HC Deb 06 March 1968 vol 760 cc609-20

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

11.59 p.m.

Mr. John Cordle (Bournemouth, East and Christchurch)

Knowing, Mr. Speaker, of your interest in the arts, and music in particular, I only wish that my subject tonight in this Amendment debate dealt with our Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra instead of motor car windscreens.

If I may be allowed to do so, I would like to inform the House with great pride that the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra was the first in the country, being founded in 1893, and on 22nd May this year it will have established itself for 75 years. A whole year of concerts has been presented to mark this unique event, which, indeed, will be something to mark British musical history.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I share the hon. Member's admiration for the Bournemouth Municipal Orchestra, but he must come to the subject of his debate.

Mr. Cordle

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I did that at the risk of being reproved by you. However, I must now deal with the question which has been my lot to deal with concerning motor car windscreens safety material and further accident and injury safeguards.

I welcome the opportunity to raise in the debate a matter of considerable importance to every car driver and passenger and, indeed, motor car manufacturers. In recent years we have reached what the Economist recently called the "cut-off point" in many of those technological developments which have transformed the world during the present century. This is certainly true of our present attitude to the motor car.

We are no longer so concerned with building vehicles which will travel at faster speeds. We have begun to explore ways of making vehicles safer at all speeds. This has been one of the most important aspects of our campaign to increase road safety. The figures show how important this task is.

Professor William Gissane, Director of the Road Industries Research Group at Birmingham Accident Hospital, has estimated that the risk which we run of being killed, permanently disabled or seriously injured on the roads in any one year is about 500 to one. Statistically, it is the case that unless we make some dramatic improvement in road safety, more than half the children born this year will be involved in an accident at some time in their lives.

With those frightening figures in mind, it is, perhaps, less relevant to look at the economic cost of road accidents. Nevertheless, a Road Research Laboratory report estimated the cost of road accidents in this country in 1965 at £306 million. It also calculated that each road accident in Britain costs on average £1,020.

Everyone must welcome any reasonable steps taken by the Government to reduce the level of this slaughter and maiming on our roads. In the past, the sort of steps taken by Governments, here and abroad, have tended to concentrate on the twin themes of education and enforcement, but increasingly, as I mentioned earlier, we have begun to look at the engineering side of the problem.

How can we make cars and other vehicles safer? The Americans have probably done most work in this direction, in terms of federal regulations on standards of safety, in terms of letting some light on to the whole problem of vehicle safety—we remember here particularly the Nader Congressional hearings—and in terms of the work done by the motor industry itself.

In Britain, we have also taken steps to raise safety standards in vehicles. Regulations have been introduced recently covering standards for tyres, headlights, seat belts and rear reflectors, but, one part of the car which we have not so far considered is the windscreen. The importance of increasing the safety potential of the motor-car windscreen as a safeguard against accident and injury is the purpose of my seeking this debate.

It is all too easy to ignore the importance of the windscreen since, unlike, say, the steering column or the tyres, we never see it. We only see through it—unless, of course, it breaks. Yet the windscreen is a vital factor in car safety. Gallup Poll and its associates have just completed a study of this question in France, Germany and the United Kingdom which provides us with a factual basis for this argument.

Their survey of the position in the United Kingdom showed that there are, on average, 215,000 windscreen breaks per year. Fifty-six thousand accident are caused as a direct result of these breaks. Of these, 1,300 involve serious injury or death and a further 9,000 are accidents with minor injuries. Since the average cost of replacing a windscreen in this country is apparently £12, we can calculate that the total cost of replacement for one year is £2½ million. It is clear that the importance of the windscreen in any survey of safety factors cannot be overlooked.

What should we expect of a windscreen? Ideally it should fulfil six safety functions. It should guarantee protection against the weather and ejection; it should be able to withstand peneration from flying objects—gravel on the road and stones—while at the same time not endangering a passenger thrown against it in a collision. Finally, it should not hold out for the passenger the possibility of those injuries normally associated with broken glass, and it should maintain clear vision even when it has been damaged.

During the last 40 years two types of glass have been used principally for motor car windscreens. The first is tempered glass, which is heat treated. While this is admittedly very hard and can withstand breakage from heavy, blunt objects, the whole surface can shatter, when it is struck by a pointed object, or when there is a sharp temperature change, into small, blunt-edged pieces. The result is partial or complete loss of visibility. The tempered glass windscreen does not, therefore, come near to fulfilling the functions outlined above.

The second type of glass used in screens is laminated. This has the great advantage of localising breaks to the point of contact, which means that practical visibility is not destroyed. Also, the tough plastic interlayer which binds together the two sheets of glass in a sort of sandwich holds broken glass in place and eliminates the risk of injuries from flying glass splinters. But until two-and-a-half years ago laminated glass had a severe fault. It did not prevent the passenger penetrating the screen in the case of severe collisions. So this material also failed to meet all the safety requirement.

But within the last two-and-a-half years manufacturers have completed the successful development of a new laminate, called, in the jargon, improved high performance laminate. In September, 1965, this was introduced on all American cars for the model year 1966, and in July, 1966 it passed into the safety glazing standard of the American Standards Institute. In July last year the high performance windscreen was accepted into British Standard 857, covering the "Specifications for Safety Glass for Land Transport".

The essential improvement of this laminate is pliability. Modifications to the plastic interlayer mean that now the shock of impact has been absorbed to the point when a driver's or passenger's head will not suffer bone fracture or penetrate the windscreen. So this type of screen fulfils all the safety functions referred to already.

The success of the high performance screen has been attested to by several road safety research groups using laboratory simulated crash conditions. Among these groups are the French Government Car Testing Group and a department of the University of Berlin. Two American universities, one in Los Angeles and another in Detroit, have conducted similar tests with similarly successful results. But the real proof of the additional safety element provided by the high performance screen comes from actual accident studies. A recent report to the American Society of Automotive Engineers, based on studies of 400 accidents in California, stated that the improved laminated screen, first fitted on the 1966 American model cars, almost eliminates the injury-producing potential of the windscreen.

According to the American Federal Highway Administrator, medical research has shown that the probability of given grades of severe injury is being reduced by the new type of laminate by some 70 per cent., based on comparison with other types of windscreens, including the tempered glass types. In view of the overwhelming proof of the success of this screen in increasing safety, I believe that it is vitally important that we should take steps to extend its use in this country. In the White Paper produced on road safety last year the Government said that they were considering with the motor industry a forward programme of action which both parties could take together for the next generation of safety advances in vehicle design and performance. Paragraph 39 of the White Paper mentioned the working groups which have considered specific aspects of vehicle safety. Many recommendations have already come forward from these groups and have been put into effect through regulations.

I should like to ask the Minister three questions on this point. First, are we to understand that the working group which is looking at further methods of improving road safety is considering the windscreen as part of its work? Second, what representations have the Government received from the motor industry on this question? Third, do the Government have any proposals to encourage or enforce the use of high performance laminated screens in new cars?

Turning briefly to the international aspect o this question, we should remember that the motor industry is our biggest exporter and, increasingly, it has to meet the different safety standards enforced in other countries. As Sir George Harriman, the President of the Society of Motor Manufacturers, said last October, there is a need for internationally agreed standards of safety; otherwise manufacturers will have to produce different models for each market. So far as the windscreen is concerned, 65 per cent. of all cars manufactured in the world are fitted with laminated screens, including many of the foremost British models. Most of these cars have changed from the old type of laminate to the high performance product.

There is at present no overall pattern of regulations on windscreens, but many countries are making the use of laminated glass mandatory. Italy, Canada and America have already taken this step. Sweden will follow suit next year. This affects our exporters in no small way since all cars exported to America and Canada have to conform to their safety standards and these countries import 700,000 cars each year. I realise that the obvious differences between American and British cars, particularly as regards size, make it difficult to enforce precisely the same safety regulations in both countries. But in any agreed minimum code of safety recommendations for incorporation in vehicle design, surely the high performance laminated screen must find a place.

Remembering that the road safety White Paper told us that the Government proposed to hold discussions with the American authorities on possible co-operation in research and development to improve vehicle safety standards, could the Minister tell us whether these discussions have covered the windscreen as a safety factor? Also, looking at this question in the important setting of the European market, did the meeting of the Minister of Transport with her European colleagues last year include similar discussions? Do we propose to undertake any research, on our own or in concert with our American and European colleagues, into this question of the value of high performance laminated screens? Are we happy with the results of the research done abroad already?

Whatever additional research is done will surely only underline the stupidity of the present situation in which some British cars of the same model can have different and safer windscreens when they are exported than when they are sold at home. Should we not, as a matter of urgency, raise standards of windscreen safety at home and agree on generally acceptable standards on this feature of the car, and on others, with those who form the market for our motor exports?

I accept the statement in the White Paper that changes in design are costly and that we should concentrate on those measures which bring the best return in safety. I believe that the use of the high performance laminated screen is one of those measures. At relatively little expense, it will help us to make motorcars considerably safer, and that is a priority task.

May I in conclusion express the hope that the Minister will implement my proposal for all motorcars to be fitted, from the earliest moment convenient, with this laminated windscreen as a safeguard against injury.

12.15 a.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Neil Carmichael)

I am very grateful to the hon. Member for Bournemouth, East and Christchurch (Mr. Cordle), for having given me the opportunity of discussing one aspect of this very important subject of road safety. This is a question of such importance to us all that it is right and proper that we should consider any new measures which will make it safer for men, women, and children to venture upon our roads. It is, indeed, a matter which my right hon. Friend the Minister has in mind at all times, and I would like to remind hon. Members of what she stated in the White Paper on Road Safety to which the hon. Gentleman has referred this evening. There it is stated: Through research and experiment on those aspects where the greatest dividends can be gained, we must prepare the basis for a planned, continuing, and co-ordinated attack. Later in that White Paper the Minister stated: The planning of road safety measures must start from the facts. To track down useful counter measures, we must collect the simple fact about every accident and identify the condition under which accidents are more frequent. I would like to consider the problem which we are discussing this evening in the light of this stated policy. I do not think that it is true when we have been considering safety standards in vehicles that we have ignored the windscreen. We already have a provision in our Construction and Use Regulations that if a windscreen is made of glass it must be safety glass. Safety glass is defined as glass which is so constructed that, if fractured, it does not fly into fragments likely to cause severe cuts, and the object of that is quite clear. If no such provisions were made, then when there was an accident the immediate area would be likely to be bombarded with flying slivers of glass which could cause serious injuries, not only to the occupants of the vehicle, but also to innocent bystanders. There are also other considerations to be taken into account, and these fall into two main categories.

First, there is the question of the occupants of a vehicle in an accident being thrown forward against the windscreen and suffering injuries from coming into contact with the glass. Secondly, there is the possibility of the driver of a vehicle losing his forward vision if the windscreen shatters either spontaneously or when it is struck by a flying pebble or chipping from the road surface. The hon. Member has tonight described the two types of glass which are generally used and which come under the definition of safety glass; but each has its merits and its disadvantages. In our present state of knowledge, neither has a clear cut advantage over the other and that is why our Regulations are worded in the way that they are; that is, to permit the use of either toughened or laminated glass. I would stress that this is in line with what most other countries are doing, although there are some notable exceptions, as the hon. Member has stated.

There is no doubt that the introduction of what the hon. Gentleman has described as the high performance laminated glass has overcome some of the inherent disadvantages of this type of glass, and when the British Standard for safety glass was recently revised this was taken into account. The conditions with which laminated glass must now comply imply the use of the new, higher performance laminate; but, as I have said, there are still advantages and disadvantages in either type.

What are some of the other considerations? I will deal first with the question of vehicle occupants impacting the windscreen. When this happens with a toughened glass screen, it collapses into small particles. The fracture patterns which must be achieved are contained in the British standard. The newer "zone toughened windscreen" has a larger pattern in an area ahead of the driver if it shatters. Although the occupants of the vehicle may penetrate the screen if they strike it hard enough, any cuts which they may suffer would be minimal. With laminated glass, even if the newer, thicker. laminate prevents the occupants from penetrating the screen, the layer of glass on the inside of the laminate next to the person striking it, cracks in the same way as any ordinary pane of glass. This, after all, is what it is, and although the glass is prevented from fracturing completely as ordinary glass would, there could still be a number of very sharp edges along the lines of the cracks. It often happens that when the head of a person strikes against it, it is then dragged down the crack, and there have been severe head injuries as a result.

Perhaps I might say here that if everyone had seat belts, as my right hon. Friend has advised, these accidents would be reduced; and if all those who have them used them, the benefit would be considerable. However, at present this is unfortunately not so. We have not yet convinced everyone of the importance of seat belts, so that there is always this possibility of people being lacerated when hitting the windscreen.

As far as the loss of vision is concerned, there is no doubt that the driver of a car with a laminated windscreen is less likely to have his forward vision completely obscured if that screen is broken than the driver of a car with a toughened glass windscreen, even with the zone toughened glass. Apart from the breaks which occur when a windscreen is struck by a flying pebble or chippings from the road surface, there is, with the toughened glass screen, the problem of spontaneous shattering.

The Road Research Laboratory is studying this problem but has no evidence to show that, when this does occur, it is any appreciable cause of accidents. It is difficult to get fully reliable data on the subject, but our area road safety units, when asked the same question recently, said that the evidence they have from the accidents which they studied shows that this is the cause of less than 0.1 per cent. of all accidents.

I know that a social survey organisation recently carried out an investigation on behalf of a commercial company the results of which suggest that shattering of windscreens may be a more frequent cause of accidents. That company has brought the results of the survey to the notice of the R.R.L. as well as to ourselves and has very kindly made them available to us for further consideration. The R.R.L. will study the results. It has not yet had time to do so. When it has, it will let us know its findings and we will give them due consideration. Until that is done, it would not be right for me to comment on the survey.

There is also the question of costs. The hon. Member said that the cost of replacement of broken windscreens is about £2½ million a year and this may well be true, but there are other aspects of the matter. At the moment, a toughened glass windscreen for a small family car costs about £4, while a laminated screen for the same car costs some £15. The cost of each type of screen increases, of course, with the size and complexity of design but it seems that this differential in cost of about £10 is fairly representative even with the more expensive types of screen. We realise that, if laminated glass was in higher demand, the cost might come down but it is difficult to estimate by how much.

In itself perhaps, the £10 or so for each car which would be involved if we were to make the fitting of laminated windscreens obligatory for new vehicles, is not a great deal extra to pay if the safety of road users is going to be materially improved, but when one remembers that, in 1966, for instance, some 1.3 million new vehicles were registered in this country, this would represent a total cost of about £13 million a year. Should we get a significant reduction in accidents or casualties for expenditure of this order? That question is in doubt. At the moment, we do not think the reduction would be significant but we are always prepared to reconsider, if the results of further investigation by the R.R.L. prove otherwise.

The hon. Gentleman has posed some specific questions about consultation both with our own industry and internationally on this question and I will try to answer them. First, the Working Party mentioned in the White Paper, which is considering the general aspects of the construction and design of motor vehicles, has not considered the question of windscreens as yet.

As to the hon. Gentleman's second question, our own industry is at present of the same opinion as ourselves—that, in our present state of knowledge, we should continue to permit the use of either toughened or laminated glass and that manufacturers should be allowed to continue to decide which type of glass is best suited to any particular type of vehicle.

Customer preferences are also considered by some manufacturers, who offer laminated glass as an optional alternative if the standard fitting is for toughened glass. So far as any proposals are concerned to encourage or enforce the use of high performance screens in new cars, the answer at the moment is that the Government have no intention of making any such requirement. As I have said, however, if the results of the research going on indicate that we should make some alterations, then, of course, in consultation with the industry, we should consider doing so. As to the fitting of laminated screens to cars intended for export, our understanding from the industry is that this creates no great difficulty.

In the United States, where laminated glass is obligatory, research has gone on and the findings of some of the studies have recently been published. These show that there has been a considerable drop in casualties inflicted in one way or another by the windscreen since the use of the new laminated glass was made obligatory. No one will quar rel with these statistics, but it must be remembered that the comparison in the United States is between the new and old types of laminated glass. It is not possible, at this stage, to draw any comparison from these statistics with what the results might have been had the use of toughened glass also been permitted.

We do not, therefore, at the moment intend altering our Regulations on this subject. We have undertaken to keep the matter under consideration, and if evidence is eventually forthcoming that one type of safety glass has significant advantages over the other, we will not waste any time in reopening the question.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes past Twelve o'clock.