RECKLESS DRIVING

HC Deb 26 July 1974 vol 877 cc2089-99

(1) The driving of a motor vehicle on a road as set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) below shall constitute a specific offence of driving recklessly, or at a speed or in a manner which is dangerous to the public, under section 2 of the Road Traffic Act 1972—

1. (a) driving at a dangerous speech and, thereby, causing an accident; or
2. (b) overtaking another vehicle dangerously and, thereby causing an accident; or
3. (c) following too closely, or not driving within the limits of vision and braking power, and thereby, causing an accident; or
4. (d) ignoring a halt sign, and, thereby, causing an accident; or
2090
5. (e) turning right dangerously and, thereby, causing an accident; or
6. (f) failing to give precedence to a pedestrian, who is on an uncontrolled "Zebra" crossing, or on a "Pelican" press-button crossing, where an Amber light is flashing, and thereby, causing personal injuries to any such pedestrian.

(2) Where a person is convicted of any offence as set out in subsection (1) of this section, the Court shall order that person to be disqualified from driving a motor vehicle for a period of not less than three months and such an order for the said offence shall be in addition to any order or penalty which the Court may impose under Section 2 of the Road Traffic Act, 1972.

(3) The driver of a motor vehicle who is convicted of exceeding a speed limit imposed by enactment of Parliament of—

1. (a) 30 miles per hour by driving at over 45 miles per hour; or
2. (b) 40 miles per hour by driving at over 60 miles per hour; or
3. (c) 50 miles per hour by driving at over 65 miles per hour; or
4. (d) 60 miles per hour by driving at over 75 miles per hour; or
5. (e) 70 miles per hour by driving at over 90 miles per hour; shall be disqualified for three months from driving a motor vehicle but such penalty shall not affect any existing penalties for exceeding speed limits imposed by any enactment of Par] iament.—[Mr. Finsberg.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Finsberg

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

The Deputy Chairman

With this it is proposed that we should take new Clause 6—Drivers of motor vehicles turning right dangerously at cross roads.

Mr. Finsberg

May I seek your guidance, Mr. Murton? Will it be in order to have separate divisions on these clauses?

The Deputy Chairman

Yes, it that is the hon. Member's wish.

Mr. Finsberg

I cannot be quite as brief on this clause as the Minister was on new Clause 1, because there is some history into which I want to go in some detail. I regard the clause as an opportunity for the Committee to do something constructive to cut down road deaths and accidents.

The clause is based upon a plan produced by Mr. Edward Terrell, OBE. QC, former recorder of Newbury, recorder of the Crown court and author of Terrell on Running Down Cases which has gone into more than three editions.

In May 1965, Mr. Terrell, at the request of the Minister of Transport, met his officials and an agreed proposal was sent to the Minister. In August 1965, the Minister and Mr. Terrell met at the House and discussed his ideas at some length.

Mr. Terrell's previous contacts with the Ministry were mainly in the years 1951 and 1952, when he had taken the leading part in putting forward a plan for producing a new Highway Code and for giving certain of its provisions the force of law—in other words, putting some teeth into the Highway Code.

A White Paper was produced by the Department. As a result, a new Highway Code was prepared, but, although there was strong support for giving some parts of it the force of law, there has been no change in the law as originally set out in Section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1930. So there has been no advance for over 40 years.

The 1930 Act created a Highway Code and Section 45 is repeated in the Road Traffic Act 1972. However, there is no force of law in the Highway Code or any of its rules.

The proposals contained in the clause do not propose any major amendment to the Highway Code, though they involve the creation of certain new statutory offences based upon rules which are at present contained in the code. The sole purpose is to reduce the number of deaths and injuries on the roads by highlighting certain dangerous acts of negligence.

Fundamentally, the principle is the deterrent effect of disqualification, which Mr. Terrell and, I think, the Ministry—and most sensible people—regard as most likely to affect the behaviour of drivers. It should be heightened by making it automatic for a short period of three months on drivers convicted in a court of justice of causing an accident by breaking any one of seven carefully selected rules. We all know that the deterrent effect of the drink-and-drive laws has had a considerable impact upon the behaviour of drivers.

The proposals in the clause are chosen as the ones whose breaches are the most frequent causes of serious accidents. The existing generalised offences of dangerous and careless driving would remain alongside the more specific offences suggested in the clause, and these special rules would have to be most carefully drafted and be clear and simple. I hope that the wording in the clause is satisfactory, even to the purists of parliamentary draftsmen, but we shall see later.

The clause lays down "rules", whose breach would be made a statutory offence and for which the automatic penalty would be disqualification for three months, irrespective of the penalties for careless or dangerous driving under the Road Traffic Act 1960.

The rules are as follows: first, causing or mainly contributing to an accident by negligent overtaking. Secondly causing or mainly contributing to an accident by negligently following too closely or not driving within the limits of vision and braking power; thirdly causing or mainly contributing to an accident by negligently ignoring a give-way or halt sign; fourthly, causing or mainly contributing to an accident by negligently failing to give way at a pedestrian crossing; fifthly, exceeding the speed limit by more than a certain percentage—our proposal is for about 50 per cent.; the existing penalties for exceeding speed limits under normal conditions would remain—and, finally, causing or mainly contributing to an accident by negligently turning right.

It is stressed—this is an essential part of these proposals—that in every case of a breach, except the speed limit one, an accident should have been caused and the motorist been found guilty of such negligence by a court of justice. This feature of the clause—namely, that there should have been an accident due to negligence is important, because without the physical indications of the accident it would be difficult for a court of justice to assess the negligence and the degree of damage caused thereby.

Speaking as one who sat on the Bench for 10 years before coming to this place. I know only too well the difficulties of trying to work out the exact relationship between one stationary vehicle and another stationary vehicle into which it has run. We can all think of that kind of thing. The proposal in the clause would make it easier to obtain the sort of legislation for which it asks, which re- quires an automatic disqualification, on conviction, without any let-out of the kind provided in the 1962 Act for special reasons or mitigating circumstances. We all know the wide, varied and special reasons that are put forward, and we have all read the frequent correspondence in the Magistrates Journal showing how often these are posed. The rules propose that the consequences of them should be given the widest publicity. If the clause is accepted, it will be necessary to run the same sort of campaign as was run on the drink-and-driving rules.

The plan, if it is put into force by the Bill, ought to have a much greater impact on the behaviour of drivers by singling out particularly dangerous manoeuvres for punishment and disqualification across a wide range of road traffic offences or for the general offences of dangerous and careless driving.

I am not sure that I am automatically in support of the principle of automatic disqualification on a wide front as it would not succeed in its objectives, and probably would not receive public support, but to have it for a narrow range of items that are clearly set out would be acceptable.

Let me remind the Committee of the sort of figures about which we are talking. In 1968, the number of deaths on the road was 6,810, and in 1972 the figure was 7,763. In 1968, the figure for serious injuries was 88,563, and in 1972 it was 91,338. The figures are rising all the time, in spite of magnificent efforts by road safety committees, by the Ministry—in altering dangerous road junctions—and so on.

If this plan were adopted, and it was then widely advertised by the Ministry, there would, I believe, be fewer prosecutions for dangerous driving, because the seven rules set out in the clause would be better observed by drivers. We know that there is better observance of the need not to go over the limit since the drink- and-driving law was introduced. There would, I believe, be a reduction in acts of dangerous driving and a reduction in death and mutilation on the road.

On the other hand, the plan would in no way affect the legitimate use of our public roads, while at the same time it would strike an effective blow for road safety—perhaps more effective than any measure we have had since Belisha beacons were introduced. As I said on Second Reading, Ministers of Transport are often unsung heroes. They are used to bring in small measures which have little or no effect. But Hore-Belisha will be remembered for ever. I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that he might well go down in history as one of the first Ministers of Transport to strike a real blow for road safety by directly acting upon certain well-defined items of driving behaviour about which every motorist should know. Every motorist has taken the driving test and undergone an examination, so he ought to know what the Highway Code requires.

If these items were enshrined in the Bill and given teeth by the force of law, there would, I am sure, be a reduction in deaths and accidents on our roads. I hope that the Minister will be sympathetic towards this proposal.

Dr. Edmund Marshall (Goole)

In contrast to the compendious new Clause 2 which the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) has just moved, my new Clause 6 deals with one specific driving manuoevre. It may well be that the hon. Gentleman has this also in mind, and I think that his subsection (1)(e) probably describes the situation about which I am concerned.

I find that there is considerable confusion about what is required in the situation when two motor vehicles face each other, the driver of one of them wishing to turn right at a crossroads, and the other wishing to turn to his right at the same crossroads. There is no legal provision at the moment giving any guidance about the correct way of carrying out that manoeuvre. There is no reference to it in the present Highway Code, which I find a startling omission because the manoeuvre is undoubtedly difficult.

The only official information winch I have been able to obtain appears in the Department of the Environment manual entitled "Driving". There is a Figure 25 on page 82, and on page 84 some direction is given as to the correct manner of turning right at crossroads in the situation I have outlined: Fig. 25 shows vehicles passing behind each other at a crossroads—or offside to offside. There are some junctions where the layout makes it more convenient for them to pass nearside to nearside, but this is less safe because each driver has his view of the oncoming traffic hidden by the other vehicle. The usual rule is offside to offside—but watch out for junctions where police control or road markings mean that you are intended to turn nearside to nearside. My experience as a motorist indicates that the general public are ignorant of that official direction and that there is widespread confusion over what is the correct way to turn right at crossroads. The confusions makes it difficult for the driver who is attempting to carry out the manoeuvre correctly when the driver coming the other way is not prepared to cooperate. In order for the manoeuvre to take place correctly, with the drivers offside to offside, both must be fully aware of how it should be done. Because there is such a widespread lack of information on this I am sure that there must be many occasions when accidents arise when the manoeuvre is not carried out correctly.

4.15 p.m.

I have tried to find out how many accidents have taken place in this situation. However, when I put down a Question for Written Answer on 8th February this year the then Minister for Transport Industries told me that the information was not available. I hope that by my raising this matter this afternoon it will prompt some research to see how great is the problem.

It is true, as the quotation which I read describes, that there are exceptional crossroads where for one reason or another it is more convenient to turn other than offside to offside. There is one in my constituency at Hilltop, Knottingley. That situation has been made clear to motorists by markings on the road and there is no reason why that practice could not be extended.

The new clause attempts to give some legislative force to the recommendations in the departmental manual. It should be made obligatory that drivers turning right at crossroads where there are no signs or road markings should do so offside to offside, and that failure to comply should be a motoring offence.

Mr. Graham Page

I want to support my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Finsberg) in his comments. For many years we have had in the road safety laws details of certain conduct which is forbidden as an offence without necessarily saying that that conduct is likely to cause an accident. I refer to things such as the speed limit, the drink limit and so on. That conduct is potentially so dangerous that it is made an offence regardless of whether on the particular occasion it has caused any danger.

The items listed in the clause could have been listed without the addition of the words saying that an accident had been caused by that conduct. It would be extremely valuable at this stage to lift some of those items out of the Highway Code and to draw attention to them by creating them as specific offences so that the public would realise the danger of that conduct. Each of the items listed in the clause is more than likely to cause an accident, and to make them an offence will drum home into the minds of motorists the behaviour they should observe. I do not think the Highway Code is good enough on these points, that it has enough teeth to meet the dangers.

There is nothing very new in the introduction of the clause to the Committee. I have a feeling that I have floated it, or at least parts of it, if not all of it in separate parts. As the years have gone by, it has become more and more necessary to detail conduct on the road which should be an offence and not to rely on the vague statements of reckless driving. It would certainly ease the administration of the safety laws if they were specified. They are specified in the clause, and I hope that the Committee will receive it favourably.

Mr. Mulley

I shall deal first with the interesting new Clause 6 of my hon. Friend the Member for Goole (Dr. Marshall). As he fairly pointed out, it is not always possible to generalise on whether it is right to turn from the offside or the nearside. I have had the privilege of being driven by my hon. Friend on a number of occasions, and I would give him a certificate saying that he is a most careful, considerate driver, and I respect his views.

The matter may be one that we should consider in a subsequent edition of the Highway Code, but it is a problem. It is hard to legislate on matters that are driving practice when it is so difficult to indicate precisely what is involved.

My hon. Friend, who is both a most considerate and reasonable driver and a most considerate and reasonable person, immediately saw that the clause of the hon. Member for Hampstead (Mr. Fins-berg) could cover his point, but the point is not even in the Highway Code. Are such words as "dangerously", "too closely", and "ignoring", the kind of specific references that the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) had in mind? He may well have voted for many of these items in successive Bill over many years, but I do not recall his making any utterances along those lines when he had some responsibility for roads.

Mr. Graham Page

I was never responsible for road safety as a Minister.

Mr. Mulley

The right hon. Gentleman had responsibility for roads. He was a most influential Minister in the Department of the Environment, and I am sure that his views would have carried great weight in every section of it if he had sought to lend that weight to this proposition.

It is about 20 years since Mr. Edward Terrell approached successive Ministers of Transport. There have been many Ministers of Transport. The Committee will not wish me to say which were bad and which were good. There have been some of each in that 20 years. All have turned down the proposition which is the core of the clause, that we can give to the Highway Code—which is meant to guide, and to lay down general circumstances—the force of law and that it would be right to give it the force of law only where there is an accident. The word "accident" covers a tiny bump at a traffic light or an incident involving loss of life or serious injury.

There has been little time to consider these matters. I make no complaint about that. I have already said that I are grateful for the co-operation that has been given by everyone. That is why it has been possible to deal with the Bill at this stage today. I believe that the general proposition needs to be much more carefully considered before we can legislate along the serious lines of arbitrary disqualification. We have already heard real concern expressed about the powers of magistrates being diminished. The judicial world is always anxious about the House introducing automatic disqualification regardless of the circumstances. I know that these are matters of judgment.

Of course, I pay public testimony to Mr. Edward Terrell. He has been a sincere and most helpful advocate for all kinds of road safety. He took a prominent part in the development of the Highway Code. If I may say so, he has found a most persistent and persuasive advocate in the person of the hon. Member for Hampstead. I would not in any way discourage this kind of development and this kind of public discussion.

However, I ask people to realise that they may be wrong and that this idea will not have a dramatic effect. It is a form of shock treatment—namely, the idea that if we bump a lorry because we are a bit too close we shall lose our licence for three months. I accept that disqualification could make everybody drive in a way that would not produce any accidents. Before the House considered new principles involving a draconian method of dealing with certain offences we would want to discuss the matter with all the organisations that are always consulted before we make such a change. It is the practice of successive Governments to allow those organisations to express an opinion.

It could be argued that the Government should say "Yes, it is all right if you drive over 70 miles per hour as long as you do not drive over 90 miles per hour. You will lose your licence automatically only if you are caught going faster than 90 miles per hour." There are many who feel that the totting-up procedure—three breaches of the speed limit no matter what speed is involved—should not operate automatically. It is said that the magistrates should have some discretion. I believe that to impose what is now suggested would give rise to the most enormous outcry.

The hon. Member for Hampstead prefaced his remarks by asking whether he could have a Division. I think that he knows that there can be a Division on any proposition. By immediately asking for a Division the hon. Gentleman did not adopt his usual persuasive style of argument. I hope that he will not divide the Committee. I am happy to consider the matter further with him and with Mr. Terrell if the hon. Gentleman wishes to bring him along.

It is time for the Highway Code to be revised. I have already in hand the preparation of a Green Paper so that the House will have an opportunity of discussing the proposed changes in the Highway Code. That will mean that the House will not be confronted with a fait accompli—namely, a statutory instrument which it can only accept or reject. It would be right for these matters to be further considered and I shall be happy to discuss them further with the hon. Gentleman and Mr. Terrell if it is thought that we could make progress. We may also consider it helpful to consult the organisations that are involved. The hon. Gentleman will note that I am trying to arrange an opportunity for the House to discuss the Highway Code before a new code is introduced later this year. In that context we can explore the whole matter rather than take a hurried decision today.

If the hon. Gentleman persists and presses the new clause I must ask the Committee to reject it.

4.30 p.m.

Mr. Berry (Southgate)

Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that he is hoping to introduce a Green Paper in advance of a new Highway Code later this year?

Mr. Mulley

That was my intention. I am glad to have the hon. Member's assurance that he is hoping that I shall be here later this year.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg

I have listened carefully to what the right hon. Gentleman has said. I am not prepared to withdraw the new Clause but if the Committee wishes to negative it, that is a different matter.

Question put and negatived.