§ 36. Sir J. Duncanasked the Minister of Transport how many deaths there were on the roads in 1931, 1941, 1951 and 1961; and what were the ratios of deaths to vehicles in the same years.
§ Mr. HayThe number of deaths are as follows: 1931, 6,691; 1941, 9,169; 1951, 5,250; 1961, 6,908.
Deaths per thousand licensed motor vehicles were: 1931, 3.0; 1941, 3.8; 1951, 1.2; 1961, 0.7.
§ Sir J. DuncanIn view of those very encouraging figures, will my hon. Friend cease harrying motorists and creating further legal penalties against motorists the whole time and adopt a different psychological approach by saying that the motorist is doing very well and try to jolly him along to do better?
§ Mr. HayMy hon. Friend ought not to draw too many conclusions from these figures. I should be delighted if those conclusions could be drawn, but the figures do not necessarily indicate as good a result as might appear on the face of them. I must resist any suggestion that my right hon. Friend or the Department harasses the motorist. We have this acute accident problem in this country with which we have to deal, and all methods open to us must be pursued simultaneously.
§ Mr. HoltDoes not the Minister agree that the number of deaths on the roads is still appalling, in spite of the percentage figures which he has given? Does he not agree that the greatest contributoin which he could make to solving the problem is the segregation of traffic and an improvement in the road system? When will the Government get on with a road programme adequate to the needs of the day?
§ Mr. HayWe are quite satisfied with the road programme as it stands at the moment. It is the largest ever known in the history of this country. My right hon. Friend has been pertinacious in pushing traffic measures forward as quickly as he can.
§ Mr. ChannonWill my hon. Friend amplify a little his statment that the figures are misleading? Why are they misleading?
§ Mr. HayI did not say that they were misleading. I said that we ought not to draw too many conclusions from them. The reasons for that is that the comparisons made, for example, make no allowances for the actual distance travelled. The figures do not make adequate allowance for the exposure to risk of all the separate classes of road user involved, and they take no account of the improvement in the medical services since 1931. These are some of the points involved.
§ Mr. MellishTo put the picture in its right perspective, is it not correct that while the figure for deaths has remained fairly consistent since 1931, the numbers of seriously injured or injured in a minor way have risen alarmingly since that time? Is not this not one of the most frightful aspects of the tragedy on the roads today?
§ Mr. HayWe have never sought to minimise the road accident problem. All I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Sir J. Duncan), was that he should not draw too many conclusions from the figures.
§ Sir G. NicholsonWould not a great contribution be made by some measure making more uniform the application of the law? Is it not misleading to motorists and a cause of increased danger that the law is applied and administered differently in almost every area?