislation or education to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the public highways due to carelessness, ignorance, inefficient equipment or other causes, to reduce traffic congestion and speed up with safety the general flow of traffic. It was on 4th March, 1936, that I last had the honour of raising this subject in the House on a private Members' day. At that time, the Government were far less greedy about time than they are today, because we had Private Members' Motions every Wednesday, and Private Members' Bills on every Friday. Today, we back benchers have very little opportunity of raising matters in the House. Even today, on a Private Member's Motion, the Minister spoke for nearly 50 minutes, which is quite disgraceful.

In the debate to which I referred, the Motion was seconded by my right hon. Friend the present Minister of Defence. The late Lord Hore-Belisha, then Leslie Hore-Belisha, was the Minister of Transport. One must give credit to the late Lord Hore-Belisha for the introduction of the Belisha beacon. In those days it was largely regarded as a matter for fun, but today it is recognised throughout the world as having been something which was needed.

When 30 or 40 people are killed in an air accident, that accident hits the headlines of the newspapers, because it is regarded—and rightly so—as a national catastrophe. When there is a volcano eruption in the world, and 200 or 300 people are killed, that is also regarded as a great catastrophe. When an island like Ceylon is subjected to the most awful floods, that is a catastrophe. But the international catastrophe which we have with us every day of our lives is the terrible slaughter on the roads. Every year tens of thousands of people are killed or die as a result of injury on the roads.

My figures are those for last year, when 5,500 people were killed on the roads of this country alone. There were 63,000 seriously injured and 204,000 slightly injured. That is the problem which we have to face today and anything we can do by regulation, legislation, or other means to reduce that number of deaths must obviously be done.

There is not time to mention many things today, but I will point out that the pedestrian accident ratio is worse at night than during the day. That obviously points to the fact that there is inefficient or insufficient lighting on some highways. Is my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport prepared to bring pressure to bear on local authorities to enable the best form of lighting to be installed on our roads? At present, there are different kinds of lights in different areas, but by now the Ministry must have made up its mind which is the most efficient form of lighting and that most efficient form of lighting should be standardised throughout the country.

A motor car can be just as lethal at 20 m.p.h. as at 30 or 40 m.p.h. Because of the serious congestion on our roads today, I hope that my hon. Friend will realise that it is not only speed which kills. I hope that he will be prepared to tell us that he will extend the 40 m.p.h. limit and, in certain cases, where it obviously out of date, remove the 30 m.p.h. limit altogether.

I always feel that too much emphasis is placed on speed in this matter and that if the police devoted their attention to dangerous driving rather than to speeding—dangerous driving such as passing on blind corners, or other breaches of the Highway Code—that would be more effective than trying to catch the motorist who drives at 35 m.p.h. in a 30 m.p.h. limit area. At certain times of the day or night 30 m.p.h. may be too fast, but at other times it is ridiculously slow.

I hope that we are not going to have an extension of the electronic eye system, which traps a motorist by some electrical apparatus which works only if he is on his own. Neither have I much use for the idea of plain-clothes police patrols. A few uniformed policemen will have a very much more salutary effect upon the average motorist, if it is known that they are watching and that careless and dangerous drivers will be heavily penalised. Uniformed police will do a better job than plain-clothes ones.

One of the main causes of road accidents is the sudden appearance on the roads of cats and dogs. Only a few weeks ago, when I was driving down to my constituency and was travelling at only about 40 m.p.h. in a derestricted area, a dog jumped into the middle of the road and I could not avoid hitting it. We are told not to swerve for a small animal like a cat or dog, but one does it instinctively. I braked hard and swerved and I got into a four-wheel skid. It would have resulted in a very serious accident had anything been coming the other way, or following me.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

And possibly a by-election.

Sir C. Taylor

Yes. If they can be traced the owners of these dogs and cats which are responsible for endangering life on the highways should be fined for not keeping their pets under proper control. Prosecution in that way might have a very salutary effect.

Another cause of accidents is the inefficiency of traffic lights. Although the red, yellow and green traffic lights control motor vehicles very well, they are quite useless for pedestrians. Every traffic light should have, at eye level, instructions for pedestrians, with a green indicator saying, "Cross now" and a red one, "Do not cross". The pedestrian would then know where he or she was. Pedestrians are occasionally very stupid, as are some motorists, but in any case they cannot be expected to keep looking at lights which are right above their heads and trying to work out whether they or the motor vehicles have the right of way. It might be expensive, but it would be worth while to produce these eye-level signs to control pedestrians. I am sure that that would reduce the number of road accidents. Here again, the occasional prosecution of a jay-walker would not do any harm.

I am also a believer in the principle of motorists having to pay the first £5 for any damage to their vehicles or other property if they are involved in accidents or any trouble through carelessness. There is too much of the "I am insured; what does it matter?" spirit on the roads and it is worth considering whether legislation should be introduced to give effect to my suggestion. Insurance companies would probably welcome it, and they might be able substantially to reduce insurance premiums.

Too many large and cumbersome loads are allowed to be transported by road today. The obvious reason is that road transport is cheaper than railway transport. But many of our roads are not fitted for such heavy freight. On the Portsmouth or Southampton road, for example, one often sees enormous pieces of machinery being transported by heavy lorries. I believe that those lorries and heavy loads are a danger to other road users. If those responsible for the nationalised railways could be induced to reduce freight rates on the railways, it might be possible to get much of the traffic off the roads on to the railways.

I congratulate the Minister on his double white-line experiment on the London—Guildford—Portsmouth road. I think that the experiment is absolutely first-class, and I hope that the system will be brought into use on every highway throughout the country. I hope, also, that the regulations covering the double white-line system will be strictly enforced and that anybody breaking them will be regarded as guilty of careless driving.

Much has been done in the schools by means of films, talks, and so on, to educate children in road safety. However, I believe that still more could be done in this direction. I am convinced that if it could be arranged to give a two-minute flash in the children's hour television programme each day dealing with a road safety idea, it would be well worth while and would pay large dividends in the saving of young lives. I hope that the Minister will consider discussing the matter with the B.B.C.

I have received some communications from a Brigadier Lloyd, who runs a society called the Railway Conversion League. His plan seems to be that if all the railways were converted into roads, both goods and passenger traffic could he carried very much quicker and much more cheaply than it is at present being carried by the railways. That may sound, and, indeed, may be, a fantastic scheme, but as we are proposing to spend about £1,200 million on railway modernisation, it may not be as fantastic as it at first appears. I certainly think that the Minister of Transport should give the suggestion intelligent consideration, because it might well be that acceptance of part of the plan would help to solve some of our problems.

I understand that in, I think, eight States in the United States of America a scheme is in operation whereby the back of the driving licence has ten or a dozen small squares. If a motorist is guilty of a breach of the highway code or convicted of careless driving, or something of that sort, some of the squares are marked off. When all the squares are marked off, the motorist cannot renew his licence for twelve months from the date of the marking off of the last square. I am told that when only two or three squares remain, the driver of the vehicle exercises the greatest possible caution, particularly if he is due to go on holiday during the next two or three weeks.

I do not say that that would be the solution to all our problems, but, again, I think it is worth while thinking about such a scheme. It is certainly worth the Minister's while getting from one of those eight States particulars of how the scheme works and what are the statistics of accidents, and so on, after experience has been gained of working the scheme. I commend that suggestion, also, to the Minister.

I apologise to the House if I have taken up too much of its time. I intended to be much longer, but as time is short I will conclude.

3.35 p.m.

Mr. J. Langford-Holt (Shrewsbury)

I beg to second the Motion.

The terms of the Motion are wide and had the House had longer time in which to develop the topic today, it would have permitted a very wide discussion It also has one slight disadvantage in that it is so platitudinous in its nature that the Government should be able to accept it without worrying a great deal.

The emphasis in the Motion is on the question of road accidents, but it is so phrased that every aspect of road usage and behaviour is directed towards the prevention of accidents. I believe that there are three main factors. One is the actual construction of the roads; I do not intend to deal with this today. The second is the equipment surrounding the construction and use of roads; and the third is the education on the use of that equipment and of the roads.

I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) has said in that the education of road users, especially among the young, has been surprisingly successful. At a time when road accidents are increasing and the over-21s are killing themselves at a faster rate than ever before, the under-21s are preserving themselves to a greater degree than for many years.

The construction of roads is a major contribution to the reduction of accidents. For example, on the German autobahnen there is a road accident ratio of between 30 and 35 per cent. in comparison with other roads carrying the same amount of traffic. I wish, however, to deal for a short time with my second and third points, concerning the equipment surrounding the roads and education.

In its education policy, the Ministry of Transport falls very short in educating the adult road user. An adult who has to be educated on how to use the roads must be quite clear about the exact meaning of the law. In my view, the laws and regulations surrounding usage of the roads are extremely muddled. To take only one example, what is the difference between stopping, parking, loading and waiting? A taxi, I imagine, stops, waits or unloads, but if I drop a parcel at a shop or any other office or building I am stopping, parking, unloading and waiting. A bus, on the other hand, I imagine, stops, waits and unloads, but does not park.

All these things are confusing, certainly to me and, I imagine, to every other motorist. It is worth noting that a person who happens to have a chauffeur is all right. In theory, the chauffeur in his car could be moved on at short notice, but he causes just as much obstruction as any other car parked on the road.

I have spoken about education and the need to educate adults in how to use the roads. I have seen no education policy by the Ministry of Transport teaching people to drive on the left-hand side of the road, by which I mean driving on the left and not in the middle of the road. I regard the person who drives at 25 m.p.h. down the middle of the road as an absolute menace, not because of his speed, but because his driving in the middle of the road causes exasperation to everybody who follows him and can be the indirect cause of an accident. I have never seen any form of publicity or education policy by the Ministry in that direction.

Parking is not a minor matter. I believe that it is correct to say that if the speed of London's traffic were increased by one mile an hour, the country would be saved millions of pounds, which is not insignificant when we remember that the House sometimes haggles over the expenditure of thousands of pounds. I want to see a policy of education by the Ministry to teach people to park thoughtfully and not to abandon their cars in a sense of hopelessness in the hope that they will "get away with it," which is what happens today.

I should like to see a policy of education for taxi and bus drivers, whom I regard as being thoughtless drivers. Lorry drivers are the best and most thoughtful drivers on the road. They are the most kind-hearted drivers on the roads of any country. Lastly, I would like to see clearly stated, as a matter of education policy, the right of the pedestrian on zebra crossings. Often one sees people standing on the edge of the zebra crossing as though they were contemplating a dreadful evil. As a matter of fact, they could stand there all day. They have no rights whatever. As I understand, they have rights only when they step on to the crossing. This matter is quite unclear in all the publicity that goes out from the Ministry of Transport.

My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary would doubtless be disappointed if I did not mention road signs. I regard our road signs as an incitement to bad behaviour and dangerous driving. It takes a person longer to read our road signs than it takes any motorist to read those on any other road in any other country. When I was in Japan I could not read the sign which said, "This is the way to the lavatory," or "This is the way to the telephone," but I could read every road sign quickly and completely. Some of the road signs we have are so archaic that they go back to the First World War, and I doubt whether some of them are not even older.

The excuse always given by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary—I have heard him state it at that Box—is, "It would cost a lot of money." All that is necessary is for the Government to say, "These signs shall be used until they have to be replaced." I have here the book which the Government produced only a year ago, containing the signs. When they are replaced we should use the up-to-date, modern signs which were drawn up by the International Conference to which this country was a party. Then, instead of having a proliferation of signs all meaning the same thing, there would be a gradual reduction in their number, until we had road signs each one of which would be clearly understood. There would be less variety.

At present, we have a lot of road signs which are scarcely understood and which are flouted in various ways. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport went to a great deal of trouble in introducing a number of new road signs, one with a big red knob on top of it. That road sign is ignored in some places, not only by the motorist, but by the police also, because they have given up hope. I can show hon. Members places where that happens every day. The police are compelled by the circumstances to acknowledge the presence of road signs which are suitable neither in their shape nor in their design, but squat on the pavements of this city and are approved and condoned by the Home Secretary. For this I have the authority of the previous Home Secretary. They confuse the motorist and make life more dangerous.

The proposed Amendment to this Motion may or may not be called, but I do not think it is necessary to appoint a Royal Commission. What we must have is the law and the regulations that go with it understood, while the road signs and their surroundings must be up-to-date in quality, and not go as far back as the early 1920s. Road education must be continued. Then we shall have a greater degree of safety on our roads.

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies (Enfield, East)

The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) is to be congratulated on having chosen such a very important subject for his Motion today. The great regret of the House. I am sure, is that there is so little time left for it to be debated and that he was unable to develop the points he had in mind as much as he would have liked. That applied also to the hon. Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. Langford-Holt). There are a great number of points which I should like to develop, but, unfortunately, time does not permit of that being done. I am sure that the empty benches in the House do not signify a lack of interest in this subject, but the fact that there is not time to debate it adequately.

Had there been time, there are at least four essentials to road safety with which I should have liked to have dealt. The first would be that it is essential to have an adequate road system, capable of carrying traffic speedily and efficiently. Regrettably, we have not such a system today. Even where major improvements have been made, attention is not paid to the question of road safety. I could quote the case of the Markyate by-pass where, unfortunately, there have already been five fatalities and no less than 50 accidents in the nine months since it was opened because, instead of having a double carriageway, there is a single carriageway and too many crossings.

The second essential is that the rules of the road must be easy to understand, easily followed and enforced. The hon. Member referred to the double white line experiment. I fully endorse what he said, hut until it is made mandatory not to cross the double white line, motorists will not abide by that new rule of the road. The third essential is to avoid unnecessary congestion. For that, we must ensure that the highway is kept free for its main purpose of keeping traffic moving. It is economically necessary for commercial and public transport that the roadways shall be kept free for traffic and for that there must be stricter parking regulations.

The fourth essential is to keep unnecessary vehicles off the road by encouraging the use of existing facilities. The hon. Member for Shrewsbury referred to that when dealing with the question of heavy loads We must do everything in our power to provide new facilities, particularly in the very congested areas, such as the Metropolis. Here I would once again refer to the necessity for building the new Victoria tube, which would take a very considerable amount of traffic off the streets of London.

If there had been time, I should have liked to have developed all these four points but, unfortunately, that is not possible, if I am to give the Minister the time he wishes and merits. I conclude by saying that although, whenever a railway accident or air crash occurs, the public is shocked at the tragic loss of life which results, often the number of fatalities which attain the headlines in newspapers are not greater than the number of those killed on the roads on the same day. The public seems to accept road accidents far too readily. People accept the frightful toll of death and mutilation on the roads.

Two-thirds of these accidents are unnecessary and avoidable. They need not have taken place if there had been greater care on the part of drivers, better maintenance of their vehicles in a state of road-worthiness, more caution on the part of pedestrians and better education of both in road use and road behaviour—above all, the exercise of self-discipline on the part of road users. Then the number of accidents on the roads probably would be reduced by two-thirds. Many more accidents would be avoided if the roads were made adequate for the traffic which seeks to use them. There are many other matters which the House would like to discuss. I hope an occasion will shortly arise when we can have a full debate on this very important subject.

3.50 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent)

I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Sir C. Taylor) on his success in moving this very important Motion, and I can say immediately on behalf of Her Majesty's Government that I accept it gladly. My hon. Friend had many interesting and valuable comments to make, and so far as the limited time permits I shall deal with them.

I should like, first, to place on record the Government's view about the general level of accidents on the roads. Let there be no doubt at all in anybody's mind that the continuing toll of death and injury on the road is our deep concern, and to a considerable extent it falls to me personally to do all that is possible to reduce it.

What must be made clear, however—and I am glad that there is no controversy about this—is that neither we here in Parliament nor any of the authorities have the cure in our own hands. All that we can do is to make certain contributions in the way of better roads, enforcement and education, and then, finally, it is the responsibility of the general public—of all road users, whether drivers of vehicles or pedestrians—to take greater care.

The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) is perfectly right when he says that whereas serious accidents causing loss of life by air or rail transport strike horror into the hearts of the nation, people seem to be unaware that the daily losses on the roads may be as great or even greater. It is our constant concern to try to bring home to the mind of the average person that he is quite likely to have an accident, not through anything criminal or vicious, but simply by lack of care and lack of observance of the normal simple rules of the road.

There are three approaches that we can make. They are known as the three E's, rather like the three R's mentioned in the previous debate or, in modern parlance, the three A's. The three E's are engineering, enforcement and education. We have a good tale to tell about engineering. Our road programme today is the greatest that this country has ever seen. This year, we shall have spent about £25 million on new roads and major improvements. That sum will be mounting considerably next year and rising to a total of £60 million in this country plus another £10 million in Scotland.

Those are substantial figures, and they are progressively showing substantial results. But the arrears that we have to overtake are very heavy and it will be many years before we can hope to see our main road system up to the level at which we should like to see it. In building these roads we are, however, showing our awareness of the roads problem.

In building the new motorway from London to Birmingham which will be started in the next month or so, we envisage a really modern motorway, safe for vehicles travelling at fast speeds from London to Birmingham and back on that very important route. Even our old friend, the Great North Road, though we cannot build it to motorway standards, will have progressively dual carriageways over its length up to Newcastle. That is a massive addition to the safety of vehicles using the road. We are beginning to build some underpasses and flyovers in our great city, and these will greatly facilitate the movement of traffic and safety. These things will proceed, and we can claim that the Government are today making a substantial contribution—indeed, the greatest that has ever been made.

Turning quickly to one or two of the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne, he commended the 40 m.p.h. limit and I was glad to hear his commendation of it. I am sure that it is a useful measure. The idea of gradations of speed limits on the approach to a city must be right.

In the semi-open areas, a 40 m.p.h. limit is probably right, and in the urban area a 30 m.p.h. limit is probably right, but what we must try to do is to fix the limit at the speed at which the average driver can safely travel in the modern vehicle. Hon. Members will find, when they study the two batches of proposals for 40 m.p.h. limits together, that we shall have raised approximately as many 30 m.p.h. limits to 40 m.p.h. as we shall have imposed new 40 m.p.h. limits.

The idea is to try to keep the speed at what is the safe limit for the average vehicle. Speed, alone, I agree with my hon. Friend, is not a crime. On the other hand, he must accept that it is in the semi-open areas where the bulk of the most serious loss of life, and injury, takes place. Therefore, once we fix those limits, they really must be kept, and it is only right that the police should use the best methods they can to see that they are kept.

I really do not think that we can complain if the police bring in a method like radar, which is reliable now, to help them get better observance. I accept that very good drivers can, in many circumstances, drive faster than 30 m.p.h., but such drivers must accept that that is the safe speed for the average driver, and the exceptionally safe driver must accept a little responsibility to give an example to others.

The same applies to the use of plainclothes policemen. I agree with my hon. Friend that, in the ordinary way, the presence of the policeman in uniform has a very useful effect. We can all see him, and are encouraged to pay attention to what we are doing on the road—there is no doubt that that gives the maximum value—but I do ask the House to give us full support in all the means of enforcement.

When we fix these limits, we do take great care not to impose them where they are not justified. I am continually resisting applications from all sides of the House for more 30 m.p.h. limits. We do try to keep them to areas where they are really needed, but, once they are fixed, it is up to all of us to do all that we can to see that they are enforced. Only in that way can we get better driving in the semi-open areas.

I thank my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Shrewsbury (Mr. J. Langford Holt) for their support of the double white line. Our intention is to introduce double white lines throughout the country this year. I recently had a conference with our divisional road engineers preparatory to the lines being laid out in all divisions. When we have a sufficient sample put down throughout the country so that it can be regarded as general, we shall be ready to make the lines mandatory. That is our intention, and I am sure that this device will make a very valuable contribution to road safety.

As to traffic lights for pedestrians, I hardly have time to say more than this to my hon. Friend. We do have a few in London, but we do not allow an all-red period against all vehicles, which gives a crossing period for pedestrians, unless there is a very heavy flow of pedestrians. Otherwise, there is a danger of there being an all-red period when no vehicles can use the crossing, but when there are no pedestrians at all. That is just a temptation for impatient drivers to break across the red lights.

On the subject of dogs and accidents, I explained in Answer to a Question the other day that Parliament had, in its wisdom, put on local authorities the responsibility for making proposals. A number of proposals have been received, of which 58 have been confirmed and 20 are in operation. At the end of the year, 24 proposals were being considered.

Dogs certainly do tend to create accidents, but the difficulty is enforcement. Many of the dogs do not have collars, and hardly ever is the owner there. That makes it most difficult for the police, but during the next twelve months we shall have an opportunity to see just how effective these dog orders are, and if we can make them more effective we shall certainly do so.

I shall have to give my hon. Friend the benefit of the facts that I gave on the Adjournment debate on street lighting. I assure him that we do assist the local authorities all we can, with advice on this very important matter, accepting just how important it is in keeping down road accidents.

I conclude by again congratulating my hon. Friend and saying that we warmly accept his Motion.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved, That this House is seriously perturbed by the large number of road accidents, and is determined to do all in its power either by regulation, legislation or education to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the public highways due to carelessness, ignorance, inefficient equipment or other causes, to reduce traffic congestion and speed up with safety the general flow of traffic.