§ LORD LAMINGTONMy Lords, I beg to ask His Majesty's Government for a return of cases reported to the police since 1st January, 1902, in which injury was caused to the person or property of the public by motor cars, otherwise than those accidents in which occupants of the cars were alone injured. I am not bringing this forward in any hostility to motor cars; on the contrary I believe the day will come when special roads will be constructed by those who use motor-cars so that they can run at high rates of speed. But in the meantime motor-cars, except in a very few instances, are not practicable machines. For the most part they are not employed for commercial purposes, and their use is merely a branch of sport indulged in on the public roads at considerable risk to the public, and certainly at great detriment to the public convenience and comfort. When our public roads were built there was no anticipation that they would be used for traffic of this sort, and the number of accidents that have occurred is decidedly large. Numerical comparisons simply between accidents from carriages drawn by horses and from motor-cars are misleading, because the number of carriages drawn by horses is very much greater than the number of motor-cars. I think that if it were possible to arrive at a proper return, it would be found that motor-cars are a source of danger out of proportion to any other form of traffic. I know a parish which used to be very quiet where the people now live in a state of terrorism during the summer months. People living in the suburbs of London do not dare to drive about as they used to do. I admit that if I had a motor-car I would use it to go at the fastest speed I could get out of it, and I am sure all noble Lords would do the same. [A NOBLE LORD: "I do not."] What needs to be legislated against is a tendency of 927 human nature which is hurtful to the public; temptation ought to be taken out of people's way. I think one reason why people drive their motor-cars at full speed is that it is injurious to the machinery to run them at any lesser speed. In the case of railways we have imposed stringent regulations in the interests of railway servants and the public. The owners of motor-cars, unlike the railway companies, contribute nothing to the roads which they use except the share which falls to an ordinary ratepayer and taxpayer, and they use these roads to the risk and the detriment of the public. I understand that the Local Government Board are at the present moment occupied in framing regulations. I do not see the representative of the Local Government Board in his place, but I would suggest, in the first place, that we should insist that all motor cars should be numbered and perhaps painted according to their rates of speed; and, in the second place, that all drivers should hold certificates, and, like engine drivers—I understand that the driving of an ordinary railway engine is simplicity itself compared to the intricacies of a motor car—be required to pass a stringent examination. There ought also to be regulation of pace, but that is a matter of detail which I need not go into now. I trust that the noble Lord who represents the Home Office will be able to give the Return for which I ask. I know that even in the most favourable circumstances it is bound to be an imperfect Return as many accidents which occur are not reported to the police, but I think some Return ought to be presented.
§ THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHI am sure everyone in this House will agree with the noble Lord that some regulations should be put in force to stop reckless driving, but I think it is erroneous to imagine that this can be done by imposing a maximum speed, because to drive at even a slow speed through a crowded district is a source of danger. There are some level open roads of which the motorist can command a view for miles ahead and where he may safely go at a high speed, and I contend that it is perfectly ridiculous to impose 928 a fine in such a case, when there is not the slightest risk of injury to anybody. There are other roads, of course, where the greatest caution is needed. What is required is not so much a limit of speed as regulations which would oblige people to drive carefully. Persons who are guilty of repeated offences ought to be severely fined. With regard to the Return which is asked for, I should like to inquire who is to decide when an accident is the fault of the driver of the motorcar and when it is due to other people. Such a Return would be an invitation to the police in certain counties to manufacture cases. I hope the Department will lose no time in drawing up reasonable and proper regulations.
§ LORD BELPERI regret I cannot go into the main part of the speech of the noble Lord, because it is practically a point which is dealt with by the Local Government Board. I may have my own views with regard to the present regulations. As a private individual, I think it would be very difficult to defend them as they stand. But, in answer to the request of the noble Lord for a Return, I would point out that there is no obligation at present to report these accidents to the police. No doubt a good number of these accidents do come within the knowledge of the police, especially in the big towns; but to secure a Return of the kind asked for, the Home Office would have to apply to every police authority in the kingdom, which would entail much expense and trouble, without, as the Home Office think, any corresponding advantage. For such a Return would not in the circumstances really represent the number of accidents which had taken place. I am informed that in the Metropolitan Police District, there were forty persons reported to be injured by light locomotives in the year 1902, but it is impossible to say how many more cases there may have been which were not reported. I may also say that no person within the Metropolitan area was killed by a light locomotive in 1902.
§ LORD LAMINGTONdid not press for a Return.