HL Deb 25 February 1941 vol 118 cc460-82

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER rose to call attention to the casualties on the roads; and to move for Papers. The right reverend Prelate said: My Lords, before the war we had several debates in this House on the subject of accidents on the roads. Great concern was felt about the mounting list of casualties, and this House appointed a Select Committee to go into the whole problem. The gravity of the position then is, I think, made quite clear if I remind your Lordships of the figures of casualties. In the year 1938 there were 6,600 killed on the roads, and 220,000 injured; of the latter 50,000 were seriously injured. The Committee over which Lord Alness presided had these facts before them, described the situation as creating a problem of great magnitude, and in their closing paragraph spoke of the holocaust on the roads to-day as nothing less than appalling. The Committee produced a most valuable Report with something like 170 recommendations in it. The Report was received very favourably and I think there was every chance that the Government would have accepted and acted upon many of those recommendations.

Then there came the outbreak of war, and of course the majority of the proposals of this Report inevitably had to be shelved to a more convenient time. But the outbreak of war brought to many the hope that almost automatically there would be a decrease in the number of casualties on the roads. The number of cars on the road was fewer, many people laid up their cars for the sake of economy, others had to go away to take their part in the national cause, and later on the petrol rationing restricted the area which was covered by the cars that were still in use. Moreover, roads had been carefully marked with white lines for the safety of those travelling on them and there seemed to be good hope that with the great decrease in the number of cars on the roads there would also be a decrease in the number of casualties. But the figures for the first month of the war gave a severe shock to all those who had indulged in these optimistic predictions. In the first month of the war the number of fatal casualties was doubled, and although the very high figures of the first month of the war were not the rule afterwards, yet casualties month by month since the war started have been considerably in excess of the worst figures previous to the outbreak of war.

Let me remind your Lordships of figures which you already know. Last year 8,597 were killed on the roads and 972 of those were children under the age of fifteen. Think of the misery and sorrow caused by that to nearly a thousand homes in this country. In the last four months of last year the figures were even worse. In those four months 4,380 were killed and of those 496 were children. Last month, in January, there was a considerable and welcome drop in the number of fatal accidents. The number of persons killed fell to 741, of whom 63 were children. But it must be borne in mind that in various parts of the country last month it was impossible to use the roads for motor traffic. I do not like using exaggerated language but these figures reveal a shameful and horrible state of affairs on the roads. Yet these figures, bad as they are, do not tell the whole story. These figures tell us nothing about the nonfatal accidents which took place on the roads. Previous to the war, month by month we were told not only of the fatal accidents but also of the non-fatal accidents. These returns still have to be made to the police when accidents take place but for some reason these figures are not given to us. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government, why these figures are not given and whether these figures could not be given in the future.

Supposing the proportions are the same now as they were before the war of non-fatal accidents and fatal accidents, the figure is a very serious one. When these figures were given to us they showed that for every one person who was killed on the road there were thirty who were injured and for every one who was killed on the road there were eight who were seriously injured. I do not know, of course, if these proportions are true today, but if these proportions still hold good it means that we ought to add to the 8,600 killed 250,000 injured, of whom 70,000 are seriously injured. This is happening at a time when we are rightly exhorted on every side that we should preserve and make the very best use of the man-power of the country. This loss of life goes on week by week. I cannot help contrasting this with a figure which was given to your Lordships' House some weeks ago by the noble Lord, Lord Croft. He was giving us the figures of the first phase of the Libyan campaign. He told us that that most remarkable victory, for which our church bells ought to have been ringing, which ended in the capture of Sidi Barrani, cost, I think, 73 lives. We lose that number of lives in three days on our roads in Great Britain.

I do not think I need say more about the gravity of the position. I think that will be recognised by everyone. I want now to go on to say something of the causes and the remedies. I think we are all agreed that one of the chief causes is the black-out. I am not going to question the necessity of the black-out. The military authorities are convinced, and I have on doubt rightly convinced, that it is absolutely necessary. I am not therefore suggesting any kind of modification of the black-out. But over half of the accidents occur during the black-out and I think therefore than an appeal should be made in the strongest possible way that only those motorists who have to be out during the black-out should use the roads then. It is hardly fair that those who have to drive great lorries in the night on necessary business should have to thread their way through traffic which sometimes no doubt is unnecessary. I imagine it to be impossible to enforce any regulations saying that only those who are on necessary business should use the roads during the black-out—it would be so difficult to define what is necessary and what is not necessary—but I certainly think appeals ought to be made by the Government again and again that the roads at night during the black-out should only be used by those who have to use them for necessary purposes. I also support the recommendation which has been made from various sources that pedestrians should either carry or wear something white. There is a very great difficulty in seeing pedestrians in certain lights and motorists have told me frequently that it would make their task very much more easy if pedestrians had to carry or wear something white when they are using the roads.

But of course the black-out is only part of the problem, and the next point to which I want to call your Lordships' attention is that the casualties during the black-out have been diminishing during these last months, while the casualties in daylight have steadily been increasing, comparing the last three months last year with the last three months of 1939. The increase in the daylight casualties has been something like 63 per cent. and, while there has not been a corresponding reduction in the casualties at night, there has been a considerable reduction. I think the reason for the increase is largely due to the fact that there has been a deterioration in the manners of those who use the roads. No doubt everyone is feeling the strain of the present times, and the strain shows itself sometimes in reckless or inconsiderate driving and in an increased disposition to neglect the law. I think also that there are some signs of an increasing disposition on the part of magistrates to treat with great leniency those brought before them for motoring offences. The police, with so many other demands on their time, are not always insisting as strictly on the observance of the law as I think they did before the war broke out. We ought to press, and I hope that the Ministry will press, for the stricter observance of the law.

Take one illustration of the way in which the law is very badly broken to-day. Most of us have noticed how, time after time, the speed limit is ignored. I find, myself, that when I go on a road journey and keep, as I do strictly, within the speed limit, I am passed by large numbers of other cars hooting loudly in protest because my car is keeping within the thirty miles-an-hour limit. I think there is very much more going on in these ways than once was the case. But I am not blaming motorists only; I think cyclists are also partly to blame. Often we find them straggling over the road, three or four abreast, dangerous to themselves and dangerous to others. I think that at night they should always have to have a rear light. The pedestrians, also, have to take their share in the responsibility for the present position. Of course, pedestrians are far and away the greatest sufferers. They have to suffer more than anyone else, and by far the largest number of accidents occurs amongst them. But the pedestrians are, I believe, less regulated in England than in any other country in the world. I believe the only offence which a pedestrian can commit against the road laws is to linger on a pedestrian crossing. He may walk on the roads and on the side of the roads. He may cross roads where he likes, and walk where he likes on the pavements. He is under no kind of regulations.

I do not think that we shall be able to stop, or even to reduce very largely, this heavy toll of casualties on the roads until pedestrians are brought under some kind of regulation. One suggestion made by the Report to which I have already referred is as follows: The Commitee feel that they have no alternative but to propose that it should be made an offence for a pedestrian to enter the carriageway heedlessly just as it is an offence for a motorist or bicyclist to drive or ride heedlessly. If the pedestrian realised that by suddenly stepping off a pavement without warning or by recklessly emerging from the front of or from behind a vehicle, he would render himself liable to police court proceedings, he would exercise greater care.

There is another alleged cause—and I say "alleged" deliberately — for the increase of accidents—namely, the driving of military vehicles. I am not in any position to make any very definite statement about this, but I hear it stated very frequently by those who use the roads that military vehicles are often driven with great danger to the public. I know, also, that the hospitals are anxious about it. The hospitals have a number of beds taken up by those who say that they have been injured by the careless driving of military vehicles, and there is a point which arises in connection with this which is causing the hospitals considerable anxiety. I have not given the noble Lord who is answering any notice of this, so I do not expect him to be able to answer it. There is, I understand, no legal claim to be made in respect of those who have suffered injury through the driving of military vehicles. There is no claim for compensation, as Government vehicles are not insured, and the hospitals are very anxious as to whether or not they will be able to get compensation from the War Office. I understand that some time before the war broke out the Post Office and the Police agreed that if any accidents occurred through the driving of vehicles by their employees they would not claim any exemption and they would pay compensation. The hospitals are naturally very anxious that the War Office might take the same line.

But that is not the point which I am raising now. What I really want to know is this: Can the noble Lord give us any information as to whether an undue proportion of accident? is caused by those who drive military vehicles? I believe that in another place, the other day, some rather disconcerting figures were given about the dangers which are incurred in connection with military lorries. I know that large lumbers of the drivers of military cars are most careful and considerate. I find this especially so when they are driving in convoys; but like everybody else I have noticed the military car going very rapidly down a side road or on the wrong side of a road round a corner. Obviously, one would notice a car more easily when that car is camouflaged than one would notice an ordinary car, and naturally one would say: "There is a military car." I do not know what the figures are, and I do not know whether it is fair to say that a very large number of these accidents is caused by military vehicles, but because there is this widespread impression it is very important that the Government should give an answer. If that impression is mistaken, then for the good name of the military drivers let the misunderstanding be cleared up. If, on the other hand, a large number of accidents is caused by military' vehicles, that is a matter for the Government to take up with those who are responsible, and those who are at the head of the various Services.

I do not think that by actual, regulation we shall be able to do overmuch in connection with this great problem. I rely much more on propaganda—propaganda carried on continuously in every kind of way, propaganda through the Press, and above all through the wireless, propaganda bringing home to people time after time that the roads are full of danger and will be safe only if all those who use them obey the law and are considerate and courteous one towards the other. For nearly a hundred years the people of this country have realised that railway tracks are dangerous. Railway tracks are fenced in and penalties are imposed on those who trespass upon them; but if we were now to remove the fences round the railways, and if the penalties were also removed, I believe that the public would still regard railway tracks as dangerous. They would not allow their children to play on them; they would not choose the railway tracks for a country walk, and they certainly would not cross railway lines without taking due precautions. The railway tracks, however, are in most cases nothing like as dangerous as a very large number of our great roads, and we want to permeate the mind of the ordinary citizen with the sense that the highway is now as dangerous as most railway tracks, and that caution must be observed in using it.

I am certain that the responsible authorities of the Ministry of Transport are as anxious as anyone that this scandal of the roads should be brought to an end. There are, of course, all kinds of preoccupations to which they are subject, and the burden of responsibility which now rests on anyone who exercises authority in a Government department is enormous; but, amidst all the preoccupations of the war, I hope that it will be found possible to take every kind of step to prevent, or at any rate to reduce the extent of, this grave waste of life in the daily and nightly massacre on the roads. I beg to move for Papers.

VISCOUNT CECIL OF CHELWOOD

My Lords, I am sure you will agree that, particularly in view of the figures which the right reverend Prelate has cited, this is certainly a question which ought to come under the consideration of your Lordships' House, and it seems to me, if I may say so without impertinence, particularly appropriate that it should be brought under your consideration by an occupant of the Episcopal Bench. This is undoubtedly a very great social evil with which we have to deal. We hear a great deal about the new world that is to come after this war, and about social justice and things of that kind. This is certainly a very great social evil, and it is undoubtedly a matter of grave anxiety that so many people should, apparently without any compunction, so drive their cars along the roads as to endanger and injure their fellow citizens.

The right reverend Prelate referred to propaganda. I am not a great believer in propaganda. At the same time, it is very deplorable to hear, when two young people talk about driving on the roads, that if one of them says that he has had an accident the immediate reaction appears to be "What bad luck for you." There seems to be very little consideration for the people who have been injured by the accident. That has at any rate been my experience in listening to what young people say in this connection. It is therefore clearly a matter for the Episcopal Bench, and for other leaders of religion and morality, to consider whether something cannot be done to bring home to the community that to kill people on the roads is a very wicked thing to do if you can possibly avoid it, and that if you do it because you like to go fast, or because you think that the pedestrian ought to take more care, or for any reason of that kind, you are committing a very grave offence, quite apart from any breach of the law. I hope that the Bishops will not think me impertinent if I venture to say that I do not notice in the public statements which they have made—this does not apply, of course, to the right reverend Prelate who has just spoken—that they have made any very great effort to point out that reckless driving is a very wicked thing, quite apart from the question of whether there may be precautions, such as the right reverend Prelate has suggested, which will diminish the consequences of such action.

Personally, therefore, I welcome very much what the right reverend Prelate has said. I thought he dealt with extreme fairness with the various possible causes; but to my mind by far the greatest and most important cause is driving too fast in the conditions which prevail. When we come to analyse it, it is speed which is the real cause of the greater number of these accidents. If it were possible to get the speed reduced all over the country to twenty miles an hour—I am taking what will be regarded in some quarters as an extreme case—no rational being can doubt that the accidents which occur on the roads would be diminished to an enormous extent. I have often ventured to insist on this in your Lordships' House, and I am not going to elaborate that argument; but I think it is right to say that these very figures which we are considering to-day can be adequately explained, to by mind, only by the greater speed at which cars are now being driven on the roads. I do not doubt that they are being driven at greater speed. The right reverend Prelate told us that he had observed constant breaches of the law when he was being driven in his own car, and quite apart from that, anyone who goes on the roads must have observed it.

The reason, I venture to think, is twofold. In the first place, I think—I should be delighted to be proved wrong—that there is a good deal of reckless military driving. That is my impression, but I agree that I have no figures to present to your Lordships or anything in the nature of scientific observation to adduce. I do seem frequently to notice, however, that very heavy lorries are driven at such a speed and in such circumstances as greatly to increase the dangers of the roads, and that applies not only to lorries but to other military cars as well. That has a double effect. It puts up the standard of speed, because if they go fast other drivers go fast as well. I am convinced that that is one of the causes of the increase in the number of accidents, and probably the greatest cause. There is another reason which makes that fast driving possible. The traffic on the roads is much less than it was; speaking generally, there are many fewer cars on what used to be crowded roads. The less crowded the roads, the faster goes the traffic. In the City of London in peace-time the traffic went extremely slowly, with the consequence, as is well known, that accidents were comparatively rare. In the present condition of things, with the present ideas that prevail with too many drivers, the opportunity to go fast is the excuse for going fast; and therefore we find greater speed on the roads because there is now a greater opportunity of going fast.

I am almost ashamed to say these things to your Lordships because, to me at any rate, the connexion of speed with the danger on the loads seems so obvious. But there are two answers which are constantly made. One is that speed is not in itself dangerous. I do not know exactly what is meant by that answer. But what I suppose is meant is that if there were no other circumstances then speed would not be dangerous; and it is obvious that if you were driving in a desert, with no other traffic and no possibility of other traffic, you might, if you chose to drive at a very excessive speed, endanger your own life, but you could not possibly endanger anybody else's. To that extent it is true that speed is not in itself dangerous. But it is generally admitted that speed is a danger wherever there is other traffic, particularly where the other traffic is that of children or of old people, or where a car is met by another car which is not being driven carefully.

Therefore it is perfectly clear that speed is a danger in certain circumstances, and you have merely to consider what the circumstances are. To my mind the circumstances in the more crowded parts of this country, where there are a lot of people on the roads, are list the circumstances which lead to accidents, and consequently I should expect myself that accidents would occur, and that they would be directly proportioned to the speed at which vehicles were driven. In point of fact that is what has happened. The great change that has been brought by motorcars compared with the old horse-driven vehicles is the greater speed at which they run. That is the great change, and the great increase in the dangers of the road is therefore only what one would expect. That seems to me to be a convincing answer to the observation that speed is not a danger in itself.

But I think connected with that answer is another one. It is said that a speed which would be dangerous in the hands of a bad or inexperienced driver is not dangerous if the driver is thoroughly competent and skilful. I have heard noble Lords in his House profess that they themselves or their friends who are really good drivers do not have accidents. I think it is extremely likely that that is true. But I am rather inclined to think that even that is not true always, and that the man who drives habitually at fifty or sixty miles an hour sooner or later has an accident and when he does have an accident it is usually a bad one. But assuming that it is true, that is no answer at all. You have to have a set of rules for the roads which will make the ordinary driver on these roads a safe driver; and the fact that he might be safe if he were an entirety different kind of man, with an entirely different kind of experience, is no answer to the Legislature. The Legislature has either to exclude all such people from the roads, which is impracticable, or to say that the conditions are such that even an unskilful driver can drive safely; and that means in my judgment that you must have a severe limit of speed, and those who want to go fast or are in a hurry must go by rail, or some other method which will not imperil their fellow-citizens.

I have said thus much because I feel so profoundly that if we do not cope with this great evil of speed, no other measure is really going to make a serious difference in the safety of the roads. We have tried all sorts of things. We have tried what the right reverend Prelate believes in, I am afraid, a good deai more than I do—propaganda. I remember very well that when the last Traffic Bill was under consideration in this House, the late Lord Russell explained that he regarded the Highway Code as a sermon more than a threat, and he attached great importance to the effect of the sermon on the consciences and on the care of those who were using the roads. I am afraid experience has shown that that Code has had very little effect in reducing the number of accidents. Indeed, on the whole the accidents have been more numerous since that Code was enacted than they were before. I am sure you will have to deal, and deal drastically, with this question of speed. I am not going to elaborate the actual measures that I would suggest. But I do want to say something and to say it as strongly as I can to the Government—so brilliantly represented on the Bench opposite at this moment—on the absolute necessity of Government action in this matter.

Nothing else can do it unless the Government of the day are prepared to take up on their responsibility this question and to drive it through Parliament with the help of the majority in another place, and I believe they would have no great difficulty in this House. If they are not prepared to drive through a measure really dealing with the matter, then no other institution can possibly succeed. Entrenched against all serious improvements are these great societies with very large money resources determined to resist anything which they regard—no doubt quite honestly—as an unnecessary limitation on their freedom of action. Against that nothing but the Government can succeed. But you are there brought up against a considerable difficulty. The Government have to consider no doubt what is practicable as well as what is desirable, and they have to take account of the fact that any measure which is going seriously to interfere with the liberty of motorists will receive vehement opposition. That means a very considerable expenditure of time, in another place at any rate. And they will have no great Party pressure to induce them to act.

I speak with great deference to those who sit near me, but no Party has yet shown any desire to take up this question seriously and press it through. That is a great difficulty in our form of government. I have come to believe very strongly in the importance of the Party system as an element in the Constitution of this country and, though I quite admit that for the moment it must be suspended, I do not think that as a general rule the country is so well governed when the Party system is suspended as when it is not. The only hope we have—we who desire great changes and great reforms in this matter—is that by that weapon of propaganda we may ultimately produce the effect which the right reverend Prelate suggests. I admit that propaganda must begin by converting one or other of the great Parties of the State if it is really going to have a chance of success. In any case—and this is why I do not wish to speak at any length—it is clearly impossible to ask the Government to produce legislation of a contentious character during the progress of the war. I do not ask them to do anything of the kind. It would be quite useless for me to do so, and it would not be right. We have got to fight the war with all our strength, and we must do nothing which will imperil national unity until victory has been obtained. Therefore we cannot hope for any drastic reform now. But we can hope, I think, for some palliation of the existing state of things.

I entirely agree with what was said by the right reverend Prelate about that, and I think something might be done with reference to these military vehicles if, on investigation, it is shown that they are responsible for a considerable number of accidents, whether they behave worse or not worse than other people. The War Office could, at any rate—they have the power—impress very strongly on those who are in control of the traffic that the drivers should be warned very strictly and urgently—I believe they have been warned already—against doing anything which is likely to cause danger, and particularly they should be reminded, as I understand they have been reminded, that they are amenable to the traffic laws just as much as anybody else. That might be done, and I also hope something will be done with reference to this question of compensation.

I have no personal knowledge of the matter, but it does seem to me a very unfortunate state of things that if you are run down by a War Office vehicle you have no remedy as of right, however careless the driver may have been and however clear the case may be. I see from certain indications that I am wrong on that point, but that is the view which is traditional among people, that when they make their application they are told that if they can make out their case it will have consideration from the War Office, but they have no right according to their view. Of course there is a criminal responsibility, but, as far as the civil responsibility is concerned, it is at any rate believed that they have no right to compensation. If they have such a right, a statement by the legal authorities in this House that they have as much right to proceed against the War Office or against the driver of the car as against anybody else would be of some advantage. In any case there ought to be a statement from the authorities of the War Office that they desire to be placed in exactly the same position as any other owner or driver of a vehicle, and that they are prepared to make full compensation whatever compensation is awarded by the Courts which have jurisdiction in such matters.

These two things we might ask the Government to do, and if they can suggest any other method by which they can make some effort to lessen the vast slaughter and suffering caused at present I beg them to do so. I do not think any of us realise quite the amount of suffering caused by these accidents, quite apart from the injury to die actual people. They mean intense grief to the relatives, they mean very often a serious destruction of the livelihood of the family. It is in every respect a very serious evil, and it requires to be dealt with seriously, just as seriously as we deal with other evils which arc more notorious.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, I intervene in this debate because I have a very strong personal interest in the question, having been myself knocked down four times by motor cars. I seldom leave my house without anticipating gloomily that the fifth and fatal accident may take place. I have never derived much satisfaction from the debates on this subject, but whilst I entirely agree with nearly everything the right reverend Prelate said, I totally disagree with him in the view that propaganda is going to be a cure. We are discussing the case of pedestrians. Pedestrians do not require propaganda at all. Deatn stares them in the face whenever they go into the street. They know instinctively that they are in danger. The only case in which propaganda is required is the cast of the motorists themselves. It we impressed on a section of the motorists that if they cause an accident they will I be severely punished, the whole situation would be altered at once. There is, unfortunately, amongst motorists—I do not charge them all as a class—a large number who cannot be restrained from driving recklessly.

It seems to me the question is much simpler and the remedy far more simple than we realise. The accidents which are caused, not only now but all along, are caused simply and solely by the fact j that the law is not properly enforced. You are dealing with a number of men and women—not the whole race of motorists, but a section of them—who are quite impervious to argument and are unable to restrain the tendency to drive faster than they ought. Is it not obvious if they are treated with leniency they are literally encouraged to take risks? That is what is going on. It is all very well to lay down regulations about speed limits and so forth, but if there are a number of people who know that if they are the cause of a fatal accident they may escape altogether, the duty of driving slowly and carefully does not appeal to them in the least. I have said that the cause is simple and the remedy is simple. The remedy is that the law should be strictly enforced, and all motorists should feel that if they are involved in a serious accident they will be seriously punished.

Whilst I do not wish to prolong the debate I do not like to finish without a suggestion—although I have never known any suggestion of mine to be adopted in any quarter—and that is that the noble and learned Viscount on the Woolsack or some person who may be immediately responsible should direct attention to this particular question of the laxity of the law, and impress on magistrates and all on whom the duty devolves of adjudicating in these cases, that the law must be observed and observed strictly. If an injunction of that kind goes forth I feel sure, although it has been done before, that in the course of time it will be successful; but until something of the kind is done, and until the Government do something definite, as the noble Viscount opposite has suggested, the present lamentable situation will continue.

Before I sit down I should like to ask the noble Lord who is going to reply—and that reminds me that I have never been able to understand why the Ministry of Transport is not represented in this House—whether any single one of the recommendations made by the Alness Committee has been attended to and, if not, what is the reason. It is no use appointing a Committee to deal with a particular question and then make the excuse that because a war is on it is not necessary to pay any attention to what the Committee recommend. If this Committee's recommendations were attended to then there would have been already a diminution in these fatalities. As it is they keep on increasing. In spite of the figures which may be supplied by the Ministry of Transport everybody knows that the danger is continuing; therefore I venture to suggest that before this debate is concluded we should receive an assurance from the Government that directions shall be issued to all responsible persons that the law must be obeyed and its provisions strictly enforced.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, I have listened with great interest to the three very able speeches on this subject which have just been made, and as one who, like many of your Lordships, has driven a car for a great many years—and I am glad to say has a perfectly-clean record—I feel that the experience that one has should be ventilated in a discussion of this kind. Your Lordships are well aware that hardly a day passes that one does not see somebody on the roads do something which is perfectly dreadful and ought to be stopped and drastically dealt with. Even this morning, on the wireless at seven o'clock, I heard that some poor man had been picked up in the night on the road dead, the car that had killed him having gone on. What I am principally concerned with in detaining your Lordships for a few moments is this. I feel that the spirit on the road is bad. So often, as the right reverend Prelate has said, as you are going along the road at the proper pace, does somebody come up hooting and shouting "Get out of the way." That sort of thing happens to all of us. Time and time again an approaching motorist, although well able to do so, fails to give one plenty of room or to make a little way. I feel that the real crux of the matter is that the great majority of people on the road do not realise that courtesy ought to be extended to all on the road.

I am talking of motorists now. I do not know whether one can do anything about that. For years past we have seen any amount of propaganda and so far there has been no result from it. As has already been said, we do not find that the number of terrible accidents is on the decrease. With what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, has said on the subject of speed I quite agree, but it may be that a speed of ten miles an hour on one part of a road is far more dangerous than a speed of eighty miles an hour on another part of the road. I think that something might be done in having traffic controllers who would warn people and say, "Here you are going too fast." While I am on that subject I will tell your Lordships what I have done in that direction to help the police. I have a great friend who is a Chief Constable, and one day I told him that when I was going to play with him at a certain place four cars passed me going at fifty miles an hour at the very lowest in an area where there was a thirty-mile speed limit. I said do the Chief Constable: "Can we not do something about it? Cannot something be done to motorists who do not behave themselves? I will help you." I made this arrangement. I had my car tested to make sure that the speedometer was correct. Then I went on the road and when anybody passed me within the thirty-mile limit, I do not say going at thirty-five miles an hour, but at from forty to fifty miles an hour, I took the number of the car and reported it to the Chief Constable. The result was that, having found the owner of the car, he was written to by the police saying that his car had been going at a speed of approximately forty or fifty miles an hour at such and such a place at such and such a time, and would he please do his best in future to see that that did not happen again and thereby assist the police in carrying out the law.

That is the sort of thing that we might have now. I feel one ought to do it whenever that kind of thing happens. It happens so often, as the right reverend Prelate has said, that you have people passing you continually at a far greater speed than is permitted by the law. I do feel, with reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, said in regard to the spirit of the road, that a great deal could be done by the Churches and by all social organisations to try and impress on the people the real wickedness of risking the lives of others unnecessarily. I think the Press might do a tremendous lot. I know the Press is always trying to help in this direction by pointing out the enormity of what is going on, but I think the Press might be called in again to assist. I quite agree it is very unlikely, and probably quite impossible, that any legislation can be carried through now. I have come to the conclusion, after many years, that the only way to stop it is by putting the fear of death into people who drive on the road dangerously. I should fine them the first time, but the second time I would give them hard labour no matter who they were, provided it was proved that it was their negligence which had caused the accident.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

My Lords, may I say a few words, and they will be very few, first of all with reference to the remark of the right reverend Prelate in regard to military driving? In certain duties which I have been performing of late the experience that I have had of military driving has not exactly impressed me. I had considerable experience in the last war of looking after traffic, and I can tell your Lordships that from what I have seen of the driving of military drivers in this war it compares extremely unfavourably with the driving in the last war. The noble Viscount, Lord Cecil, called the driving reckless. I would not call it reckless; I think reckless is too strong a word; it is careless. But carelessness on the roads, as your Lordships know, is just as bad as recklessness. Some of these drivers will not use ordinary care. I have noticed it day after day. Perhaps motor cyclists are a still greater source of danger. The way they dash about among the traffic is appalling. I think my noble friend Lord Croft has here an opportunity to address some remarks to the drivers of military lorries and cars. If he did so I think I: would be an excellent thing. I only ask that they should take the ordinary care that drivers of other cars take and obey the ordinary rules of the road. But they do not.

There is one other thing I should like to say with reference to what the noble Viscount has suggested in regard to speed. I am afraid I should never agree with the noble Viscount about speed. I have taken part in a great many debates in your Lordships' House for a good many years past on this traffic problem, and I do not believe in a speed limit. What I do believe in is care. I have always said that a person who is driving at perhaps one mile an hour may be driving dangerously if he does not stop when he sees a pedestrian. Unfortunately one often sees a car or a cab driving very slowly perhaps round a corner; the driver sees a pedestrian (it may be oneself) crossing, but he does not stop; he expects the pedestrian to get out of his way. Why should he not stop? It is not as if he were driving a pair of horses which are difficult to pull up. He is driving an engine which he can easily stop. Instead of doing that, however, he expects the pedestrian to get out of his way. For that reason I do not believe in the speed limit. I say that a man is driving dangerously no matter what his speed if he does not stop when he sees a pedestrian or another car in front of him.

LORD SNELL

My Lords, first of all I should like to express my gratitude and I am sure that of your Lordships' House to the right reverend Prelate for once again introducing this complex and most important question to the House. The Government are greatly concerned, as your Lordships are, with all that is involved in the matters that he has brought before us. I should like to point out that in the years before the war the constant attack on the problem had stemmed the rising tide of accidents in spite of the increase in the number of vehicles on the road, but there is no ground at all for complacency in this matter. Six thousand six hundred killed in a year was bad enough in all conscience, but 8,350 killed in the first year of the war causes still greater concern to all of us.

In reply to the question of the right reverend Prelate I should remark that since the beginning of the war only the figures of the number of persons killed have been compiled. An analysis of the accidents is made in the first place by the police and the detailed classification which was made before the war placed a very heavy burden on the police throughout the country. In view of the very heavy additional duties which the war has placed upon them—upon which, as your Lordships remember, the Prime Minister remarked in glowing terms the other day—which they have fulfilled with conspicuous success, it was considered desirable to reduce the analytical work on accident figures as much as possible. The figures then are no longer compiled in detail, in order that the police and others concerned may be relieved of this heavy work. There are, therefore, I fear, no figures of injured for the whole country.

In the Metropolitan Police district the number of killed in the first year of war fell by 18 per cent., from 986 to 808, and the number of injured fell by 29 per cent., from 55,704 to 39,381. As was to be expected, pedestrians were the chief sufferers and there was an increase of over 100 per cent, killed in the winter months of war—November, December and January—compared with the corresponding winter months in 1938–9. The position is similar for motor cyclists; there was an increase of 77 per cent. Motor drivers have emerged with fewer casualties. The fatalities for pedal cyclists decreased until this winter though cycling, as your Lordships are aware, has considerably increased. If we comment on these figures and try to find an explanation for them we are driven to the fact that black-out fatalities form a large part of this increase. This was only to be expected, but the lighting restrictions in our streets are absolutely essential at this time.

Casualties on roads in the built-up areas in the black-out have decreased this winter as compared with last, but casualties have increased on roads not subject to speed limits. That is, in a sense, confirmatory of those who have urged limitation of speed. On the other hand, daylight casualties have increased on all roads, probably because the evening peak traffic has been thrown on to the last hour of daylight, and there has undoubtedly been a serious deterioration in road behaviour, speaking generally. All accidents in certain selected areas in March, April and May, 1940, were investigated and this investigation showed, firstly, that the majority of these accidents were due to carelessness or errors on all hands, particularly it is said by pedestrians; and secondly, that elderly pedestrians suffered to the number of 116 in 393 accidents—116 were over sixty-five years of age—while young children were also chief sufferers. The child accidents were mostly in daylight.

Clearly everyone should, as far as possible, avoid contributing to the dangers of the road at night. It is almost impossible to enforce a curfew even on private cars, but if it is not necessary to go out during the black-out period then everyone should consider whether he may not be acting in the public interest if he resolves to stay inside. I cannot help feeling that motorists generally should feel that the competence and the honour of their calling are at stake. We are aware of all the difficulties. Driving, I should imagine, requires complete alertness, quick decision, steadiness of mind and of nerve. But whilst willing to admit that there is a general responsibility that falls upon pedestrians as well as upon drivers, I always reflect upon what the noble and learned Viscount the late Lord Buck-master so often told your Lordships' House, that from time immemorial the people had a right on the King's highway whereas the motorist was there by licence. He was a newcomer and therefore upon him rested a very serious responsibility.

In regard to military accidents, I should like to answer the question first of all, as far as I understand it, as to War Office or Government responsibility. No Crown vehicles are insured. I think that is a statement of fact. A person injured may sue the driver of the vehicle, and when he does so the driver has the support of the War Office in his defence. There is no proposal, at present, to alter that provision. The Secretary of State for War has been the first to acknowledge that, taking November and December, 1940, as a time for observation, 300 military vehicles damaged each day is a quite unsatisfactory record. But on this fact alone it is not safe to say that Service drivers are particularly accident-prone; we cannot compare the rate of damage to civilian vehicles or the relative road-usage. Responsibility for accidents is not always easy to determine—even by the Courts—and cannot be shown in statistics. Another method of settling questions is by finding some general trend in accident figures coupled with a road census. Special examination was made in the Metropolitan Police district but the results were inconclusive. Very special instructions have been issued to Commands with regard to care on the roads, and there for the moment I fear we shall have to leave that matter.

Again, special measures to reduce black-out risks have met with a certain amount of success, such as the speed limit of twenty miles per hour in built-up areas which was begun in February, 1940. The police reports are that, generally, that speed limit is being observed. Secondly, vehicles waiting at night must face the right way and many local regulations prohibit waiting or regulate traffic. Thirdly, aids to traffic movement—the masked headlamp, limited street lighting and so on. Further improvements, in present conditions, are difficult to obtain, but better lighting, consistent with air precautions, is practicable and will be further considered before the next winter period comes along.

With regard to public opinion, the real safeguard lies with the public who use the roads, and every practicable effort is being made to influence public opinion. The propaganda done must, I think, have been noticed by everyone. In particular, valuable work has been done by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, especially among children and local authorities. Safety instruction among children was inevitably interrupted by the war but it is being resumed. The special police patrols instituted before the war were, undoubtedly, the most effective attack on road accidents, but here again war has inevitably stopped progress. But the police have by no means abandoned the enforcement of the road traffic law. In regard to enforcement I should like to say that it is still going on, and that it will not be relaxed. Figures for the Metropolitan Police district show nearly as many prosecutions in 1940 as in 1939.

So, whatever the Government can do in this matter is, on the whole, being done, and it is for us to find out what lessons we can derive from this reconsideration of a most complex and disturbing problem. I can assure the right reverend Prelate that all that has been said to-day in your Lordships' House will be seriously examined by the Government, and whatever steps can be taken will be put into operation. It is easy to try to assess blame to one or other of the two parties concerned, the drivers and the pedestrians. It would sometimes seem as though there are now two nations—those who ride and those who walk—but I do not think it is helpful for either of those two separate nations to indulge in recriminatory accusations. It is probably safer to say that there are faults on both sides. Let me make a personal confession and avow that I have all the prejudices of the pedestrian who has never driven a car, and I sometimes wonder at the mentality of the drivers whom I see who would apparently prefer to be twenty years too soon in the next world to being ten minutes late in this. But, as I have acquired a general habit of distrusting my own prejudices, I feel sure that there are things about driving that I do not understand, and so I suspend judgment.

In regard to the solution of this problem we had all hoped that there would be a steady and continuous decrease, and had peace conditions remained among us that encouragement might have been at our disposal. But war conditions generally have tended to divert our attention from personal and individual dangers to the wider dangers of the State. If it were a mechanical problem merely, or purely a physical problem, some solution might be speedily found; but the human factor is uncertain and incalculable. There is, however, one contribution which all of us might make, both those who drive and those of us who get out of the way if we can, and which might prove to be a real contribution towards a solution of this problem: to regain the sense of the sacredness of individual life, even of our own. I do not know whether I am wrong in my observation, but I sometimes think that the animals, and especially dogs, are acquiring a traffic sense almost more quickly than some human beings. I once more thank the right reverend Prelate for introducing this subject to your Lordships' attention and for the helpful persistence with which he pursues this matter. I very much regret that I cannot offer him the merited reward of much greater encouragement.

THE LORD BISHOP OF WINCHESTER

My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord for the reply which he has made, and with the leave of the House I will withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

House adjourned.