§ Limits of Speed.
| Class of Vehicle. | Maximum Speed—Miles per hour. |
| 1. Heavy Locomotives. | |
| (a) Within any city, town or village | 3 |
| (b) Elsewhere | 5 |
§ 2. Light Locomotives.
| (a) When not drawing a trailer or more than two trailers, if all the wheels of both the locomotive and any trailer drawn thereby are fitted with soft or elastic tyres | 8 |
| (b) In any other case | 5 |
§ 3. Heavy Motor Cars and Motor Tractors.
| (1) Passenger Vehicles— | |
| (a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres and not drawing a trailer | 30 |
| (b) In any other case | 16 |
§ (2) Goods Vehicles and Motor Tractors—
| (i) Without trailer— | |
| (a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres | 20 |
| (b) If all the wheels are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres | 16 |
| (ii) With trailer— | |
| (a) if all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are fitted with pneumatic tyres | 16 |
| (b) If all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres | 12 |
| (iii) In any other case | 5 |
| Class of Vehicle. | Maximum Speed—Miles per hour. |
§ 4. Motor Cars and Motor Cycles.
| (1) Passenger Vehicles— | |
| (a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres, not drawing a trailer, and constructed to carry not more than eight persons in addition to the driver | No limit. |
| (b) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres, and the vehicle is not drawing a trailer, and is constructed to carry more than eight persons in addition to the driver | 30 |
| (c) In any other case | 20 |
§ (2) Goods Vehicles—
| (i) Without trailer | |
| (a) If all the wheels are fitted with pneumatic tyres | 30 |
| (b) If all the wheels are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres | 20 |
| (ii) With trailer— | |
| (a) If all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are fitted with pneumatic tyres | 16 |
| (b) If all the wheels, both of the drawing vehicle and of the trailer, are not fitted with pneumatic tyres but are fitted with soft or elastic tyres | 12 |
| (iii) In any other case | 5 |
| 5. Invalid Carriages | 16 |
§ EARL HOWE moved, in paragraph 3, in relation to passenger vehicles (a), to leave out "30" and to insert "35." The noble Earl said: My Lords, I have on the Paper a number of Amendments to this Schedule, but their purpose is the same and they are consequential upon one another. Their object is to simplify the Schedule of speed limits. Your Lordships will no doubt recollect that on previous occasions when this point has been discussed the Government have been urged to coordinate, and in particular to simplify, the speed limits set forth in the Schedule. I think the noble Earl in charge of the Bill more or less gave an undertaking on this point to Lord Brentford, who strongly urged upon him 333 the need of simplifying this Schedule. I understood the noble Earl to give an undertaking that he would do so, but he now proposes Amendments which, instead of simplifying the existing speed limits by reducing them, leaves them at exactly the same number. He proposes only one concession which I submit will be of little use. I shall come to that in a moment.
§ My Amendments would reduce the number of speed limits to three. I also place the maximum speed limit in this Schedule at thirty-five miles an hour. My reason for using that figure is that it was recommended by the Royal Commission. I have not yet heard any reason from the noble Earl why he has disregarded the advice of the Royal Commission in that respect and has placed the limit at thirty. He has adopted the recommendations of the Royal Commission in almost every other respect, and I do not understand why he should depart from it here. Again, it seems to be unnecessary to have one sort of speed limit for a passenger-carrying vehicle and another for a goods-carrying vehicle. Probably the chassis are identical and the weights carried are the same. Under this Schedule the one-ton van is limited to a speed of thirty miles an hour, but a private vehicle, such as a Rolls-Royce, which probably weighs two and a half or even three tons, may go, if it can, at 100 miles an hour. The noble Earl refused my proposed speed limit of forty miles an hour with some asperity.
§ Another consideration which I should like to put to your Lordships is that too many speed limits do not make for safety. I think more danger is caused on the road by having vehicles proceeding at various rates of speed than from any other cause. It leads to drivers making attempts to pass other vehicles, and this leads to what is called in the daily Press and elsewhere "cutting in" and "cutting out." To have a number of vehicles proceeding at widely different speeds does not make for safety. Furthermore, the speeds which I have endeavoured to outline in my Amendments are those more or less normally followed by the various classes of vehicle in their ordinary work. Everybody knows that the existing speed limit has been very largely disregarded, even by those who have been in charge of its administration—I mean by the police in certain places. I do not want to enlarge 334 upon that point now. The speeds that I have put down are those more or less normally used by the vehicles to which they apply.
§ Another point that I should like to press upon your Lordships is that of late years goods traffic has increasingly been passing to the roads, and the result is that a great traffic has been built up. Any of your Lordships who know some of our great arterial roads, such as Watling Street, will know exactly what I mean. Some of us may not like that state of affairs and may think it more desirable that the goods should be carried by rail, but the fact remains that the traders of the country have found it more to their advantage and cheaper to take goods by road. I think we ought to be on our guard against imposing any limits upon those vehicles which may have a tendency to increase costs. I cannot help feeling that, if we impose unduly low limits upon certain classes of vehicles, we shall raise the costs. I think that some of the limits proposed by the noble Earl will have exactly that effect, and I do not want to see that come about. One of the limits poposed in this Schedule is eight miles an hour. I submit to your Lordships that, if this speed is strictly adhered to, it is absolutely uneconomical. If it were an average speed of eight miles an hour there might be something to be said for it, but an average of eight miles an hour means that the vehicle must at times exceed that speed by four or five miles an hour at least. I think the limit of eight miles an hour is much too low.
§ The noble Earl proposes a limit of twenty miles an hour for motor omnibuses and motor coaches fitted with solid tyres and drawing a trailer. Motor coaches and motor omnibuses do not draw trailers, and practically no motor coach or motor omnibus is to-day being constructed with solid tyres. I suggest that this concession does not help industry at all. The noble Earl proposes to raise the limit from sixteen to twenty miles an hour. I would really urge upon your Lordships that it is desirable that we should reduce the number of limits written down in the Schedule. My purpose has been to reduce them to three, and if we can have three limits instead of six I think it will make the Bill much more workable, and more easier to administer. I am not wedded to the actual figures, and if the noble Earl, or your Lordships, 335 think that they are too high, I am certainly prepared to modify them, but I submit that we should try to secure simplification of the limits laid down in the Schedule.
§
Amendment moved—
Page 75, line 20, leave out ("30") and insert ("35").—(Earl Howe.)
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, I think that probably it would be for the convenience of the House to discuss the whole question on this Amendment, and to say what I have to say upon this Amendment. Your Lordships will see that we have produced a new Schedule, and it is to be found on the Amendment Paper. It does not please the noble Earl, and he thinks it has still got far too many limits. I am inclined to agree with him, and if he can tell us how to reduce them we shall be very much obliged to him. He has an Amendment here increasing these speeds, which I am afraid we could not accept. I can only tell him that to achieve even this amount of simplification—and it is not as much as I should like—of the limits suggested by the Royal Commission has been an extraordinarily difficult task, and rather like putting together a jig-saw puzzle in which none of the pieces would fit. If the noble Earl would care to come to the Ministry and spend two or three hours playing with this jig-saw puzzle we shall be glad to welcome him, and I believe he will feel that the task was not quite so easy as perhaps he now thinks it is. I am proposing not to take the Third Reading of this Bill before to-morrow week and, therefore, I shall welcome any assistance which he can give.
It has been an extraordinarily difficult thing even to make this small attempt at simplifying the limits that we have made. I will tell your Lordships the principles, so far as it was possible to apply principles, on which we have proceeded. The rates of speed for heavy locomotives and light locomotives have not been altered, as they are generally agreed and they do not present any serious difficulties in enforcement. The speed limits for all other types of vehicles have been reduced to five in number—namely, 30, 20, 16, 8 and 5 miles per hour. In order to obtain this simplification certain alterations have been made. Passenger vehicles which are heavy motor cars, on solid rubber tyres, for example, the ordinary London omni- 336 bus on solid tyres, have been put up from 16 to 20 miles per hour. Goods vehicles drawing a separate trailer where both vehicles are fitted with solid rubber tyres have been put down from 12 to 8 miles per hour. Eight miles per hour is the present maximum for these. A vehicle drawing a separate trailer is in any case undesirable from the traffic point of view, and should not travel at a high speed, in order that other vehicles may overtake it without difficulty. I think your Lordships who try to overtake vehicles drawing trailers will appreciate the point of that. Invalid carriages have been put up from 16 to 20 miles per hour.
There are good reasons for imposing speed limits on goods vehicles and public service vehicles as against the private motor car. A goods vehicle, even if it is classified as a motor car, that is under 2½tons unladen, may very well, and often does, carry a load of 3 tons or more, and the total laden weight may therefore be over 5 tons. This is far in excess of the total laden weight of the heaviest private car. The amount of damage in a smash depends largely on the momentum of the vehicles. There is also, of course, the question of the damage to the road by the additional weight. If there were no speed limit at all for commercial vehicles, or if it were too high, the employer would be inclined to base his schedules and time tables on higher and higher average speeds. This would certainly be dangerous to the public and impose a considerable strain on the driver. Finally, there is the argument based on the damage to the roads. A goods vehicle of 2 tons (which would therefore be in the motor car class) carrying a 2-ton load, even on pneumatic tyres, can do considerable damage to lightly-constructed roads if driven at a high speed.
We have had to consider all these matters and we have succeeded in producing a Schedule. I am very far from saying that it is a perfect Schedule. We hope that the noble Earl will come and assist us, and we will undertake to give him a very pleasant hour or two, at the end of which I think he will come to the conclusion that the matter is not quite so easy as he now believes. The noble Earl proposes to put up all the speeds which we have put in the Schedule. We cannot accept that. We 337 have put the speeds here as high as we think they ought to be, and we have put them above those recommended by the Royal Commission, and we do not think they ought to be put higher. I am afraid, therefore, that I cannot accept this or the noble Earl's other Amendments. Before the new Schedule is moved I would like to call your attention to a misprint on the Amendment Paper. It is in paragraph 3 (2) (b). Your Lordships will see that after "(b) in any other case" there is a blank. The figure 5 should appear. I admit in conclusion that the subject is difficult, and I am far from saying that the Schedule proposed is entirely satisfactory; but after a great deal of thought and anxious care we have done the best we can do, and I ask your Lordships to accept the revised Schedule which we are proposing to insert.
§ EARL HOWEWill the noble Earl tell us why he has departed from the figure of 35 miles an hour recommended by the Royal Commission? Furthermore, if the people on whose behalf I speak, and I myself, would like to come round and discuss this matter with him, do I understand that we shall be received at the Ministry? On that understanding I am perfectly prepared to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL RUSSELLWe will receive the noble Earl with open arms, and what is more will let him leave—we will not detain him. With regard to the figure of 35, the view which the Minister took was that it was extremely likely in practice to be exceeded, and that it was bound to be before the police could take action. It was considered that this was too high a speed for large motor coaches, carrying the number of people they do carry, and that having regard to public safety and the damage to the roads it was not desirable to allow that speed.
§ VISCOUNT ULLSWATERMy Lords, may I enquire whether there is any provision in the Bill for the speeds at which these goods vehicles can travel being painted upon the vehicle?—because with this great number of speeds it will be extremely difficult for the police or for other persons to recognise at once whether a vehicle is going at the speed at which it is allowed to go or whether it is exceeding it. This might to some extent be obviated, at all events for the 338 benefit of the police, if it were insisted that in each case the maximum speed at which a vehicle was allowed to travel were painted on the vehicle.
EARL RUSSELLMy Lords, that is a very germane question, and it has already been considered by the Minister. I may say at once that the Minister has power under this Bill by regulation to prescribe any mark of this sort that is necessary, and he has under consideration whether it will be desirable to prescribe some mark, and whether it should be done by way of coloured discs or painted numbers or in some other way. We do feel that the police cannot be expected to know on sight in what particular category of speed the vehicle will come.
§ LORD DANESFORTMy Lords, I hope that the noble Earl and his advisers will not be moved by the persuasive eloquence of the noble Earl (Lord Howe) into raising the speed limits unduly, and if for no other reason than that, if you have a heavy vehicle of five or six tons weight travelling at 35 miles an hour, its vibration causes very serious damage to the roads. The higher speed almost doubles or trebles the damage done. In these days when we are compelled to spend such enormous sums upon repairing and maintaining the roads of the country it would be disastrous if an additional burden were placed on the ratepayers by increasing the speed of vehicles.
§ Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
§ EARL RUSSELL moved to leave out the First Schedule and insert the following schedule:—