ROAD TRAFFIC BILL.

HL Deb 10 July 1934 vol 93 cc399-456

Order of the Day for the Second Beading read.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)

My Lords, in asking the House to give this Bill a Second Reading I am going to confine myself to dealing with the broad principles of the Bill. It is not my intention to weary your Lordships with any great number of statistics or to review in any great detail the many provisions which the Bill contains. Those matters can better be discussed during the subsequent stages of the Bill in your Lordships' House. The House will remember that during the year 1933 over 7,000 people were killed and over 216,000 people injured in accidents caused by vehicles in streets, roads and other public places in the country. This is a matter in which your Lordships' House has taken a very special interest for a considerable time. The gross total of accidents has, unfortunately, been rising year by year, and it is perfectly clear that no Government could have stood by with folded hands doing nothing, merely in the hope that things would right themselves of their own accord.

It may be argued, as I have heard it argued by many people, that the increase in the number of accidents which has taken place recently is due in very large measure, if not altogether, to the fact that a largely increased number of motor vehicles use our roads and a largely increased mileage is run by them. It is perfectly true that there is a steady increase in the number of motor vehicles using our roads, and it is perfectly true that the increase in the number of accidents may be partly due to that increase; but, after all, what we want to achieve is an absolute reduction in the number of accidents, not merely a relative reduction, and we must obtain this in some way or another. The Minister of Transport made a very careful investigation last year into the fatal accidents which occurred upon the roads, and into their causes. A very minute analysis was made of those causes, and I think that there is one conclusion that one can definitely come to from the results of those investigations and other observations which have been made, and that is that there is no single remedy which in itself and by itself is going to solve this problem for us. There is a large number of different factors which, either by themselves or in conjunction with other factors, are the cause of individual accidents upon the roads and streets of this country. I venture to say that it is from this premise that we ought to attempt to deal with the present situation.

The Government have already taken vigorous action administratively to cope with the situation, in the first place by co-operating with the National Safety First Council—we have made a grant of £5,000 to that Council out of the Road Fund towards their road safety campaign—and further by enlisting the support, and I may say the generous support, of the Press, the British Broadcasting Corporation, and the cinema industry as well. The Minister of Transport has also taken action with the highway authorities with a view to the improvement of our highways, and in a recent circular letter he has drawn their attention to the importance of ensuring that the highways themselves shall be so constructed and maintained as to minimise as far as possible any risk of accident arising from the condition of the road itself. Similarly, he has drawn the attention of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, which is a, widely representative body, to a number of points in which the construction or equipment of motor vehicles might be improved from the safety point of view. These possible defects of the highway and of the construction of motor vehicles themselves can be dealt with by administrative action, and they do not require any amendment in the present law. Although the fatal accidents in which they appear to have been contributory causes are relatively few, it would obviously not have been right to overlook them in the pursuit of every possible means of reducing the risk of accident.

The measure now before your Lordships is the result of the most careful consideration by the Government of the legislative measures which may serve to the same end by reducing the number of accidents upon our roads. The Bill is divided into five Parts, and these Parts correspond very closely to the Parts of the principal Act of 1930. Clause 1, as your Lordships will have realised by now, is an important clause. It provides for the introduction of a speed limit of thirty miles per hour in built-up areas and—I should like to emphasise this—the clause must be read in conjunction with the provisions made in Clause 15 for the institution of pedestrian crossings. A great deal has been said with regard to the imposition of this thirty miles per hour speed limit, and great play has been made, by those who are opposed to the speed limit, of the fact that the fatal accidents investigation of last year showed that out of 7,000 fatal accidents more than half of the vehicles involved were travelling only at twenty miles per hour or under. I can only say in reply to that that these figures must be accepted with very great reserve. In the first place, in some 68 per cent, of the cases analysed the pedestrian or the pedal cyclist concerned was either dead or fatally injured and unable to give his version of what occurred; and another consideration to be taken into account is that these figures, even if they are correct, even if we can accept them wholly, represent the speed of the vehicle at the actual moment of impact. They give no indication whatsoever of the speed of a vehicle when the emergency first arose, and that after all is a vitally important point. At any rate, the Government have given the matter most careful consideration and have decided that this thirty miles per hour speed limit must be imposed in built-up areas.

Those two measures—the imposition of the speed limit in built-up areas and the institution of these pedestrian crossings—are designed to secure more careful driving in those areas in which the largest number of accidents are shown by our figures of 1933 to have occurred. Out of some 7,000 recorded fatal accidents last year, over 4,000 were in the built-up areas and less than 3,000 were outside. I pass to the definition of a built-up area. That is not altogether easy, and it has given the Government a good deal of trouble. Large areas in towns would by-common consent be described as built-up areas, while far larger areas outside in country districts can in no sense be considered built-up. The difficulty of the definition, as so often happens, lies in the marginal case. I assure the House that we have considered carefully numerous suggestions that have been made for a definition based either upon the number of openings into the carriageway or the number of buildings in a given length of road. Either of these two bases would still fail to solve the difficulty in the marginal case, and in addition to that I think the motorist could hardly be expected to count the openings of the buildings past which he is driving. After careful thought and consideration we have adopted the simple criterion of the existence of a system of street lighting, making it perfectly clear at the same time that a few lamps placed at intervals of more than 200 yards do not constitute such a system.

By adopting this definition we obviate any need for a special survey of every road in the country, but we have provided for two large and important classes of exceptional cases. In the first place, there are roads, particularly I understand in the North of England, where but little building has taken place, but where continuous street lighting is nevertheless in operation. In these eases we will provide for what is called de-restriction—that is, either at the instance of the local authority or of the Minister—and the de-restricted lengths of road will be clearly marked so that the motorist will know that the street lamps do not require him to reduce speed below thirty miles per hour. On the other hand, there are equally lengths of road where no street lighting has yet been provided but where circumstances are such as to call for the imposition of a thirty miles per hour speed limit. In these cases the local authority, with the consent of the Minister, may declare a length of road to be in a built-up area, so that the thirty miles per hour speed limit may apply. In these cases due provision is also made in the clause for the erection and maintenance of signs for the guidance of users of the road.

Clause 15, which I said should be read in conjunction with Clause 1, deals with the question of pedestrian crossings. Under this clause the local authority, again with the approval of the Minister, may institute a system of pedestrian crossings upon which the pedestrian will have a right of way in preference to vehicular traffic in accordance with the Minister's regulations. I ought to point out in passing that the pedestrian crossings which have recently been laid down experimentally in the London area have been instituted by virtue of the Minister's powers under the London Traffic Act, 1924, and the present Bill proposes to give the Minister power to authorise similar crossings in other parts of the country. I have heard the view expressed in certain quarters that these crossings will prove such a valuable safety measure as to obviate the necessity of maintaining the thirty miles per hour speed limit proposed in this Bill. One can only say in that connection that until more experience has been gained in this matter it is obviously impossible to make any reliable forecast of the result of the institution of these crossings, but I should like to point out that in recognition of the possibility that this may be the case the Bill now presented to your Lordships provides that the speed limit of thirty miles per hour shall continue in force only until December 31, 1939, unless Parliament otherwise determines.

I pass now to another point altogether. I should like to say that the primary concern of the Government must be to prevent the occurrence of accidents so far as possible, but if, through the failure of the individual, an accident, nevertheless, does occur, it is important to do what is possible to secure due redress for the innocent victim of the accident, and we have, therefore, introduced into Part II of the Bill a number of provisions designed to remedy the defects which time has shown to exist in the system of compulsory insurance introduced by the Act of 1930. We believe that these measures will obviate many cases of hardship such as have occurred in the last four years, and perhaps your Lordships will allow me to give you a few examples. To begin with, the insurer will no longer be able, if the provisions of this Bill operate, to repudiate his liability on the ground that there was some technical misstatement in the proposal form. If he wishes to avoid, as the technical term is, on grounds of fraudulent misrepresentation, he is required to go to the Courts for a declaration and, furthermore, to give the injured party the opportunity of being joined in such proceedings. We also give some guidance to the Court as to what facts or particulars are to be deemed material for the purpose of this provision.

Then again hardship has frequently arisen in the past by reason of the insurer repudiating liability on the ground that the vehicle has not been adequately maintained. In other cases liability has been repudiated on the ground that the vehicle was being used in an area or at a time outside the cover afforded by the policy, and also that a pillion passenger was being carried on a motor cycle the user of which had not an insurance policy which covered pillion riding. We have made it impossible for the insurer in the future to avoid his liability so far as concerns third-party risks by repudiation on such grounds as these. There are also a certain number of minor amendments of the insurance provisions of the principal Act designed to make it more difficult for the motorist to drive under cover of an invalid insurance certificate. In connection with this question of insurance against third-party risk, I ought to remind your Lordships that in a large number of cases hardship arose in the past owing to the application of the, principle of law known as actio personalis. Your Lordships will remember that this House has already had that question before it, and has taken steps with a view to the amendment of the law so as to remove for the future this cause of hardship.

I would like to say a word or two about another question which is closely related to the one I have, been discussing. Your Lordships are well aware of the serious burden that has fallen upon the medical profession in recent years in connection with the emergency treatment of victims of motor accidents in respect of which they have been unable to obtain any remuneration. Your Lordships know that the noble Lord, Lord Moynihan, showed great interest in this particular provision and introduced a measure relating to it into your Lordships' House. Provision has been made in this Bill for the payment to the medical profession of a fee of 12s. 6d. together with a mileage allowance, and a similar provision is made to meet the case where emergency treatment is effected by a hospital. After careful consideration the Government did not resist, in this exceptional case, the proposal to relieve the medical practitioner or the hospital of the necessity of proving negligence on the part of the insured driver. It is perfectly true that this may be in certain cases a hardship on the driver or the insurer, but the Government have reached the conclusion that on balance these hardships are likely to be far less than those which are in fact to-day being borne by the medical profession.

In Clause 28 we provide for the extension to drivers of heavy goods vehicles of the system of a vocational licence which has already been in operation, I think with satisfactory results, for the last four years in the case of the drivers of public service vehicles. This proposed extension has, I am glad to say, been generally welcomed by the representatives both of the employers and of the employed. Again, the opportunity afforded by the new Bill has been taken to remedy a number of minor defects which the experience of the last four years has disclosed in the 1930 Road Traffic Act. In Clause 30 we provide that a court by which a driver has been convicted of an offence shall have before it more complete information as to the driver's previous record. We provide also that on conviction for dangerous or careless driving, the court may, without prejudice to its other powers, require the driver to be disqualified from driving until he has passed a test showing that he has learned to drive. This driving test, as your Lordships will see, is to be imposed upon all new drivers. It is designed solely as a safety measure, and in the examination of the drivers particular attention will be given to their working knowledge of the Highway Code.

I know that the House has taken a great interest in this particular point of tests for drivers, and perhaps I ought to some extent to amplify what I have just said. I should explain that any person who did not hold a driving licence on or before the 1st April this year will be required to undergo the new driving test whether or not he has obtained an ordinary driving licence between that date and the date when the Act comes into operation. The motoring associations have been invited to co-operate with the Minister in arranging for these tests. The examination will not be so much designed to require detailed mechanical knowledge as to secure that the driver has an adequate knowledge of road manners and reasonable skill in handling his vehicle. It has been frequently pointed out that accidents are often caused primarily by some driver who is not recorded even as involved in the accident and may, indeed, remain ignorant of the fact that any accident has occurred. A common example is that of the driver who selfishly keeps on the crown of the road with the result that a long queue forms up behind him, and some driver at last impatiently cuts out so that an accident may result. Other examples are those cases in which thoughtless drivers leave cars standing in positions which seriously reduce the road space available for other users. It is largely with the idea of inculcating good road manners into drivers that these tests are to be instituted.

I do not think it is necessary to draw your Lordships' attention in detail to the various minor amendments which are contained in this Bill, but I am glad to be able to say that with the general assent of the important passenger road transport industry provision is made in Clauses 22 and 23 for clarifying the definition of a private party on a special occasion, as to which I understand there has been a good deal of difficulty in the past, and also for simplifying the procedure of the Traffic Commissioners.

I have attempted quite shortly to explain to your Lordships the main provisions of this measure and to deal with the main principles which govern it. I think it would probably save your Lordships' time if I reserved any further remarks until I have listened to the speeches and heard the criticisms of other noble Lords. I will only conclude by repeating what I indicated at the beginning of my speech, that in the Government's view there is no one single solution of this very difficult problem of road traffic and road safety, but I do submit that the measure now before your Lordships is a material contribution from the legislative standpoint and I ask your Lordships with confidence to give the Bill a Second Reading.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDĒ

My Lords, I should like to congratulate the noble Earl on the very able way in which he has placed before us in such a short space of time the main objects of a somewhat complicated measure. His knowledge of the subject no doubt has helped him to see what are the really essential points that will interest your Lordships. This measure is undoubtedly experimental. The object, as the noble Earl has said, is to get an absolute reduction in the terrible toll of accidents. Anybody who has studied carefully the Report on Fatal Road Accidents for the year 1933 will see that it is a subject which no Government can possibly afford to neglect and to which we should all of us turn our attention with a view to seeing how it can be remedied. I agree entirely with the noble Earl that there is no one remedy and one sometimes feels that administrative action may go just as far as any fresh legislation, but the Government acted wisely in doing their utmost to see by what new legislation they can cope with this great difficulty.

There are two general reflections I would like to make before I pass to one or two points of criticism of the Bill. The first one is that this subject has now become of such overwhelming gravity that one begins rather to doubt whether the post of Minister of Transport should continue to be just a stepping stone in Ministerial promotion. I am not making any charge against the present Government any more than against former Governments. According to the Parliamentary system that is an acknowledged fact, and it makes some of us reflect as to whether the Minister of Transport should not be somebody with an aptitude for the work who would be allowed to remain at his post in order to grasp the details and to see to the reforms in such a manner as to allow him to take a very much longer view than he is able to at the present time. I will not speculate further on that particular point because it is really more of a constitutional question.

The other general remark which, with your Lordships' permission, I would like to make is that I am very glad, now that we are getting to grips with this question, that the old idea that the community must be classed in three antagonistic categories as motorists, pedestrians and cyclists is at last being abandoned. There is no antagonism whatsoever, or there ought to be no sort of antagonism, between the three classes of road users. Where the antagonism should be, and where it should be encouraged in each class is between the careful user of the road and the careless user of the road. I think motorists, pedestrians and cyclists should devote a great deal more of their attention, in the special category in which they are interested, to bringing to book those who carelessly use and negligently use the road and to devising methods by which such negligence may be prevented from resulting in serious accident.

With regard to the Bill itself the first question on which I wish to touch is that of the speed limit. My doubt about the speed limit has always been with regard to the difficulty of its enforcement. I think that is the difficulty. But I listened very carefully to what the noble Earl said and he dealt with the matter most convincingly. I agree that perhaps this speed limit should be tried. But I should like to ask why the Minister in another place conceded the suspension of the speed limit between midnight and five o'clock in the morning. I have not met anybody who wants that. It will make the speed limit still more difficult of enforcement. Unless it was a deputation from the "Bright Young Things" to the Minister who persuaded him to introduce that suspension I cannot imagine in whose interests it was conceived. Eliminating the hours between midnight and five o'clock in the morning from the operation of the speed limit will be an invitation to scorchers to use the roads during that time with an entire disregard of others who may be on them. It is during the particular hours when traffic is not very dense that danger arises.

I do not want to trouble your Lordships with quotations, but I think that from the document, giving a record of fatal accidents it will be seen that by far the great majority of fatal accidents take place, not in very congested streets, but in streets where the traffic is very much lighter. Where traffic is lighter the speed is generally greater, and to have vehicles going along at any pace in these quiet hours of the night seems to me to be perfectly unnecessary and to impose on those who have to see to the enforcement of the speed limit a task which, already extremely difficult, will be rendered more difficult by this concession. I think, too, that the inhabitants of the areas through which the traffic passes may have some just complaint that this concession has been made. If there had been no speed limit attention would not have been drawn to this matter, but the fact that a speed limit is to be enforced draws the particular attention of the Minister of Transport and of Parliament to it. It is as good as saying that during these five hours in the middle of the night you can do what you like. I hope that in your Lordships' House this concession will be removed.

I want to draw the noble Earl's attention to Clause 4. Your Lordships will notice that it is provided by that clause that an infringement of the speed limit shall lead to the endorsement of a driver's licence. In place of what was permissive in the 1930 Act, under which it was left to the magistrate's discretion, we now have in this Bill a mandatory expression saying that the magistrate shall order an endorsement on the licence. That may turn out to defeat its object. In cases where a man's livelihood depends on his driving a car, a van or a fcaxicab, when he comes before a magistrate charged with having exceeded the speed limit audit is known that a conviction on that charge is going to lead to the endorsement of his licence, which in his case will probably mean the loss of his job, I think the magistrate will be, very reluctant indeed to convict. But in relation to the other clauses of this Bill, just see how arbitrary this is. A man who drives at thirty-two miles an hour may have his licence endorsed and a man who drives at twenty-eight miles an hour need not and cannot have his licence endorsed. A man who drives at thirty-two miles an hour at five minutes past twelve at night or at five minutes to five in the morning is safe, but if he drives at that pace at five minutes to twelve or at five minutes past five then he is caught. The limit is extremely difficult. The limit must be put somewhere once you go in for a speed limit, but now that you have got these hours of exemption the matter is complicated very much further. I would ask the noble Earl to consider whether this mandatory enforcement in Clause 4 of an endorsement for exceeding the speed limit—I am not speaking about careless driving; I am confining myself to the point of exceeding the speed limit—is not rather too severe considering the other clauses of the Bill.

I would like now to turn to Clause 5. I am quite impenitent about tests. I do not know how they are going to be carried out. I should like to hear from the noble Earl whether the Royal Automobile Club and the Automobile Association are quite ready to institute some sort of organisation for tests. I should be very much surprised if they were. I do not know how they are going to be applied. If a man can drive through a gate and back into a yard and go between posts and go down the road with a teacher, I do not know whether all that is a real test. But before these tests are brought in I do feel that it is incumbent on the Minister to show by his statistics that a large proportion of accidents have been due to the negligent driving of novices. There is no such idea among the public, and we have no sort of proof that accidents have largely been caused by novices. On the contrary, I should say that the general experience of those who use the roads is that it is very experienced drivers and very careless and negligent and foolish people who cause accidents, whereas the novice is generally rather nervous and goes extremely slowly.

These tests are going to be of no sort of value whatever. I held out against them in the 1930 Bill. I have always had a controversy with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on this point. When it comes to heavy vehicles, to the big vans and road service cars, where really very great experience is needed, that is quite a different matter, but the driving of a car is not such a difficult thing. Anybody can learn enough to do a certain amount of moving about on the road or in a yard. It is not inexperience that we are up against, it is folly, carelessness and negligence—sometimes criminal negligence—that we are up against, and no tests are going to be a barrier against them. If a driver fails at his test, what is he going to do? If he fails in the physical test with regard to eyesight which was set up in the 1930 Act he can appeal to a court of summary jurisdiction. I do not know to whom he can appeal if he is rejected on the test under this Bill. I am subject to correction on this point, but I think that in the Committee stage in another place it was suggested by the Minister that some other tribunal for tests would be set up to which he could appeal. That really sounds to me almost farcical—like a man who cannot pass an examination saying that he must have another lot of examiners. I think that the closer the Minister gets to this question of tests on experience after the passage of this Bill, the more he will see that tests are impracticable and no sort of safeguard at all.

I want to say just a word on Clause 16 as to reflectors on bicycles. What I said just now with regard to the great controversy being between careful people and careless people has been illustrated very noticeably during the last few months by the behaviour of cyclists. Directly the suggestion came out that they should have white mudguards and big reflectors, all careful cyclists immediately purchased them, and the careless cyclists have not purchased them yet. I do not know whether they will purchase them, and I do not know how you are going to make them do so. Motoring about a good deal, I have taken special note of cyclists who either have no reflectors—and they are quite a considerable number—or who have their reflectors placed in the wrong place or have inadequate reflectors. They are not fined and they are not brought before the court on account of that offence, I want to ask the Minister to give his attention to a suggestion I am about to mention.

I ascertained that the difficulty of getting before the magistrates those negligent cyclists who have either no reflectors or wrong reflectors on their bicycles was too great, that it took up too much time, that it involved a good deal of hardship and waste of time on their part—and they are very often working men—and therefore the local police let them go. I can quite understand. It is cumbersome machinery for so trivial, and yet so important, an offence. I wonder whether it would be possible—I do not know whether it would require legislation, but the noble Earl will inform me—for the policeman to have a receipt book, so that, on finding that a cyclist had no reflector, he could simply say to him: "That means a fine of half a crown," take his half-crown there and then, and furnish the cyclist with a receipt for the money in case he should wish to appeal. That has been done in a foreign capital, for the throwing away of refuse. It was done with such success that the city was cleared of refuse. A policeman came up, charged a man with throwing dirty paper on the pavement, and took his shilling, or whatever it was, from him. People do not care to part in that way, and they soon stop the habit of throwing refuse about. Without some such proposal we shall have precisely the same difficulty with regard to the white mudguards and reflectors as you have now, and cyclists are going to get off scot free. With these droves of cyclists coming out from country towns in the evening you are going to have the same trouble and the same number of accidents, and perhaps fatal accidents. I hope your Lordships will not think the suggestion fantastic. I have talked it over with others, and my only doubt is whether it can be done administratively or whether it will require legislation. I am not sure that the suggestion might not be extended to minor offences, which amount in themselves to very little, but might in some cases lead to serious accidents.

I believe that much more might be done by the enforcement of the 1930 Act and the regulations at present existing. I am glad to see that signposts throughout the country are being lowered, and I think that a great deal more might be done with regard to advance directions, allowing motorists to know 100 yards before coming to a junction the direction of this road they want to take. It is very often uncertainty and bewilderment which cause accidents, without any negligence being brought into the case at all. There are other minor suggestions with which I will not trouble your Lordships, but the noble Earl mentioned the Highway Code. As one who helped to draft that little book I have been greatly disappointed at its circulation. I have never met anybody who has read it, and I do not wonder. It is practically impossible to secure it unless you know the whereabouts of the Stationery Office or of Wyman's. If the idea is that it should be widely known—I believe it is going to be revised—then it should be broadcast, and be available in garages, stations and book shops all over the country, if necessary, with the notice: "Please take one." The Government should stand the charge. It is not a very great charge, for it is only a little book. But otherwise it will be as now, and the public will be absolutely ignorant of what the Highway Code is and what instruction it gives. If the instruction is worth anything it is worth broadcasting, but if it is not worth anything it is not worth issuing at all. I myself believe it is worth a good deal, but I am afraid that not one in 10,000 non-motorist pedestrians has ever read the Highway Code. Why should he be blamed? He does not know where to get it or where it will be made available. As knowledge of the Highway Code is going to be part of the test I hope it will be made more available.

These are minor criticisms which I venture to put before your Lordships. Some of them, I think, would be an improvement to the Bill, but the Bill, as a whole, meets with our approval on this side of the House. I would like to add that I think it is a very fine effort on the part of the late Minister of Transport in dealing with this great difficulty. I feel sure, however, that the new Minister of Transport will find it also necessary not to rest on the laurels of this legislation, but to keep the local authorities up to the mark and to see in what direction, by administrative acts, he can still further improve the safety of our roads.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

My Lords, I rise to welcome this Bill, all the more so because it is, as I see it, fundamentally experimental in character. It is quite clear that the world is undergoing a great transformation in its ordinary habits, and one of the faculties which mankind is going to develop, after a great deal more experience of road traffic, is much more wisdom in the use of the roads both on the part of motorists and of cyclists and pedestrians. I welcome the thirty miles an hour speed limit, not because I am convinced it is going to solve the problem, although I have had some little experience of the operation of such a speed limit in the town of Oxford, where I am told it has considerably contributed to an improvement of the conditions of the roads and a lessening of the number of accidents. The difficulties of enforcement are very clear, and I am not sure that in the long run it will be successful, but in view of the figures published as to the number of accidents it is quite plain that the community must take action. If a measure of that kind will seriously diminish road accidents and deaths, by all means bring it into force and use it. The noble Earl who introduced the Bill said his object was to bring about an absolute, reduction in road accidents, and I hope that the provisions of this Bill will have some effect in doing that.

The subject which I rose to discuss in particular to-day is another aspect of the question that is not specifically dealt with in this Bill—and I rather regret that it is not dealt with—and that is the influence which ribbon development is having upon the problem of the roads. I am quite convinced that unless the Government take action to control ribbon development, so far from having an absolute reduction you may have an absolute and continuous increase in road accidents. I would like to read to your Lordships a few figures from the Blue-book which has been published. In 1933 the total deaths were 7,202, of which those of pedestrians numbered 3,517. Three out of four deaths occurred in built-up areas. Seventy-seven per cent, of the accidents to children under fifteen occurred in built-up areas, and 88 per cent, of the acci- dents to people over fifty-five occurred in built-up areas. There were in that year 905 children under fifteen killed in built-up areas, and it is quite clear that by far the most serious cases of accident are on roads frequented by motorists in built-up areas. Yet what do you see all over the country to-day? You see the design of Parliament under the Road Fund to create great motor roads, under conditions in which traffic can pass from one end of the country to the other, rapidly being turned into tunnels which are death traps for people living on each side of the road. It seems to me that not only is it manifestly extremely dangerous to the population to allow ribbon development to continue in its present form, but it is going completely to defeat the expenditure on roads, and, so far from having the type of motor road which is required in this country, you will have roads on which for hundreds of miles you will have speed limits of thirty miles an hour. In addition, of course, ribbon development is extremely ugly—one of the great eyesores of this beautiful country is those rows of hideous little houses fronting on to main roads, going from one end of the country to the other.

There are two possible remedies. One is that you should endow the county councils with powers to control the construction of building on either side of main roads, in the same way as the Surrey County Council has got those powers to-day—and is using them, I understand, with great advantage to the community. In the case of main roads no building should be allowed along them unless there is a by-road running parallel to the main road, so that vehicles stopping to deliver goods or to make a call would have to turn away into the by-road, and therefore not congest the area available for traffic. If the houses are thus set back pedestrians are not likely to run out on to the main road. The other way is to require housing development, instead of being along the frontage of a main road, to stretch back laterally from it, in which case the roads become perfectly good playgrounds for children, and, as they do not lead anywhere, there is no danger.

If we really want to deal with this problem, at any rate to prevent its becoming much more serious, and to realise the very purpose for which the Road Fund exists, which is to create and equip roads for motorists where traffic can pass with good speed and with safety, it is imperative that the Government should deal with this evil of ribbon development. I should like to ask the noble Earl whether it is the intention of the Government at the earliest possible moment to introduce legislation giving county councils some kind of powers such as are now given to the County Council of Surrey, in order to control ribbon development and make it safe both for motorists and for those who live in the neighbourhood.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I feel considerable trepidation in addressing your Lordships so often on the subject of motor legislation, but I hope that perhaps you will extend a measure of indulgence to me because of the association which I have with the motor world as a whole. Perhaps I might be excused for explaining to your Lordships that I am a member of the Committee of the Royal Automobile Club and also Chairman of the Road Federation, which is a most important body, comprising the whole of the motor vehicle world, and I am also associated with other bodies as well. Naturally anybody in that position looks with great anxiety upon the Government's proposals as embodied in this Bill. But I should like to make it clear that the views I now express are not necessarily the views of those bodies.

Every one of us must have watched with horror—I know I have—for the last six or seven years the mounting casualty roll upon the roads. It is really only within the last two or three years that any particular notice seems to have been taken of it. When the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was going through this House I repeatedly sought to draw attention to this terrible problem, but it did not seem to be really appreciated at that stage. The Government have now found it necessary to amend that Act, and they have brought in a Bill, parts of which I welcome most sincerely. There are some parts of it which I think are long overdue, and much called for. But the acid test of the Government's proposals should really be this—Are they really in the interests of public safety? That is to say, are they going to secure what the noble Earl himself told us we wanted when he introduced the Bill this afternoon? He said that what we want is an absolute reduction in the number of accidents. It is a question of public safety which is at stake and nothing else. But when we examine the Government's proposals I am not so sure myself whether we are going to get what we want.

Take, for instance, the question of the speed limit. The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, just now drew attention to what seemed to him, and seems to me, a classic absurdity and nothing else. You have a speed limit of thirty miles an hour, which is said to be necessary in order to secure public safety. But you are going to say that at one minute to twelve o'clock at night a motorist is committing an offence if he goes over that speed limit, whereas at one minute past twelve it is no offence at all. It is exactly at those hours of the night, according to my experience, that cars are often driven at their fastest and with least regard to other road users. Some terrible accidents have happened during those hours of the night. I remember a ghastly one a short time ago in a constituency which I used to represent in another place, not very far from the Palace of Westminster, where about four people were killed instantaneously. It is that sort of accident which takes place at these times; that is to say, that if an accident takes place then it is almost certain that the people will all be killed.

Then another thing. I can understand a general limit of thirty miles an hour, but under the Bill you will only know when you are in a limited area by the fact that there are lamp-posts 600 feet apart. If they are 601 feet apart you will be committing no offence, but if they are under 600 feet apart and you go over thirty miles an hour you are committing an offence. As if that were not sufficiently difficult from the point of view of the driver, there are going to be special areas where special signs will be placed in non-restricted areas, where therefore there is no speed limit; there will be other areas where there are no lamp-posts where signs have to be placed to show that there is a limit. Multiplication of signs is perfectly impossible from the point of view of the motor driver. They are mostly placed in positions where, if the man is really driving properly, he will find it extremely diffi- cult to see them. They are very often at the side of the road, and, placed like that, they are not at all easy to see when you have also to keep an eye on, say, a wobbling cyclist, or a hesitating pedestrian, or some other traffic emergency which may develop. Traffic signs are nearly always at the side of the road, and therefore not in the centre of the field of vision and I submit that there is possibly a great danger in the multiplication of road signs.

Then again, what is to happen at night? Are all these signs going to be illuminated at night? I venture to say that we are embarking on a problem the magnitude of which I do not believe even the Minister himself realises. I believe I am correct in stating that under this Bill some 55,000 miles of road in this country will be affected, and will be limited areas. That is going to lead to a perfectly colossal extension of the signposting system. Take lamp-posts, or places whore there are lamps. Lamps may be on telegraph poles or sticking out from the side of a house, and sometimes you will find them on proper posts, and so on. In fact, I know I am correct in saying that the road and street lighting question of this country is in a state of absolute chaos. I happen to know one omnibus route—I believe I am light in saying it is No. 27—that goes through twenty-five different systems of street lighting. This has been allowed to grow up under successive Governments and successive administrations. I am more than sorry I do not see any steps being taken under this Bill which indicate that the Government intend to go further into this question of street lighting. It urgently demands reform, experiment, and research, and it is going to become doubly important when the street lamps are not going to be used for their proper purpose but are also going to be signals for a speed limit for motor traffic.

I have another objection to the speed limit and I submit it for what it is worth. I submit that a speed limit actually does in fact encourage a wrong mentality. If you have a speed limit, you can fix it at any figure you like—twenty, thirty, or forty miles an hour, it does not matter which—that maximum is almost automatically looked upon as the minimum by many motorists. It also will have another effect under this Bill. The Police do their best with the legislation that Parliament thrusts upon them, and I think they earn our most sincere admiration for their efforts as a whole, but it is going to be very easy for a policeman to go out under this Bill and secure a conviction. It is very difficult for a policeman to get a conviction under the Highway Code, and yet this is the thing, the Highway Code—and here I entirely agree with every word the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, said—that is going to secure safety on the highway. If you could translate this little book into the minds of every road user you then would get a real reduction in the figures of accidents. It is only common sense; there is nothing difficult about it; but very few people know anything about it. The general public know nothing about it. The only people who ever heard of it are the drivers of motor vehicles, and very few of them have read it. If we could only secure wider circulation for this book I think it would be all to the good. I am afraid of the effect which the imposition of a thirty mile an hour speed limit is going to have on the Police. It is going to sidetrack them from the thing that really matters, in order to secure a technical offender. We are making a law which we know very well before we set it up is going to be largely broken. That was the experience last time when we had a twenty miles an hour speed limit.

I argued against the removal of that speed limit because I wanted to secure an examination for drivers, and here is where I differ from the noble Lord opposite. It was only for that reason I opposed the removal of it, because I do not consider any arbitrary speed limit you can possibly fix will necessarily of itself bring about a reduction of the figures of accidents. It is a notable fact that when the twenty miles an hour speed limit was removed the figure for road casualties went down, and they did not start to go up for two years afterwards. I have no faith in this proposal to have a speed limit of thirty miles an hour. Then there is the point that infringements of the speed limit have to be endorsed on the licence. I think it is obvious there must be a reluctance on the part of a bench of magistrates to convict under a clause which may result in a working man losing his livelihood, and I consider that clause far too drastic for what is purely a technical offence. I think the situation could be perfectly well left to the dis- cretion of the tribunal before whom the man is brought.

Then there is another point which has been touched upon in another place, and that is how convictions are to be obtained for infringements of this speed limit. The Minister of Transport has, I understand, provided—I do not know whether it has been done with the assistance of the Police authorities, but I suppose it has—that evidence will be secured by means of policemen in cars not subject to the speed limit, because they are official cars, fitted with speedometers. Speedometer evidence is always unreliable. A speedometer is merely a mechanical device. Usually speedometers have an error of from 10 to 15 per cent., as your Lordships must know from personal experience. However well cared for they may be they are always liable to develop defects through damp and other causes affecting an instrument which is a very delicate one. Furthermore, I think one must have more regard to the protection of the individual who is charged, and I do not regard speedometer evidence as at all reliable. I am afraid I cannot agree with the Government's proposal in favour of a speed limit on the grounds I have indicated, and when it comes to the consideration of Clause 1 in Committee I or my friends will have to move to reject the clause.

There is another point I want specially to mention to the noble Earl who speaks for the Government, and that is the question of the tribunal before whom offenders are to be brought. At present offenders are brought before a local bench. I hope I shall be forgiven by those who are members of local benches when I suggest that they are chosen as a rule for appointment to the bench by reason of their social standing or their political prejudices. The question of ability to weigh evidence is not one that usually seems to receive foremost consideration. Other countries have the same problems, but they have approached them differently. They are approached differently in the Dominions. Special traffic courts have been instituted in other countries, and there is a good deal to be said for them. They secure at least unification of administration. One of the troubles in connection with motor cases has been inequality of administration and the difference in administration which has resulted. In one area you have a court before which an offender has only to be brought and he is bound to be convicted. In other areas you have courts which are much too lenient and do not impose a sufficient penalty in serious cases. I can think of such cases, and your Lordships must have cases in your own minds. The noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, spoke of the town with which he is connected. I well remember the terrible case that occurred there and the way in which that case was dealt with.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

That was not before a magistrate.

EARL HOWE

It was before a Judge and jury but somehow it did seem an extraordinary thing that you could kill a policeman and merely at the end of it all you had nothing endorsed; you were merely asked by the Judge not to drive again because he did not consider you were fit. There are many other points to which I should like to refer but I shall only mention one or two. One of the most important questions that affect road accidents is the question of road design and construction. The late Minister of Transport is reported to have made the most astonishing statement that those who urged that more of the money contributed by motorists should be used to make the roach safer were talking "dangerous nonsense." I never understood what the Minister had in mind when he made that statement, because everybody who uses the roads knows perfectly well it is still possible to find road surfaces in this country which, under bad conditions of weather, become nothing but the equivalent of butterslides, where it is almost impossible to avoid an accident if an emergency crops up. We know also that footpaths have not been sufficiently provided in many areas, and where they have been provided they have not in every case been suitably constructed. All these things have a direct effect upon road accidents. Many accidents have happened at level crossings, yet they are still allowed to exist on main roads. Then the camber of roads and the question of uniformity in road surfaces urgently demand attention and the edges of roads require to be in many areas repaired, when we are considering the question of road design and reconstruction.

I would like to support what fell from the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, just now when he mentioned ribbon development. He pleaded with your Lordships that county councils should be armed with more power. But the county councils themselves are offenders in this matter. I do not know if any of your Lordships are members of the Hertfordshire County Council. That County Council has got some land, I understand, alongside one of our arterial roads which it is positively developing as a building site, and which appears to be in danger of some form of ribbon development. It is perfectly true that as this ribbon development goes on so the danger will increase. The poor little children must run out of their doors; they must go somewhere to play; and, after all, an arterial road seems a good place on which to go and play. It has a large grass verge. The child's ball bounces off the grass and into the road, the child runs after it and there is an accident. When considering road design and reconstruction, why is it that so many arterial roads are so entirely inadequate in their width? Why is it that so many of them are only thirty feet wide, which only leaves room for three lines of traffic in ordinary safety. It means overtaking driving in both directions and the liability of two cars meeting in head-on collisions. Still we go on making our thirty feet roads. That is a point which might be borne in mind by the Minister. I cannot understand why the Minister should have said that it was dangerous nonsense to make these suggestions.

I want to say a word upon the question of tests for drivers. There is no doubt that tests for drivers have been valuable in certain countries, but they have kept a proportion of people off the road who were unable to pass the tests, and who should have been able to pass them if they were the usual tests. I know details of tests which took place in one country, but as I have been asked not to mention this because it is private, I cannot say anything more about it than that I know of one individual who had three times tried to pass the test and failed each time, and then was able to go out on the road after that and within half an hour a fatal accident occurred. Tests must not be written off as if they were no good, but I submit that it is absolutely essential, if we are to have tests, that they should be real tests. I do not mean tests necessarily of the amount of mechanical knowledge an in- dividual possesses, but tests to bring out whether the individual has or has not sufficient road sense and common sense.

In this connection I cannot understand the Minister's own declaration. The honourable Member for Croydon in another place moved an Amendment, the object of which was to provide some court of appeal for the individual who failed to pass the test, and he asked what was to happen to him. This was the Minister's reply: The simple remedy of the man who is, turned down by an examiner and who thinks that he has been unfairly turned down is to go to another examiner. He amplified this at a later stage in his argument by saying: A man will be able, if he is dissatisfied with the decision of the examiner who has turned him down, to find another examiner. Surely it is going to defeat the whole value of tests for drivers if that sort of thing is going to happen. I think it is absolutely essential, if a man is turned down by an examiner, that there should at any rate be a period during which he cannot come up again for examination. I hope most sincerely that the examiners appointed will be competent people, and that it will not be possible for an individual, having been turned down by one examiner, to go to some friend of his who, perhaps, is an examiner round the corner and get through his examination. I hope the Government will be able to give a perfectly clear answer upon this particular point.

There is only one other point I desire to submit to your Lordships. In Clause 23 of the Bill provision is made with regard to the use of vehicles on "special occasions" for the conveyance of private parties, so that in the case of a journey to a particular destination the passengers must not include any person who frequently, or as a matter of routine, travels, at or about the time of day at which the journey is made, to that destination from a place from or through which the journey is made. I happen to be connected with a firm where the employees all live at a considerable distance from the works. For years past, without the slightest complaint, the employees, numbering 600, of that firm have provided a system of motor omnibuses and they have been helped to do so by the firm. They have acquired these motor omnibuses and travel from their homes to the works and back in them. Surely we are not going to tell these men that they are no longer to do anything like that. We are able to travel from our homes to our place of business in our private cars. It is true that in the case of these omnibuses the men formed some sort of club to run them. That is the only way in which they could possibly run them, and the men concerned will probably lose their livelihood if this clause is carried into effect. I hope an Amendment will be moved on this point to cover the matter I have raised. I hope also we shall have an assurance from His Majesty's Government that they will not bring a clause like that into operation in such a way.

There are many other things upon which I should have liked to comment, such as the pedestrian crossings. Pedestrian crossings have been put down on the herringbone pattern. We now enjoy the best of weather, but during the winter, in bad weather conditions, this pattern will be against every driver. I should submit that instead of these herringbone crossings we should use the ordinary studs which are used in every country throughout Europe with good effect. The studs always show up at night with the light of the lamps either of the vehicle or the shops, and if we could only have studs instead of this herringbone pattern I think it would be a great improvement. I may say that I welcome the pedestrian crossings, which I think are the first real steps towards public safety which have been taken. I do not know whether the Government intend to bring in any regulation with regard to pedestrians. This is a moment to remind your Lordships that, while it is rightly an offence for the motorist to endanger the pedestrian, it is still no offence for the pedestrian to endanger the motorist. The pedestrian is the one form of traffic that can defy all traffic rules with impunity, and who can do exactly as he likes at present. I hope that in the interest of public safety the Government will find it possible mid necessary to bring in regulations to cover this particular point.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF ONSLOW)

My Lords, only a few years ago your Lordships' House gave several days to the consideration of a Road Traffic Bill. It is, therefore, a disappointment that after great labour on the part of everybody, both Houses of Parliament, the Government and the Department concerned, there has not been a diminution in the number of fatal accidents on the road. When we get a total such as 7,000, as I think was the ease last year, it is obviously a moment when further efforts must be made to achieve the result which we had all hoped might have been achieved some time before. Therefore I welcome the new Bill, and I must say I feel that the provision for a safety limit of thirty miles an hour in the built-up areas is a very wise measure. It is perhaps a return to a measure which was abandoned a few years ago, but the abandonment of the speed limit has not shown any sign of success. I therefore welcome the fact that it is to be reimposed.

If your Lordships will throw your minds back to the able manner in which the last Bill was conducted by the late noble Earl, Lord Russell, you will remember that he, like my noble friend opposite and the noble Lord behind me, Lord Ponsonby, laid almost more stress upon the observance of the Highway Code than upon anything else, upon teaching the proper use of the roads to those who use them in any way, whether as motorists or pedestrians or as drivers or riders of horses or as riders of bicycles. Motorists are not criminals like pick-pockets or people of that kind. They do not want to commit offences, they want to avoid them. They are anxious to do the right thing, except of course an infinitesimal proportion of them. But there are great differences in temperament and skill. A very good driver may get into a difficulty and lose his nerve, and of course any one driving a heavy vehicle weighing a ton or more at a speed of even twenty miles is a potential danger, Therefore it requires a good deal of skill and knowledge and practice in order to avoid accidents. It has been said by the noble Earl that the Government have been taking care to reduce the number of accidents and I believe they have even given a subsidy to the Pedestrians Association with a view to increasing the protection given to road users. But I wonder whether we are really making proper use of the agents who are available for the education of those who use the roads. By that I mean the magistrates and the Police.

I would ask the noble Earl opposite to consider whether petty sessional courts are really the best courts to administer the road traffic laws. In motoring cases punishment by the infliction of a fine is more difficult than in other cases where that penalty is imposed. You may have the ease of a man driving his own car, a man with £50,000 a year, and the next case may be that of a chauffeur. Each might be fined the same amount of money, but it means a totally different penalty in the two cases. This difficulty in the administration of the law is well known. I know it from my own experience. In one court with which I am well acquainted the magistrates are very careful indeed to see that the fines inflicted are a real penalty and that a weekly wage earner is given plenty of time in which to pay even a small fine. But in another court with which I am acquainted exactly the opposite takes place. A man is fined perhaps for a not very serious offence and it is insisted that the fine should be paid within twenty-four hours. Then there are cases in which a chauffeur is fined but the owner of the car feels that he must not let the chauffeur down. He provides the chauffeur with the money. That must gradually breed carelessness in the mind of a driver. He feels that whatever happens to him the owner of the car will help him out. I think that is unfortunate. Everybody should have it in mind that if he incurs responsibility he will have to get out of trouble by himself, and that he will not receive help which other people possibly do not get. That is one of the difficulties one sees in the administration of the law. I dare say others may occur to your Lordships.

There is another matter to which I should like to allude. In a very large number of petty sessional courts, especially in county districts, you find that practically every magistrate is an expert motorist. In another court there may be on the bench not one single person who has practical knowledge of motoring. I am told that this is a considerable handicap to the administration of justice. There is yet another difficulty. We are all aware of cases of hardship which arise—they have been alluded to by the noble Earl opposite—when a man has his licence suspended, say, for six months. He may be a perfectly respectable man who has had an accident and, doubtless quite rightly, has been convicted. But, as I have said, motorists are not criminals. Their offences are often more errors of judgment than crime. The man to whom I am referring goes to the court later and asks whether he may not have his licence restored. The employer says he is willing to let him drive a lorry again. The man is on the list of unemployed and general sympathy is with him. But it often happens that the court which he asks to restore his licence is not the court that tried him. Other magistrates are sitting. The case is not re-tried but the magistrates, being sympathetic, often give back his licence to the man. That amounts to an appeal without re-hearing the evidence and I feel that that is a defect in the administration of the law. I do not want to cast aspersions on the petty sessional courts because I have the greatest possible admiration for the manner in which the magistrates administer the law, but it is a fact that not all magistrates in every court are experts in this technical subject and therefore variations in the administration of the law occur.

I cannot agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, when he says that magistrates are selected largely for their social standing or on account of their political opinions. That has not been my experience. I think they are selected more for their ability to administer justice. It does not follow, however, that a better way of administering the law on this technical subject cannot be discovered. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, alluded to traffic courts in other countries. May I make a suggestion which might be carried out in the administration of the road traffic laws here? It might be possible to appoint in each county one or more stipendiary magistrates to deal with cases under the Road Traffic Acts. There would not have to be many because I imagine a magistrate could travel about and sit five or possibly more days a week in various centres. They would have to be very carefully picked men, trained lawyers well acquainted with the Acts, and motorists as well. When I suggested this on a former occasion it was objected that to employ stipendiaries on one duty only would tend to make them less efficient. I do not know why that should be the case. I imagine that if they did their duty well they would be in the line of promotion and would pass on to higher posts.

Then the question was raised as to the court to which there should be an appeal. It might be to Quarter Sessions but the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions are very often, or nearly always, laymen. That might be considered an objection, though I do not know why it should be so considered. I should have thought that Quarter Sessions would be a suitable Court. But if there is any reason why there should not be an appeal from a stipendiary to them, why not allow an appeal to the County Court Judge? I know that County Court Judges nowadays are employed entirely on civil business, but that is not necessary. They are Judges of distinction, men of legal knowledge and of learning, and I do not know why this particular form of criminal business, if it is criminal business, should not be referred to them.

I alluded earlier to the Police. Why should we not make better use of the Police for educating the public? I believe we could. At the present moment a large number of policemen are on the roads on motor cycles and do good work devoting themselves to the regulation of traffic. I think perhaps an improvement might be introduced in the education of those police and in the evenness and uniformity with which they carry out their duties. As your Lordships are aware, a police college has been established in London. Would it not be possible to establish some form of training college for the motor police where they would have thorough instruction in traffic management and in the Highway Code, and in the methods which they should inculcate into the public who are using the roads? That does not seem to me to be impossible. Of course, the police are appointed in each county by the county authority, but still it might be made a rule, either by administrative action or by legislation, that the special traffic police should be appointed in all cases from graduates of the police college, where they would have had full instructions in the management of traffic.

I do not want to take up the time of your Lordships, but I have ventured to make one or two small suggestions by the adoption of which some improvement might perhaps be made in this Bill to assist in achieving the object which we all desire to attain, and which the two noble Lords who spoke before me have emphasised, by teaching the public the use of the Highway Code and the importance of its observance.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELW00D

My Lords, I am afraid that I feel a little doubtful about the suggestion of special courts which my noble friend has just made. I have certainly a great, admiration for my old profession of the Bar, and I believe that a trained lawyer makes the best judge if he is a really good trained lawyer, but a second-rate trained lawyer or a third-rate trained lawyer is very much less satisfactory than a competent layman.

THE KARL OF ONSLOW

I meant a first-rate trained lawyer.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

But then there are only a limited number of people available for that purpose, and most of them would not be attracted by the kind of salary which would be available for a stipendiary magistrate of this description. I should myself be a little afraid that you would find rather unsatisfactory courts if you had, as my noble friend suggests, one stipendiary for each county. There would have to be a great many more than one for Yorkshire and for Lancashire, and for London, though perhaps you would assign the duties to the ordinary stipendiaries there. But I think it would be a large business, and I very much doubt whether you would get the work much better done than it is.

I certainly do not rise to oppose this Bill, but I admit that my enthusiasm for it is qualified. I like the first clause; I like the imposition of a speed limit. I am myself absolutely convinced on the figures, on the facts, and on the reason of the thing, that the vast majority of accidents are due to excessive speed in the circumstances. I believe that to be true, and when I hear some of my noble friends suggest—I do not know whether they have done so this evening; they have not done so in my hearing—that speed is not a danger in itself, they seem to me to be merely playing with words. Of course, speed is not a danger if you are driving a car in the middle of the great Sahara Desert. There it does not matter how fast you go, you can do no injury to anybody except yourself. Nor is drunkenness a danger in itself in that sense; you may be as drunk as you like in the Sahara and you can do no harm to anybody.

The whole point is, are there many-roads, and I myself think any roads, in England upon which it is safe to drive cars at the speed of an express railway train, having in view the possibility of traffic on those roads which may or may not be visible at any moment and which may come on to the road in an unexpected way? I am myself absolutely convinced that it is not safe, and I shall have a word to say as to what I think is the proper remedy. Therefore I personally welcome that clause of the Bill, though I must admit that I think it is very doubtful whether a built-up area is a sufficient indication of where a speed limit is necessary. That we shall no doubt discuss when we come to that stage of the Bill. I agree entirely with what fell from my noble friend Lord Ponsonby as to the astounding proposal, which was I understand adopted by the wisdom of another place, that, you should exclude from the speed limit the hours between twelve o'clock midnight and five o'clock in the morning. I cannot conceive any defence that can be made for that. My doubt about it arises on the question of enforcement. The Government have really not said anything about that in this House. I do not quarrel with my noble friend for not doing so, because he evidently cannot deal with everything, but the whole point is the enforcement of the speed limit when you have enacted it.

We all remember what happened to the old speed limit. There was really no case made in this House for the abolition of the speed limit on the ground that it would not add to, or that it would diminish, the dangers of the road. It was said in a kind of half-hearted way that the facts had shown that it was an entire mistake to suppose that by abolishing the speed limit you diminished the safety of the roads, and that the facts were all the other way; but I venture to say the one argument which weighed with your Lordships, and which certainly weighed with me though I voted against the Bill, was that in point of fact the speed limit was never enforced but was constantly broken by motorists, and not only by the wicked motorists, who are all thrown to the wolves by everybody, but by the good motorists. They all broke it, and the result was that after a certain period your Lordships thought, wrongly as I venture very respectfully to think, that it was better to give way to the law-breakers and to abolish a law which you would not enforce. I do not know, because I have not had any opportunity of investigating it, but I believe that it has been enforced in Oxford by what is called a mobile police force, and I dare say that could be done in one or two other places, but I have very grave doubts whether you will be able to have an adequate force of mobile police to enforce the speed limit all over the built-up areas in this country. I do not say that with any purpose of asking the Government not to insist on Clause 1—on the contrary; but I do ask them to consider very carefully whether it is not possible (as I think it is, and as I have often suggested in this House) to have regulations as to the construction of the motor car which will make it quite easy to secure the enforcement of the law. If you did that I believe you would have indeed a most effective measure which would reduce very largely the number of accidents.

As to the test of drivers, I do not wish to say more than this, that personally I approve of it, not because I think it is true to say that the skilled driver is always less dangerous than the unskilled driver, but because I think it has the psychological effect of saying to everybody who applies for a licence: "You have got to consider how serious this matter is; you have got to learn something about it; you have got to consider very carefully what you are about in taking on to the roads a weapon which is capable of destroying human life by the thousand, and therefore you must be warned at the very outset of your motoring career that the kind of casual recklessness which (I am afraid) one often meets in young people driving cars is quite out of place in dealing with a matter of this kind."

I will say a word about crossings and footpaths later on, but there are two matters to which I wish to refer in passing. I observe that though the Government recognise that doctors who are put to expense and trouble in attending to emergency cases are to be compensated, they do not recognise that the pedestrian who is knocked out is entitled to any compensation whatsoever, unless he can prove negligence. I cannot think that that is a just way of looking at things. You will have this astounding condition: A pedes- trian is knocked out by a motorist and he is quite unable to say what happened; he very likely does not recollect anything within some minutes or possibly even some hours of the accident and he can give no evidence. There is nobody else there, but in fact it is found which motorist did it. The doctor will recover compensation for treating the man, but the man will recover no compensation at all. I think that is a position that it is impossible to defend, and I beg the Government to consider very carefully whether even at the last moment they cannot deal with the situation. In the same way I personally very much regret that a suggestion made by my noble friend Lord Buckmaster, whose absence we all deplore, was not adopted. I am sure his assistance would have been of the greatest possible value if he had been able to be present. One of his suggestions was that the old, I might almost say mediæval, distinction between negligence and criminal negligence should be swept away, and that has not been dealt with by the Bill.

I cannot help feeling that even in this Bill the Government have not quite made up their minds what they think about these accidents. To my mind this is one of the great scandals of social life of the present day. If pedestrians could have been formed into a trade union what a row there would have been. What an immense outcry from the whole community would have taken place if 7,000 members of a trade union had been killed and 200,000 injured, very largely by the action of pleasure seeking motorists on the roads. No Government would have stood against the outcry for a moment. Most drastic provisions would have been insisted upon, and undoubtedly the evil would have been stopped. But pedestrians are not so fortunate. They belong to no particular class or section of the community, and as they are very largely poor people, or mainly poor people, they are unable to protect themselves by the ordinary democratic methods of important organisations, which can bring their influence to bear upon the electoral decision. Therefore they get very little consideration from Parliament—more from your Lordships than the other House but not very much from any part of the Legislature—and very little from Governments. That is the position which really is at the bottom of the matter.

There is an impression, a conviction, which almost every young motorist I ever talked to has, that the roads are made for the motorists and that they are entitled to use them in any way convenient to them. Of course they must use them as safely as they can, but they consider that they can drive as fast as they like because that is making the best use of the motor, and the roads are made for the motorist. That is the fundamental belief of many of those who drive cars, and while that is admitted as a point of view which is legitimate no cure for these tremendous evils will be forthcoming. The whole question, it seems to me, is whether there is reasonable ground for thinking that a particular proposal is going to diminish the evil—cure it if possible, but at any rate diminish the fearful toll of suffering on the roads at the present time. If it is, then all these other considerations as to the convenience of the motorist and the effect on the motor trade should be disregarded altogether. That seems to me the only way in which it is fair or just or prudent to approach this subject, and it is for that reason that I support the speed limit clause in this Bill, although it seems to me to go very much less far than is either necessary or proper.

I want to add one other thing before I sit down. I am afraid that this Bill, although it will do something, will do very little indeed to diminish the evils of which we complain. I have not much faith, indeed none really, in the idea, that the late Lord Russell believed in so much, that by preaching the Highway Code you would soften the heart of the reckless motorist and induce him to mend his ways. It has not happened, and I do not believe it will happen, and therefore I am afraid that I do not look with very much hope to the results of this measure. I remember that some of us said that in regard to the last Road Traffic Bill, and that the noble Earl in charge of the Bill said we were like Cassandra. Unfortunately he was perfectly right. Your Lordships will recollect that the peculiarity of Cassandra was that, although she often prophesied evil, her prophecies were never believed and they always came true. That is what has happened. Everything we said about the Act of 1930 has turned out to be accurate. It has not done any good. It has done no good whatever to this toll. We said that the Government were not going nearly far enough, and were not making the thing severe and plain enough, and unfortunately we were all like Cassandra. I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who was really labelled as Cassandra.

I believe the true remedy is different. I believe it is unthinkable that you will ever have a condition of things in which vehicles going fifty or sixty miles an hour, or even in my belief thirty-five or forty miles an hour, can safely share the road with pedestrians and pedal cyclists, and so on. I do not believe it can be done. It is all very well to say that pedestrians are wireless. Even if it is true it is no excuse for killing them. You must not kill careless people—that is one of the rules of English law—but what nonsense it is when it is applied to children. Of course children are careless. So long as they are allowed to use the roads which the motorists use it is quite certain that they will be careless and that they will be killed, if the motorist, even exercising the utmost care, drives at that speed along these roads.

Sooner or later Parliament will have to take the same course as was taken with the railways. I remember that a friend, reproaching me for my attack upon motorists, said: "Look at the railways." He forgot the vast amount of legislation accumulated round the railways in order to secure the safety of passengers and other people, because the driving of a train at speed is a dangerous thing and no one would dream of allowing a railway train to go, as they sometimes did, on the same roads as other traffic, at sixty miles an hour. Four miles an hour, if I remember rightly, was the speed allowed, and although motorists can more easily stop than trains, still I think we shall be brought to realise that the only way in which to secure safety for other people is to fence off the roads for railways and motors, and take care that the roads which are to be used by foot passengers and others are exempt from use by railways or anything of that nature. I am satisfied that it is on those lines you must seek for safety. I am all in favour of pruning down the extravagances of the motorist, but I do not believe you will secure safety in that way, and that is why I welcome the provisions as to crossings. It is at any rate saying: "Here is a bit of the road which belongs to the pedestrian. The motorist must take care not to go fast over that and must always be ready to stop when he comes to it."

I deeply regret that there is nothing in the Bill about footpaths, and I earnestly hope that something will be put in by your Lordships to make it more certain that footpaths will be established in proper places. I was a little encouraged by reading in the newspapers the other day a speech made by a gentleman connected with the Ministry of Transport, and it is so valuable that I venture to read to your Lordships a bit of it. This is a speech made by Colonel Bressey, Chief Engineer of the Ministry of Transport Road Department. He said this: Above all, perhaps, there was a need for the creation of adequate footways in rural areas, adequate not only in width but in surface. The plea that pedestrians would not use footways was disproved by the experience gained in towns and suburbs, where footways wore well maintained and where the public invariably used them. I think that is perfectly sound doctrine, and I hope that we shall do something in this House to insist that footways are made wherever they are necessary. It is in the administrative power of the Government to do a great deal, and they have not exercised that power. They have been very much to blame. I was given to understand—though I quite admit there was no pledge—that it was the policy of the Ministry of Transport, when they were asked for grants from the Road Fund, to insist upon footpaths. But, so far as I can learn, that is not in fact their practice, and I deeply regret it. I am sure it ought to be done; I am sure that in that or in some other way we ought to insist that footpaths are made.

But in the end I believe that even that will be an insufficient remedy for the present evils. I do believe that even now it would be worth while to examine whether it is not possible to separate off certain roads as roads suitable for fast traffic, and take precautions that no one goes on those roads who is not prepared to take the risk of fast traffic. Whatever precautions were necessary could be taken, and then you would say that with respect to the other roads, the smaller roads, a very stringent speed limit should be enforced, and enforced with great rigour, on the principle that it is impossible to secure safety on the ordinary roads of this country for motor cars going at such speeds as are common to-day, and other traffic going under conditions quite different, and at very much less speed. I believe that that is the true remedy, and I hope that the Government will consider it very carefully. But I am very much afraid that this Bill, though I admit it makes some changes which are desirable in themselves, will do very little, if anything, to deal with the very great evil which we have before us.

LORD ELTON

My Lords, in view of the lateness of the hour and the admonitory nature of the Motion which is on the Paper in the name of Lord Kilmaine, I shall not detain your Lordships for more than a very few minutes. In adding my humble congratulations to those which have been showered on the noble Earl who introduced this Bill and on the Department which he so ably represents, I hope it will not seem churlish if I venture to remark that perhaps what is first and most to be noticed about this measure is that we have not had it sooner. After all, the existence of preventable suffering, preventable loss of human life, which might have been obviated by more effective social legislation, is generally considered to be the stigma of a backward and declining civilisation. The struggle against infantile mortality, the struggle against tuberculosis, the struggle against accidents in factories—threads such as these were woven into the very stuff and texture of our pre-War civilisation. Unfortunately, as to this novel post-War social problem, the tragedy of the roads, we have not inherited a ready-made humanitarian tradition, and to some of us it has seemed that we have been somewhat too slow in developing one of our own.

The student of the future who may rummage among the musty files of our political programmes and our political propaganda would find a good deal about tuberculosis, a good deal about infantile mortality, a good deal about industrial accidents—at any rate enough to reassure him that whatever the contemporary European scene may have been like, the England of our time was living in a humanitarian age. But he will find very little about the tragedy of the roads, and what he does find he will find largely outside the confines of political contro- versy. Now, that cannot be because the problem of the roads is not a formidable problem. The noble Earl who introduced the measure spoke for about thirty minutes, and I am sure that we all wish that he had spoken a good deal longer; but by all the laws of average, between the moment when the noble Earl rose and the moment he sat down at least twelve citizens would have been injured on our roads; and while your Lordships have been discussing this measure this evening by the laws of average somewhere about fifty-two persons will have been injured on the roads of Britain. That is a very formidable and a very sinister fact, and I venture to suggest that the one striking difference between that fact and the other social evils which I have given as examples, and against which society has organised on the whole very effectively, is that this great social evil of the roads has so far remained outside the bounds of Party controversy.

On this subject at least the political Parties have not yet learned to misrepresent and to obstruct each other; on this subject at least they are still prepared to co-operate; and those of your Lordships who believe, as I do, that under present conditions the old-fashioned Party dog-fight is a highly dangerous anachronism will surely be anxious that this particular evil, which still remains outside the confines of the purely political arena, shall be tackled at least, as effectively as problems which are less fortunately placed. We cannot with it to be plausibly said that prejudice is the only mother of invention, and that it is only organised and so often artificial controversy which can prove an effective stimulus to action.

In the light of such considerations I hope that your Lordships will agree that this measure has not come a day too soon. It is a step, and I think it is a long step, in the right direction, and I hope it is a step which may yet be extended in the Committee stage. Now, I am one of those who believe, like the noble Viscount who has just sat down, and who has played such a distinguished part in drawing the attention of the public to the character of this problem, that speed is the principal, the determining factor in this tragedy, and that consequently Clause 1 is the kernel of the Bill. It so happens that I live within a stone's throw of one of the main roads out of Oxford, the only City at the present moment which, at any rate since last November, has been permitted to enforce precisely this speed limit which your Lordships are now being asked to extend all over the country; and I hope your Lordships will allow me to submit one or two conclusions at which I have been able to arrive, after close observation during the eight months of this Oxford experiment, as to the probability of its success elsewhere.

I shall be very cautious in what I say for there has been a large number of very inaccurate statements and very inaccurate deductions made from and about the experiment at Oxford. First, just a word about the statistics. I am one of those who place very little reliance on statistics, particularly statistics about speed; but there are certain statistics already available. During the eight months which have elapsed up to the end of last month since the speed limit at Oxford was imposed the number of accidents has been almost exactly the same as during the eight corresponding months of the previous year—that is, the year before the speed limit was imposed. I am speaking of accidents in which cars coming under this new speed limit were involved—that is, private cars—but during that same period the accidents in which other vehicles were involved, vehicles not coming under the new speed limit, rose from 88 to 103. Therefore, so far as that goes, I think we may say that the imposition of the speed limit in keeping down at any rate to an approximately stationary figure the accidents involving the vehicles which it affected has been on the whole salutary. As regards fatal accidents, during the same analogous months, whereas before the speed limit was imposed there were four fatal accidents, since the speed limit was imposed there have been only two, and of these one took place on a road which, not being a main road, was not covered by the speed limit. So far as statistics will take us, and I do not think that is very far, one may conclude that the Oxford speed limit has had a well-marked and salutary but by no means as yet sufficient effect on road accidents within that area.

If I may be allowed to leave the perplexing subject of statistics and submit to your Lordships one or two general impressions which, in company with many other citizens of Oxford, I have derived from the working of this experiment, I would say this: In the first place clearly by no means all drivers are observing the speed limit; possibly not more than 70 per cent., possibly rather less. Your Lordships will appreciate that this state of affairs places a very considerable moral strain on the law-abiding driver. To be driving at a meticulous thirty miles an hour in a fairly powerful car up a fairly steep hill—and human nature being what it is, no one likes to be passed on a hill—and to be overtaken by an ancient Baby Austin driving at its maximum of thirty-five miles an hour, that is a temptation to accelerate which I have no doubt every one of your Lordships would have no difficulty in resisting, but which does easily prove too much for very many motorists. What has virtually disappeared from the roads of Oxford is what I would call murderous driving, driving at from seventy to eighty miles an hour. On the main road out of Oxford which I know best there are three children's schools within half a mile, and I can assure your Lordships the speed limit has been a matter of the very greatest satisfaction to the parents of the children attending these schools. Since the speed limit has been inposed, if the children are ten or twenty minutes late in coming home they feel slightly less disposed than hitherto to worry as to whether they should not already be making inquiries at the nearest hospital.

As to the question of enforcement, I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, was a little too pessimistic. I seem to remember that in the debate in another place one of the criticisms levelled against the speed limit in Oxford was that it brought so many respectable citizens into the law court who never before had found themselves in such an ignominious position. It may breed some disrespect for the law, it is true, and I think the noble Viscount expressed a certain amount of misgiving on that point. It is true that the regulations have been enforced very largely by uniformed police on motor cycles, and it is also true that a considerable number of citizens have developed a certain instinct for detecting in their driving mirrors the approach of the police. If it is only a reflected foot of their pursuer which swims into their ken there is something even about the foot of a policeman in uniform which even the most law-abiding citizen is instantly able to detect. I hope it may prove possible to use policemen in civilian dress, possibly with some necessary badge, and not only uniformed policemen, for this work.

There have been also latterly traps at Oxford to which, as your Lordships are well aware, there are other objections into which I have not the time to enter now, and I hope that possibly at a later stage in Committee the Government may be ready to consider an Amendment to make it compulsory to fit some sort of mechanical device—I understand there are one or two available—which will give a visible indication of the breaking of the speed limit as the law-breaker hurries by. But in the last resort it is public opinion, and only public opinion, which can make the roads approximately as safe as they ought to be made. When a driver will no more tell you he has driven sixty miles, largely through built-up areas, in fifty-nine minutes than he will tell you he has cheated at cards or shot a fox; then, and not till then, will the roads begin to be something like what we all wish them to be. In the meantime if in any city there were a sufficient minority of law-abiding motor drivers determined to put an end to this reckless driving and, as they would say in the United States, "clean up their home town" in this respect, I cannot see that there is anything to prevent their banding together, having tested their speedometers (of which the noble Earl, Lord Howe, expressed such suspicion, but which are reasonably effective instruments), and pledging themselves to detect and report and, if necessary, go into court to give evidence against law-breakers in their own area. I think any city fortunate enough to have a body of citizens so active and public-spirited would soon find a very sharp upward curve in the expectation of life of its young children and its old people.

The last thing I wish to say is this: we certainly must not flatter ourselves—it would be difficult to flatter ourselves after the very powerful speech delivered by the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil—and I do not think that the Government flatters itself, that this measure is going instantly to put an end, or even very strikingly and rapidly reduce, the dimensions of this appalling problem; but it is a serious and well-considered measure, a serious attempt to commence that essential task, and as such I hope your Lordships will welcome it. It is a, measure, I am happy to think, which is effective enough to justify, and therefore prolong, the immunity from Party controversy which the problem of the roads is happily still enjoying. I think the noble Viscount will agree that it is for those of us who feel strongly on this question to strive unrestingly to arouse on it that public opinion without which no Government measure, however efficient, can possibly be successful. The State which is indifferent to human suffering in one sphere is apt, sooner or later, to find itself becoming indifferent to human suffering in another sphere. There has been some danger that we may appear almost as indifferent to the suffering caused by the revolution in road transport as was the generation of the industrial revolution to the suffering caused by the revolution in the factory. Your Lordships are now presented with a measure which gives you an opportunity to remove that stigma.

LORD DK CLIFFORD

My Lords, I will not keep you for more than a few moments, but I would like to make one or two very short comments on this Bill. Unlike the noble Karl, Lord Howe, I welcome the speed limit for built-up areas. I am of the opinion that were a built-up area properly defined in this Bill the speed limit, if enforced, would be a very good thing, but I think the definition is too widely drawn. I was surprised to hear the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, advocating special roads for fast traffic. Because a system of lighting has been installed on a road primarily constructed for fast traffic it is said that a speed limit of thirty miles an hour should be enforced. I will suggest to the Government at another stage that some amendment might be made to this clause whereby this particular speed limit can be properly enforced in the right places. I myself consider that we have perhaps put the speed limit rather too high. I think with, my noble friend Lord Howe that when a speed of thirty miles an hour is definitely laid down in a law, that speed tends to become the minimum speed at which people think that they can be permitted to move. I consider that if thirty miles an hour is taken as the minimum there are many roads in London, and in our industrial Cities such as Shef- field, where such a speed is absolutely wicked and murderous. I should be one of the first to support the Government in lowering that limit in these places.

I welcome many things in this Bill, and from that point of view I am agreeably surprised for the first time to find myself agreeing with the noble Lord from whom in the past I have differed. One of the things which I welcome is the insurance clause. I noticed in a newspaper the other day that certain insurance companies were threatening, if this Bill were passed, to raise premiums. I think the Government can take it that this is one of the biggest justifications they could possibly have for inserting this clause, because it seems to show that, by reason of certain errors which crept into the old Act, insurance companies have been getting out of their just obligations. One of the other things I most welcome, is the test for drivers. I would here join with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in asking that when a man has been rejected for a driving licence after examination some other method may be applied rather than permit him to go round the corner to the next examiner and there to try again. I think that is an absolutely wicked suggestion, and I cannot understand how any Minister of Transport could possibly have made it, except perhaps in the heat of the moment when he was liable to be carried away. It is inviting the whole administration of this particular clause to be thrown away.

Many suggestions have been made this afternoon regarding the roads, their construction, and the way that people use them, but I would join with the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, if I may, in asking the Government to do something more about footpaths. The provision of footpaths has been attempted in a very dilatory way. I think it should be further pursued, and when the footpaths are established the use of them should be further cultivated. At the present moment I know of many places where footpaths are established and not a single soul uses them. If footpaths are established—and they ought to be established—then I think the time has come when their use should be made more compulsory. With many noble Lords I welcome the crossing-places for pedestrians. They have been a long time coming, and I join with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in asking the Ministry of Transport if they could not do something to make these crossing-places more visible to the motor driver. The motor driver has many things to think about when conducting a vehicle on the road, even at twenty-five miles an hour, in a busy city, and I think the time has arrived when something must be done to assist him to see all the things that he has to see.

When this Bill comes into force, when we are to have restricted areas, when we are to have areas with lamp-posts on which signs are to be put to show there is a speed limit, the multitude of signs will be so great that the motorist passing down a road will be faced with such a great number of things that he is likely to be confused. I do not believe that a large number of motorists understand the signs that there are on the roads at present. If I may throw out a tentative suggestion to the noble Earl who is in charge of the Bill, it is that it might be possible to do what has been done in France, and that is to issue a piece of transparent paper which is fitted to the wind-screen and which contains all the signs upon a small coloured design. This is stuck to the wind-screen, and the driver can see the signs. I think that might easily be done here with the issue of the licence. It has been very successfully done in France, and I think we might take advantage of it.

One other small point with regard to the control of traffic I should like to mention. At present there are two sorts of traffic lights in operation in this country. There is the automatic light and there is the traffic light actuated by the driver passing over strips in the road. It is difficult to tell when your are approaching the lights whether they are the one or the other, and the motorist who is accustomed to living in a town where the lights are all automatic is occasionally confused in other places on finding them actuated by vehicles, and vice versa. In the latter case the situation is rather more serious because he may be accustomed to finding the lights continually green as he passes them in his daily runs, and on going to another town he may quite unwittingly overrun one of the automatic lights. There are some very wicked drivers on the road, and there are also some very wicked pedestrians. To-day I saw a most wicked case of driving coming up the great West Road. A gentleman who, under this new measure, would have been committing no offence so far as his speed was concerned, for he was driving at twenty-eight miles an hour, passed three traffic lights which were against him and not one single word was said to him by anybody. When ultimately remonstrated with after he had come to rest he informed me that he saw none of the lights. It is a mentality like that which I cannot understand, and I do not think that anything the Government can do with a Bill like this will get over such a mentality. I can only say that when the Government come to administer this Bill I hope they will be more successful with it than they have been with the Bills they have previously passed.

THE EARL OF KTNNOULL

My Lords, in view of the hour and of the next business on the Paper I do not intend to detain the House more than a few minutes. This Bill has been welcomed by all sections of your Lordships. I welcome it myself. The noble Lord, Lord Elton, even used it as a defence of the National Government. The question of the terrible slaughter on the roads has been brought home to me very sincerely in the last week because a great friend of mine was killed only twenty minutes after I had left him. Then a fortnight ago last Sunday, at the crossing of Marylebone Road and Park Square, where I live, there was a very bad accident at three o'clock in the afternoon. A motor car turned over on the obelisk. I happened to be leaving the house and was one of the first there. I helped to lift the unconscious driver out of his seat. The lady who was with him was also unconscious. I had to go up the road to fetch a policeman because the policeman on point duty had been called round the corner to a minor accident, a man, I am told, having fallen out of a taxicab.

I would like, if I may en passant, to ask the noble Earl to ask the Minister of Transport whether it would not be possible to put a traffic light system at that crossing. There is at least one fatal accident a year there. Two years ago there was a fatal accident when a man on a motor cycle was laid on the pavement with his leg severed. I happened to be there at the time. It is a crossing which might be called a main line crossing from South London to Regent's Park. Sometimes there is a policeman on point duty on Sundays. I should also like to say that the bad standard of driving has been brought home to me lately. Only a week ago I was driving back from Hastings, and I was much struck by the enormous number of skid marks on the road, showing that cars had had to brake suddenly. I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and my noble friend Lord de Clifford will bear me out in saying that these violent applications of brakes every five minutes are quite unnecessary. Every 200 or 300 yards I saw skid marks.

With regard to the reimposition of the speed limit in built-up areas I agree with every word that was said by my noble friend Lord Ponsonby and by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. I very much doubt if a speed limit is really going to help things at all. It is perfectly true that excessive speed is the cause of accidents to-day, but the limit of speed without danger should be in the brain of the driver. You cannot impose it by Act of Parliament. According to the Bill at present that speed limit is not to be imposed from midnight till 5 a.m., but as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said the hours from midnight to 5 a.m. are the hours when the most dangerous accidents occur. You get young men returning from dances, wishing to show off to their friends whom they are driving home, and doing fifty-five, or sixty, or seventy miles an hour. It is a very significant fact that actors, for instance, find great difficulty in getting insurance companies to cover them. All people who work late at night find their insurance premiums increased owing to the danger of their driving home. People are a little flushed after dancing and possibly after a good night out and they go a great deal too fast. That is when accidents occur. I hope that if a speed limit is to be imposed it will be imposed in the most important hours between midnight and 5 a.m.

I should like to say a word also about driving tests. I do not think for a minute that driving tests will make the slightest difference. I do not believe that the man who has just bought a car is the cause of accidents. He is far too nervous to do so. The person who causes accidents is the person who will pass any driving test you like to put upon him. He will drive between any posts, back for any distance, and do anything else you like. But if he is a reckless driver no driving test will stop him. Certainly a test will not help in the case of an ordinary private car owner. With regard to Part II, which deals with insurance, there is one comment I want to make. We have, and very rightly, compulsory insurance. That being so, I think that that insurance should be taken over by the State. I believe that point was made by my noble friend Lord de Clifford. This compulsion leads to insurance companies taking an unfair advantage of the motorist and it becomes a ramp. Premiums are put up. Since the State has made it compulsory for a motorist to insure the State should take over the insurance—in other words, we should nationalise compulsory third-party insurance.

I would like also to say a word upon Clause 13. I am very pleased indeed as a member of the Select Committee on Lord Moynihan's Bill that the Government has incorporated practically the whole of that measure in the Bill now before your Lordships. Great hardship has been caused to doctors and I welcome this clause very much indeed. With regard to Clause 15 I think that in the matter of pedestrian crossings there has been a lot of confusion. On that point I would make an appeal to the Minister. In the past the Minister has simply told the Press what is to be the new regulation. Each newspaper deals with the matter as it wishes, makes it an amusing story or otherwise, and no one knows what is the regulation. I do not know, and I have never met one person who does know. When I come to one of those herring-bone crossings I have always taken it that I ought to slow up, blow my horn, stop if a pedestrian is crossing and, if not, go on. Many times I have stopped, a pedestrian has stopped, we have both bowed politely, then one or other of us has gone across. I would ask the Minister when he issues regulations in future to issue them in such a form that they can be printed and can be understood by the man-in-the-street.

With regard to lights on bicycles, which are dealt with in Clause 16, I welcome the provision that there should be reflectors conforming with the law, and I also agree with the white tail, but in these days when electric light is so easily made why should there not be a tail light on bicycles? It is very difficult when going along arterial roads with partial lights—I do not know whether they are the necessary distance apart under this Bill—and one meets another car and the headlights of both cars are dimmed to see whether a cyclist is on the road, I have on two or three occasions known that a cyclist was there and have slowed down to ten miles an hour in order not to run over him simply because I did not know how far ahead he was. It would be a great improvement if bicycles carried rear lights. Then there would be no excuse for those terrible accidents when people run over cyclists not knowing they are on the road.

With regard to the lighting of roads, I should like to say that the partial lighting system is very bad. You get lights on one side of the road and no lights on the other. You cannot switch on your headlights because you would blind oncoming traffic and at the same time you cannot see with only sidelights. There should be some uniformity of lighting. While on that topic may I refer to the many experiments which seem to be carried out now in the matter of lighting? Only the other day I was travelling through Hampstead, and I noticed one light which was of the new type of daylight lighting. I do not know what it is called, but it shows a blue daylight light which I thought was certainly much easier to see by and certainly did not dazzle the eye. But why one such light in the middle of dozens of yellow lamps? It seemed to me quite incongruous.

Before I conclude I want to refer to Clause 28, which provides for the licensing of drivers of heavy goods vehicles. The present provisions of this clause limit the granting of special licences to drivers of heavy goods vehicles, that is to say, vehicles which have an unladen weight of two and a half tons. In order to comply with the Road Traffic Act, 1930, those drivers have to be of a minimum age of twenty-one years and the vehicles have to observe a maximum speed of twenty miles an hour. During the last two or three years there has been a tremendous development in that type of vehicle. Whereas two years ago a lorry weighing two and a half tons could draw only its own weight, to-day lorries weighing considerably under that can take about four tons. A good illustration of this fact was given in another place on the Report stage of this Bill. In that instnace the chassis weight of the lorry was 1 ton, 19 cwts.; the body allowance was 8 cwts.; for the driver there was an allowance of 1¼ cwts. and for fuel, equipment, etc., 1 cwt., making the total unladen weight 2 tons 9¼ cwts., which is ¾ cwt. below the limit of a heavy vehicle, so that it does not come within the classification of heavy goods vehicles, and therefore can travel at thirty miles an hour. It has always been the rule in the past that a load the equivalent of the unladen weight of the lorry may be carried but, as I have just said, this is not so to-day.

The position is now totally different, and those lorries which come under the limit of two and a half tons to-day can travel at thirty miles an hour instead of twenty miles an hour. For the special purpose of securing that all vehicles capable of carrying heavy loads and of travelling at comparatively high speeds are in the hands of competent drivers, a new classification is really necessary. I am not speaking entirely on my own behalf in this matter; I am speaking on behalf of the Transport and General Workers' Union and also on behalf of 60,000 drivers of goods vehicles. The union and those drivers strongly urge that the proposed system of licensing should be extended, and they suggest that the limit should be reduced to one and a half tons of unladen weight. This is not a Party matter at all; it is simply a question of the safety of the roads, and I do hope that the Government will endeavour to give some effect to their request. In conclusion I would like to say that I am glad to be able to congratulate the Government for once in a way upon this measure.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

My Lords, although there have been a considerable number of criticisms levelled against this measure I think clearly the consensus of opinion in this House is in favour of giving it a Second Reading. Some of your Lordships have expressed a desire to see certain provisions passed into law and others not passed into law and vice versa; but I think that generally speaking I can claim that this measure has had a good reception from your Lordships and that your Lordships wish to see its main provisions passed into law at the earliest moment.

I must confine myself now to dealing with as many of the numerous questions which I have been asked as I can reply to in the comparatively short time at my disposal. The noble Lord who leads the Opposition raised a number of points. The first point with which he wished me to deal was the question of the suspension of the speed limit of thirty miles an hour in built-up areas between the hours of midnight and five o'clock in the morning. I should like to point out in the first place that though it may be perfectly correct to say, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, that the most serious accidents occur between these hours, it is a fact that under 160 of the total of 7,000 fatal accidents during the year 1933 occurred between those hours. There is another consideration which the Minister took into account in deciding to accept the suggestion made to him in another place that the speed limit should be suspended between those hours, and that was that of course there were no children and no aged and infirm people about at that time. A third reason was, I think, the obvious one that clearly a speed limit would be far more difficult of enforcement at that time than during the other part of the day, for the simple reason that the Police would not have as many men at their disposal then as they would have during the day time. These were the considerations which induced the Minister to accept that Amendment in another place.

Then the noble Lord opposite took exception to the fact that the Bill makes the endorsement of a licence for exceeding the speed limit obligatory. He thought that this was being rather severe on certain drivers whose, livelihood depended on their being able to drive motor cars, and thought that having an endorsement upon their licence they might possibly—I think he even said "probably"—lose their employment. Speaking personally I rather doubt whether that would be the case. I very much doubt whether an employer would get rid of an employee who was the driver of one of his vehicles merely because he had had his licence endorsed once for exceeding the speed limit. But apart from that, the main criticism which I have heard levelled against the administration of our traffic laws is the fact that we have not been severe enough in the penalties that have been enforced— that the opportunities have been there but have not been taken. Therefore I do not quite understand the mentality of the noble Lord opposite in urging that we have gone too far and erred in the direction of severity.

We also had the question of careless cyclists raised by the noble Lord. He dealt with the provision which is now contained in this Bill that reflectors should be efficient and that there should be a sort of white band on the back mudguard of the bicycle. He argued that the careless cyclist would not even now act in accordance with those provisions, and that the difficulty of enforcing the use of efficient reflectors would be as great in the future as it has been in the past. I think I ought to point out to the noble Lord that under this Bill we can proceed against the seller of a bad reflector. I think that is a very different matter and gives us much more effective power of dealing with the situation than we have possessed up to the present moment.

The noble Lord also raised the question of whether it would not be possible to give to the policeman power to fine people on the spot for a contravention of these small regulations, or what one may call relatively small regulations. That question has been considered; but it really is entirely contrary to the principles of British justice, speaking generally, and furthermore I think it would leave loopholes for corruption which, it is absolutely essential we should do everything possible to avoid. This matter has been considered, but the Government have not seen fit to adopt the noble Lord's suggestion. I am not certain whether the noble Lord himself raised the question of driving tests. I will deal with that a little later; but the noble Lord did deal with the question of the Highway Code. He said he felt that if it became generally known, not only among motorists but the public generally, it might do a great deal to limit the number of accidents which occurred. It is perfectly true that we are going to bring out a new edition of the Highway Code very shortly, and it is intended that it should be given the widest possible publicity. Furthermore, new drivers who have to undergo the test will be examined in knowledge of the Code. It is the intention of the Government to do everything they can to make it available to the public as easily as possible.

The noble Marquess, who spoke next, raised the question of ribbon development. I am grateful to him for having given me notice of the fact that he was going to do this. It is a matter which is relevant, though somewhat indirectly relevant, to the objects which this Bill has primarily in view, though most people rather feel that it is not so much a question for the Ministry of Transport as it is a question of town and country planning. I think it might interest your Lordships to know that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Transport have to-day met a deputation from the Oxford and Cambridge Preservation Societies, in relation to this very subject. The noble Marquess wanted to know whether the Government were prepared to give powers to the local authorities to deal with this matter as the Surrey County Council have dealt with it. I think the difficulty is that there are certain financial implications which would result from action such as the Surrey County Council have taken, which most other county councils are not prepared to shoulder. The Surrey County Council is a wealthy county council, but so far as I understand the position it is that many of the other county councils are not prepared to face up to the potential heavy bill for compensation which would result from their exercising powers in the way that the Surrey County Council have done.

THE MARQUESS OF LOTHIAN

Is it really necessary in all cases to pay compensation? The law has habitually imposed various conditions upon factories and theatres and the like to which such forms of enterprise must conform. It seems not unreasonable that when the State creates a great main road at enormous expense, and enormously increases the value of the property on either side, we should impose certain standards as a condition of using it. That seems to me to be the settled practice and habit of this country

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

As I am informed I think it would be necessary to pay compensation. I can assure the House that the Government are very carefully examining the situation to see what action might be possible under the law as it stands, and also to see what legislation might be passed in order to secure the end which the noble Marquess has in view. As he will understand, I am not in a position to give any definite assurance this evening.

Lord Howe, who spoke next, dealt with a number of different subjects, which included that mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition—namely, the suspension of the speed limit from midnight to five a.m. I think I have dealt with that particular subject. Then he dealt generally with the question of the difficulty from the motorist's point of view of appreciating whether he was in a built-up, or rather speed limit area or not, owing to the multiplicity of signs and for many other reasons. The fact remains that the basic test of whether you are in a built-up area or not is whether there is a street-lighting system in which the lights are at intervals of not greater than two hundred yards. It is the motorist's responsibility to find out for himself whether he is in such an area or not, but these signs which it is the intention of the Minister, through the local authorities, to have placed at varying intervals, according to the regulations, are being placed in order to make it easier for the motorist to realise whether or not he is within a speed limit area.

You can argue, of course, the question of a thirty miles an hour speed limit for ever. It really becomes a matter of opinion, to all intents and purposes. Some hold the opinion that it will do good, and others are of opinion that it will not do good, but I really do not think it is fair to make a comparison between the speed limit which it is proposed to institute and the old twenty miles an hour speed limit. The point about that speed limit is really this, and this is germane to the point raised by the noble Viscount on the Cross-Benches—namely, the difficulty of enforcing the speed limit—that it was recognised by everybody to be unreasonable. It was clearly unreasonable on an open road in the country, and nobody would dream of respecting it; but I hope and believe that the great majority of motorists, who are sensible people, will think that a thirty miles an hour speed limit in a built-up area is not unreasonable, and will be prepared to respect that speed limit. To that extent I think it will be easier to enforce, and it is the intention of the Police to do everything in their power to enforce it. Furthermore, its enforcement will be facilitated by the fact that it will be over a more restricted area than was the old twenty miles an hour limit.

The noble Earl then dealt with the question of the courts and asked, as did the Lord Chairman, whether the petty sessional courts were the best courts for dealing with traffic cases. This is, of course, a large question, and it is not the intention of the Government to deal with a question of this kind in this particular Bill, but I, with the noble Earl the Lord Chairman, do take exception to the statement of the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that magistrates are largely selected because of their social standing or political prejudice. I think that that is going a bit far. Then he raised the question of making the roads safer from the actual construction point of view. The Minister has been taking action with regard to this. We fully realise the importance of it, and early this year, in February, a circular was issued which emphasised the necessity of taking such action as might be proved to be necessary in order to make the road surface as safe as possible. I understand that the grant may now depend, in certain circumstances, upon the highway authority concerned making use of a recognised anti-skid material in making the roads.

Of course the same kind of provision applies to the point raised with regard to footways. A circular was issued early this year emphasising the need for footways, and that circular indicated that if the principles laid down in it were not regarded by the authority concerned the work which was being carried out would not be considered eligible for the Road Fund grant.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I am not sure whether that circular has been presented to Parliament, but if it has not, could the noble Earl lay it on the Table before the Committee stage?

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I will certainly look into that point. Then the question of tests for drivers was raised. There was a good deal of difference of opinion with regard to that. Some people thought that tests were necessary; others thought that they would be perfectly useless. The point really is this. It may be perfectly true to say that it is not the new driver who is the cause of the majority of accidents, but at the same time it is equally true to say that there are a number of drivers who have been on the road for many years who have never become efficient drivers, and these tests at any rate will prevent the ranks of those people being swelled to any considerable extent. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, passed some rather severe strictures on what was said by the Minister of Transport with regard to the method by which tests could be passed. He suggested, for instance, that it was quite wrong that a man who was turned down in one test could be examined within a few hours a second time. If the noble Earl wishes to suggest at a later stage that it should be made an obligation that a certain length of time should elapse between one test and another, I feel certain that the Minister will be prepared to consider that suggestion sympathetically.

The noble Earl also raised a question of which I did not quite appreciate the full significance. He mentioned some kind of company that he is connected with, where persons were taken in omnibuses every day at regular intervals for certain purposes, and he thought the provisions of this Bill would affect them in some way. I do not believe that to be the case at all. I think that it would be perfectly open for that procedure to be carried on provided a road service licence was obtained. I am speaking now from memory of the Road Traffic Act, but I think that even now a road service licence is necessary for a service of that description. I am not quite certain, but at any rate I feel confident that the provisions which this Bill contains will not have any really adverse effect upon a situation such as the noble Earl described.

I have dealt with the difficulties of enforcing the speed limit, about which the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, showed some apprehension, and I have argued—I hope with a certain amount of success—that the analogy between the old speed limit and the one that is now proposed is not a fair one. The noble Viscount damned the Bill with rather faint praise. He said that, although it made certain changes which in themselves were desirable, he did not really think it would do any good at all.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

I did not say that.

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

Something very near to it—I think he said it would do very little if any good. But I am not quite certain that the noble Viscount meant it. At any rate, perhaps during the course of the passage of the Bill he may modify his views with regard to that. He said he thought the Act of 1930 had done no good at all, just as he believed that this one would do no good at all, but I would like to ask him whether he would care to go back to pre-1930 days and would prefer the law as it was before that time to the law as it is now. We have to consider, in forming a judgment on this question, the fact that the number of motor cars on the roads has increased enormously, and I venture to say that if the Act of 1930 had not been in operation now the position with regard to accidents would be infinitely worse than it is.

I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for what he said. He gave us a very interesting account of the Oxford experiment with which he naturally is in close contact, but I think the points he raised were mainly those which had been raised by other noble Lords, and which I have attempted to deal with. I think the same applies to Lord de Clifford. The noble Earl opposite, Lord Kinnoull, asked me if I could throw any light upon the position regarding regulations for pedestrian crossings. I think the difficulty of understanding those regulations has been very greatly exaggerated. They are really perfectly simple. The trouble is that they are not read. I think, if they were, they would be very easily understood.

The noble Earl also raised the question of whether we could not insist on rear light on bicycles. That is a question which has been gone into very carefully. It is very strongly opposed by the cyclists themselves. Parliament decided not long ago that it was not prepared to insist on cyclists having rear lights, and the Government are not prepared to take that line at present. They have done the best thing they could in the circumstances, and that is to insist upon efficient reflectors, and to see that they have power to prosecute anybody who has an inefficient reflector. I feel sure I have left out a certain number of points that were raised, but when the Bill comes to the Committee stage the Government will be prepared to give full consideration to any Amendments that may be brought forward.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

LORD PONSONBY OF SHULBREDE

Could the noble Earl give any indication of when the Committee stage will be taken?

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH

I was going to suggest to-day week.