HL Deb 28 January 1953 vol 180 cc49-66

3.58 p.m.

Debate resumed.

LORD SANDHURST

My Lords, naturally I am entirely in agreement with the desirability of doing everything we possibly can to encourage the wearing of cycle bowlers by motor-cyclists. I prefer the term "cycle bowler" because I believe the words "crash hat" or "crash helmet" are one of the biggest deterrents to their use. It gives the idea in the home that motor-cycling is dangerous if one asks, "Where is my crash hat?" If one asks merely for one's bowler, nobody gets alarmed. I cannot support in any way the suggestion that the use of these bowlers should be made compulsory. To my mind, it is not desirable; and, more important, it is not practicable. We have already far too many rules and regulations in this country. Are we really proposing to bring in a law to make it compulsory for the footballer to wear shin shields and a head cap? We are reaching the point where youth is to be wrapped up in cotton wool to such an extent as to destroy any incentive to venturesome ness or any lifelike activity that a boy expects to do. Moreover, the proposal is also completely impracticable.

The Motion suggests that it should be made compulsory for a pillion rider to wear a cycle bowler. Is it proposed that every motor-cyclist should keep a cupboard full of cycle bowlers for the benefit of his girl friends? A hat that does not fit is a bigger menace than no hat at all. If a boy's girl friend arrives in a red dress and he produces a green battle bowler, there is going to be a No. 1 row. It will mean that they do not go out on the motor-cycle at all. We have to view these things from a common-sense point of view, and it is not common sense to make people do things like that. If I am riding a motor-cycle down the road and I come across a crash in which somebody has been hurt, but not severely injured, am I not allowed to pick him up and carry him to hospital because I have not with me a spare cycle bowler to put on his head? That strikes me as being nonsense.

There is another point, which is a serious one. It is not always desirable to wear a cycle bowler. So far as I know, the lightest type made weighs 12½oz. I do not know whether any noble Lord has lately weighed his hat, but I think he will find that a very solid hat weighs only about 5½oz. Can you see yourselves on a motor-cycle, riding perhaps 350 or 400 miles, with a thing weighing 12½oz. on your head? I venture to suggest that long before you came to the end of that journey you would be a menace to yourself and to everything else on the road.

After all, there is one way of being safe on the road, and that is by riding safely. The motor-cycle clubs are doing a tremendous amount to encourage safe riding. If we go through the motor-cycle accident figures, I think it will be found that a very small percentage of those involved are club members and that a very large percentage are people who have never been taught how to ride a motor-cycle—people who have just ridden up and down. How they passed their test, I do not know; nor does anybody else. I doubt whether there is any really efficient method of testing a motor-cyclist, but the clubs do teach. The members go out riding together, and the older club members point out when the newcomers are doing things which should not be done; and in that way we get a decent, sane type of motor-cyclist. I believe that the real thing for us to do is to encourage every motor-cyclist to join a club and to wear a bowler when the conditions permit. But please do not encourage him to wear it when he is going on such a long journey that fatigue is bound to add to any possible dangers which may arise. So far as purchase tax is concerned, I think there is a way in which the Government should and can help. It is ludicrous to put a tax on something, the sole object of which is the preservation of life.

4.4 p.m.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, listening to this debate, I could not help wondering whether, at some stage, one of your Lordships would get up and speak from practical experience of riding a motor-cycle. Unfortunately, we have been denied the pleasure of listening to practical experience. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, who introduced this debate and to whom I am deeply grateful for having raised it, will forgive me if I say that it is a little difficult to connect up yellow bulbs for head lamps with crash hats. His Question is perfectly distinct, and I am very glad that it has been brought forward.

My Lords, what is a motor-cycle? There are on the roads to-day various types of machines. There are many more in countries abroad than there are here, but no doubt before long we shall catch up. There are motor scooters, "Corgis," and motor-assisted cycles. According to the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, the number of motor-assisted cycles is increasing rapidly. They say: The number of motor-cycles, including motor assisted cycles, in use is at the moment increasing at a greater rate than that of other vehicles. So we may look forward to a considerable increase in numbers. My Lords, are we going to tell the lady (if it be a lady) who goes out to do her shopping on a motor scooter or a motor-assisted cycle that before she goes round to the grocer, or wherever it is she is going, she has to put one of these rather fearsome objects on her head? It seems to me that compulsion is going too far. I do not believe that compulsion would work. It would certainly create another offence; it would certainly create more work for the police and the courts. It would take more constables away from their duty of defending us from violent crimes, in order to attend the courts whilst cases were being heard. I do not like the creation of more artificial offences if we can possibly get away from them, and I do not believe that it is really the answer. Again, the sidecar has not been mentioned to-day. Suppose a motor-cyclist goes off with a lady in a sidecar: is she also to wear one of these things?

Nevertheless, I am very much in favour of crash hats. The noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, has suggested that it is impossible to wear for any length of time a crash helmet weighing about 12 oz. I think he suggested the limit as a distance of 300 miles. I have worn a crash hat at a stretch for over 2,000 miles and felt no particular inconvenience from it. Furthermore, I know the value of a crash hat, because once in this country and twice in Italy I should certainly have been killed if I had not been wearing one. So I know that these things are desirable and I agree that the Government should certainly do everything possible to encourage their use. Of course, the Government could help by taking off purchase tax. That would be a definite incentive. It has been done in the case of miners. If a miner's crash hat is exempt from purchase tax, why cannot the Government equally well, and for the same very good reasons, remove purchase tax from the crash hat of the motor-cyclist? The most unfortunate thing is that some of the best of our people are losing their lives. Many of these young men who go off on their motor-cycles, not equipped with very sound judgment and apt to "cut a dash" on the road, are the young men we shall want if ever we get into trouble again; so let us have plenty of them about. Let us try and take care of them if we can.

Now I should like to ask the Government whether they would consider this proposition. There are over 400 motor-cycle clubs in this country. There are several organisations which are particularly interested in this question. One is the Royal Automobile Club, another the Auto-Cycle Union and another the Institute of Manufacturers. Could we not ask the Government to call an official conference of all these organisations? I suggest that they should get them all together round a table. And not only these organisations: they should also invite to the conference representatives of the insurance world, who could speak with authority. If we could have a conference of all those interested, including representatives of the motor-cycle clubs and the insurance world, and get them working together, I believe that they would be able to hammer out a scheme which might be of assistance to the Government. The insurance world, I feel, could exercise a great deal of indirect—I will not say "compulsion," that is hardly the word, but inducement, to the average motor-cyclist to adopt sensible precautions.

LORD LLEWELLIN

May I interrupt the noble Earl for one moment to inform him that a conference is at the moment sitting—incidentally, under my chairmanship? It was summoned by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and all those interests to which he refers are represented. Those attending are discussing all questions of road safety including this one. Certainly we shall see that it is specially considered.

EARL HOWE

I am delighted to have that information. I hope that the conference which the noble Lord has mentioned will be productive of results. My point is that a conference summoned under the ægis of the Government (I say this with all due respect to the noble Lord) would bring this matter home to the minds of the people to whom we want to appeal in a far more effective manner than could—if I may so put it—a rather more unofficial conference. I agree that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, under the leadership of the noble Lord, are doing noble work up and down the country, and that we all owe Lord Llewellin and his fellow-workers a great debt of gratitude. But I feel that if we are going to do something effective, short of passing legislation, it would be a good thing to have the Government in it. If the Government feel that the matter could be dealt with by sending official representatives to the conference of which the noble Lord has spoken, that might be satisfactory. I do not mind how it is done, but I feel that if we could once get all the interests together, then results would follow. I do not know whether the noble Lord's conference also includes representatives of the insurance interests.

LORD LLEWELLIN

The conference was not called so unofficially as the noble Earl appears to think. It was opened by the present Minister of Transport and supported by Mr. Barnes, an ex-Minister of Transport. The conference is being attended by representatives of the Ministry of Transport; and insurance interests are also represented.

EARL HOWE

It is also being attended, I take it, by representatives of all the clubs.

LORD LLEWELLIN

I do not say that quite all the clubs are represented, but we certainly have at the conference representatives of all important organisations.

EARL HOWE

I am afraid that I did not know about the noble Lord's conference—no doubt I should have done. But I do want to see it brought home to a very wide circle that there is need for action here; and I believe that if you could get all the motor-cycle clubs, the local clubs, into a conference, and get them really interested in this question, even if the gathering were only grafted on to the noble Lord's conference, it would bring this matter home to the members of the little motor-cycle clubs up and down the country. I hope that it will be found possible to do something on the lines I have suggested, whether the conference which I advocate is held in combination with that of which the noble Lord has spoken or not.

A certain amount of argument has taken place among motor-cyclists about the proper pattern of a crash hat. What would be a suitable crash hat? From such information as f have, I believe that the whole question was referred to the British Standards Institution, and I understand that that Institution has now practically decided on a special pattern of crash hat which can be recommended to the motor-cycle world. I do not know anything about the nature of this crash hat, or whether it has any particular peculiarities. But I understand that the matter has gone a long way and that the investigations of the Institution are almost complete. Let us never forget what the Road Research Board said, on page 24 of their Report for 1951: More than 50 per cent. of the total civilian motor-cyclists admitted to hospital had head injuries. This was about twice as great as the corresponding proportion of seriously injured Army motor-cyclists, all of whom were wearing crash helmets. The matter speaks for itself, and I hope that anything the Government can do to help this movement along will be done. I am certain that the whole country ought to be very grateful to Lord Teviot for bringing this subject before your Lordships' House this afternoon.

4.15 p.m.

LORD HAMPTON

My Lords, I should like to add a few words to what has been said, and also to thank the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing this matter forward. It has been a good follow-up of the admirable broadcast of which he spoke. I am very much in sympathy with all that the noble Lord has said, hut my sympathy is somewhat obscured by rather grave doubt as to whether, for many reasons, compulsion would do any good. Let me mention two of the reasons which readily come to mind. Our traffic police already have a heavy job, and they are still under strength. How would they carry out a task of this kind? Would they pursue those young men who did not have crash. helmets right up the Great West Road, it might be, until they caught them? At night they would not be able to see whether motor-cyclists were wearing crash helmets or not? It seems to me that it would be introducing just one more of those regulations—like the 30 m.p.h. regulation in built-up areas—which can be so easily broken without anyone being the wiser. One question, which has already been mentioned lightly by the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, is that of the casual picking up of passengers. For instance, a fellow leaving a factory might give a lift to a workmate part of the way to his home. Has he to have a crash helmet for that casual passenger? If it is important for the controller of the motor-cycle to have a crash helmet, it is equally important for the pillion rider. That problem would give rise to immense difficulties. The motor-cyclist would require a supply of crash helmets of various shapes and sizes if he were desirous of giving some of his workmates a casual lift home.

We have to recognise that the whole question is seething with difficulties, although we must all have the greatest sympathy with the object of the noble Lord. I am certain that it cannot be beyond the wit of our hat manufacturers, if they carry out experiments, to produce something quite light which would meet the case. And it could well be quite pleasing to look at, as well as being light. I am thinking at the moment of the polo cap. In my younger days, when I had the good fortune in the Army to play polo, I remember coming down and being saved, at any rate from injury—I will not say from death—by my polo cap. The polo cap is little heavier than the ordinary bowler, yet it saved me from a bad concussion. It acts as a cushion, and although, when you land on it, it usually gets smashed in, it breaks the impact of the skull upon the ground, which is the important thing. So, as I say, a crash helmet for motor-cyclists need not necessarily be very heavy or unsightly. What is wanted is just something which will act as a cushion before the rider's head actually comes in contact with some hard object.

I cannot help thinking that it might be a good thing if purchase tax was taken off such articles. I hope that the Government will consider that point, and that our manufacturers and our hatters will get to work to see whether they cannot produce something which will meet this need. Though I do not think compulsion would work, I feel that what we want would be achieved if the wearing of these crash helmets were made the fashion. If we could get all motor-cyclists' organisations, all the clubs and so on, on our side, and could induce them to insist that this should become the fashion—I do not know how they would do it, but no doubt they would find means—then these young fellows would all be anxious to follow the fashion. I think it is probably true to say that many wish to wear these things to-day, but do not like to be considered "Sissies"—especially by their pillion riders. But if the wearing of crash helmets once becomes the fashion, then I hope and believe that we shall see what we all want to see—namely, a greater measure of safety for our young motor-cyclists on the roads.

4.20 p.m.

LORD AMWELL

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Howe, regrets that in this debate this afternoon experienced people who ride motor-cycles have not been heard. I should like to direct his attention to the fact that the majority of people in this country neither ride nor own a motor-cycle or a motor car, and if the experiences of those using the roads should be heard in a debate of this character, it might be desirable that those who are not in possession of these mechanical instruments should also be heard. Well, I am not the possessor of either a motor-cycle or a motor car. I have no objection in principle to mechanised transport, but I have an objection to the attitude of mind shown in debates of this character—the idea that the possessor of one of these pieces of mechanism, however propelled, should not have the greatest responsibility, but that he is the person who is to be protected. By all means protect him, but I object to the idea of compulsion in the wearing of crash helmets just as much as the noble Earl arid other speakers.

I cannot help feeling that the figures brought forward by the noble Earl, Lad Howe, are rather unreliable, if we are to consider the question along practical lines, because no account is taken of the character of every accident. We hear a lot about these intrepid young men who ought to be preserved for the nation, and about their daring. I have seen some of these daring and intrepid young men and I think it would be far more useful if we were to have figures about the way in which they use the instruments they are riding. If we took that into account, a different picture might be painted about the whole problem at issue. There are bad motor-cyclists and bad motorists, as there are foolish pedestrians—I admit that. But the idea that pedestrians have to get off the earth seems to me to be wrong. The pedestrian has as much right to use the highway as anyone else and the onus should be on those who possess these powerful pieces of mechanism.

I have not sufficient knowledge of the technical details to burden the House with much more, except to say that I feel that if we are machine mad, as we seem to be, and if we want to be a highly mechanised civilisation, we ought to be prepared to take the consequences. I think we are going in a direction that eventually will mean barbarism, as a result of the reaction to the mechanised mind that seems to dominate people all over the world at the present time. I cannot help that, and noble Lords, whether they agree with me or not, cannot help the fact that we are progressing that way. We are not only being dominated by mechanisms, but we are becoming mechanised ourselves—and that ends in war and eventual barbarism. I have rather a reactionary type of mind on things of this kind. I feel more like a pre-Raphaelite, who had the idea of going back to the Middle Ages. I think we should be happier in some respects if we did.

I intervene in the debate to suggest that there is another point of view, which is that we are living in a beautiful world and we are spoiling that world terribly. We are thinking in terms of speed and motion, and the intrepidity and daring of speed, and we have to pay the penalty for that. I think that motor-cyclists and motorists, and nobody else, should take the onus and the consequences. I am not prepared to weep tears over the, figures that are given to us. The best way of avoiding accidents on the road is to use the road properly. I think the noble Earl, Lord Howe, will agree with me that there are plenty of motorists who do not respect the use and enjoyment of the roads by the whole of the community. I do not know, but I should imagine that those are the people who expand the figures that are always brought forward to prove that pedestrians and puppy-dogs are the real culprits, and not the people who think that speed is more important than the salvation of the soul.

4.26 p.m.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, for bringing forward this question to this time. I hope your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I am deeply interested in the question of accident prevention, and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, said, I was a member of the Select Committee which was presided over with such great distinction by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Alness. Why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, thought that my membership of that Committee placed me in a condition of embarrassment I was at a loss to conjecture. On the contrary, I am very proud of it.

LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH

The Committee sat a number of years ago and the noble Earl is so much older, though he does not look it.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

That graceful response is welcome to me, but I hope that the noble Lord will wait until I get a little further in my speech before he decides how much I have deteriorated in the meantime. The second personal thing I should like to say, and I say it most sincerely, is that I am afraid I shall have to make a much longer speech than I normally do. Since, like other noble Lords, I have been saying for the last few months how insufferable in length are the speeches from most members of the House, including myself, it ill becomes me to-day to offer such a speech. My excuse is that this is a subject of such importance that it would be wrong and improper if it were not ventilated by the Government in full detail.

As your Lordships know, there has been considerable public discussion, not only about making the wearing of crash helmets compulsory but also in respect of motor-cycling accidents generally. With your Lordships' permission. I should like to deal with the Motion immediately before us and then deal with the more general issues. If I may say so with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, the subjects of dazzle and the use of yellow lights in France, though of great importance, in my opinion do not fall within the Question he has put down to-day. They would raise many of the matters which we considered in the various Reports.

LORD TEVIOT

My Lords, may I explain why I referred to these questions? It was to instance the danger from dazzle which motorists and all road users experience—and for no other reason. It might have been a little out of order in another place, but I thought it would be all right here.

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

The noble Lord is drawing upon our special dispensation. I think the question of lighting is of vital importance. It is one in which I am closely interested. It would not be for me to say that the point was out of order in discussing this subject, but as the noble Lord says so himself, I am bound to admit that it was. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, has mentioned the high percentage of motor-cyclists who meet with accidents involving head injuries. What he said is perfectly true. So, unfortunately, to a lesser degree, do other road users. But while I still feel that we ought to bring most of our energies to the prevention of accidents—which is, after all, better than their alleviation when they do occur—I am convinced that properly designed crash helmets, reducing the seriousness of head injuries, are the most important instrument in correcting this trouble. I should perhaps say a few words about how crash helmets are constructed, and how they work. I do so with considerable diffidence, in view of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has just said, and he must acquit me of any technical knowledge. So far as I understand it, the object of the crash helmet is to reduce the intensity of the blow by spreading it over a greater area—and I understand that in this way the noble Earl, Lord Howe, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, two admirable members of your Lordships' House, have survived. This should reduce the likelihood of fracture. Even the best type of crash helmet will not, therefore, prevent injury, but it will substantially reduce the results of a crash. Provided that it is properly constructed, it may, for example, turn a fatal accident into a serious one, or a serious one into a light one.

I was going to correct a small point in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, but this has already been done by my noble friend Lord Llewellin. I shall not read paragraph 19 of the Report, because I think the point has been made quite clear. However, I should like to say this. My right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is greatly concerned about the production of a first-class crash helmet, and two things are being done at the present time to produce it. As the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said, the Road Research Laboratory are conducting careful experiments into the construction of a helmet. They have made very reasonable progress in their research, and I hope that they will soon be able to say how a really good crash helmet should be made. In answer to other noble Lords, I would say that the Road Research Laboratory have always in mind the necessity for the helmet to look smart, and thus to be attractive to the young men and women motor-cyclists who ought to be wearing them. The British Standards Institution have also recently set up a committee, upon which the Road Research Laboratory and the Ministry of Transport are represented, to settle the terms of a specification which might eventually become the British standard. The noble Lord might care to know that only recently the British Standards Institution have settled a specification for a crash helmet for racing motor-cyclists, and this specification will no doubt assist not only in lowering the casualties on the motor-cycle or racing track but also in the search for a good specification for ordinary use.

I now come to the suggestion which has been made that the use of these crash helmets should be made compulsory. I must say at the outset that I profoundly doubt whether the compulsory principle is the right way of tackling this job in this country. I have been very much encouraged—and, indeed, in some cases, surprised—by the unanimity on this subject which noble Lords have shown. In my view, there is no doubt about it at all. I am told by the police that they think such a law would be quite un-enforceable; and there is nothing more foolish than passing legislation which is honoured in the breach rather than in the observance. I may say that this view is fully shared, so far as I know, by expert reporters on the trade papers. The noble Lord, Lord Teviot, asked why, if military despatch riders should be compelled to wear crash helmets, other people should not. I must say that when I was in the Army I kept asking myself why things were so different from what they were in civilian occupations. I feel that that is a somewhat false question. As I say, this view is shared by the trade Press, and a study of the correspondence columns in those papers has convinced me that among motor-cyclists, male and female, there is a strong general opposition to the compulsory principle. One lady motor-cyclist, for example, commented, not without dry humour: If motor cyclists are going to be forced to wear crash helmets—which Heaven forbid!—why should not holiday bathers he forced to wear lifebelts and snorts, and winter pond skaters to wear padded clothing? No motorcyclist goes out with the intention of committing suicide and, therefore, we should be left to choose our own protection. That is very much to the point of what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said a moment ago, about the potential case of an old lady on a mechanically assisted vehicle having to clamp one of these things on her head. It is clearly ridiculous, in my opinion, and I am sure that such a law would not work. What I do believe is that if we could secure a really good-looking and safe crash helmet, and if our motor-cycle clubs would encourage their members—as I am certain they would—to wear these helmets with club colours or emblems on them, we should be able to get a large number of motorcyclists to wear crash helmets without applying compulsion. Many of your Lordships know how powerful and how public-spirited these motor-cycling clubs are, and I very much hope that any publicity given to this debate will bring that point strongly to their attention.

Several noble Lords have referred to the question of purchase tax on crash helmets. This is an extremely difficult matter, and the Government have received a great many representations about it. But it must be remembered that it is a matter for the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and it would be quite improper for me to comment upon it. However, what I can do—and I guarantee to do this personally—is to see that all the observations and suggestions made in your Lordships' House to-day are brought to the attention of my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I should point out, however, that he has already said that it is a matter of great difficulty.

I should now like to deal with the more general aspects of this matter. We have all for some time been greatly concerned at the increase in the number of accidents to motor-cyclists. This increase is, of course, in some degree due to the large increase in the number of motor-cycles on the Toad. For example, in 1938 the number of motor-cycles licensed was approximately 450,000, but by 1951 the figure had swollen to 800,000. The number of casualties to motor-cyclists and their passengers, I ant happy to say, has not increased in the same proportion, but it is significant that whereas the total accident figures have diminished by some 10 per cent., as between 1938 and 1952, the provisional figures for accidents to motor-cyclists and their passengers over the same period has increased by approximately 30 per cent. This is a very grave state of affairs, and it is obvious to all of us that something drastic has got to be done to reduce these accidents. I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate the Government's concern in this matter—certainly anyone who has taken an interest, as I have, in this subject, and particularly as the majority of motor-cycle casualties are between twenty and twenty-five years of age.

I entirely agree with everything which fell from the noble Lord, Lord Teviot, about this appalling toll of these young people, and I am perfectly certain that he is right when he says that these are the kind of people—however reckless they may appear to be, and however exuberant in youth—we can least afford to lose. It was with this situation in mind that the Committee on Road Safety reported to the Ministry this year, and I would advise noble Lords to read the Committee's recommendations most carefully.

The Report has not been finally considered within the Ministry of Transport, but decisions are expected shortly. Some of the conclusions were borne out at the National Safety Congress of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, during which the Director of Road Research in the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Dr. Glanville, stated that on the basis of interim accident rates per vehicle-mile, motor-cycles are almost five times as dangerous as private cars, and the driver is nearly sixty times more likely to be killed upon a motor-cycle than upon any other vehicle. I invite your Lordships to weigh those sombre statistics.

There is no simple solution to this problem, any more than there was to the problems which the Alness Committee considered and which other Committees have considered since. But in addition to the general measures affecting all road users, such as the improvement of road behaviour, of education and propaganda, I feel that there are many things which have a particular application to motor-cyclists. May I first suggest that motor-cyclists should beware of unduly high speed? Many motor-cycles are now very powerful. They are getting more powerful and more fast every year, and I am afraid that one cannot say that the roads are keeping pace with them in any way at all. They are easily manœuvrable and, of course, there is the temptation for the motor-cyclist to drive at high speed and indulge in the risky practice of weaving in and out of slow-moving traffic, as we have all seen them doing. For me to say this may sound like a counsel of perfection; it may sound like the sanguine advice of doctors to chain smokers to stop smoking, and to habitual drunkards to abandon alcohol. Nevertheless, I believe that if this point is persistently put forward it may have some effect. Of course, cornering at speed is dangerous; and violent braking on motor-cycles, especially on greasy roads, is highly dangerous—much more so than in a motor car.

While I am on the subject of brakes, your Lordships may be interested to know that two-thirds of motor-cycle accidents are at road junctions, and there is little doubt that many of these are due to defective brakes. Generally speaking, the braking ability of motor-cycles is greatly inferior to that of other motor vehicles, and a motor-cyclist should therefore give himself more room when braking. Pillion passengers are an additional complication to the driver, who must exercise particular care in winter months when the weather makes road conditions dangerous.

My next point is addressed to the owners of dogs, and I am very glad indeed that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, introduced this subject. Owners of dogs—of which I gather Lord Lucas and I are two; and perhaps the least sentimental, in spite of our fondness for them—are extremely tender-hearted by nature. But I doubt very much whether they realise that straying dogs on the carriageway are responsible every year for one thousand deaths and injuries to motor-cyclists alone, quite apart from the casualties which they cause to other road users. There is, of course, only one remedy: keep your dog on a lead in built-up areas, to stop him from straying. A number of suggestions have been made from time to time, like the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that we should exercise a more positive control over dogs in public places, and that we might even learn from methods used in American cities where, I believe, loose dogs are rounded up by the police, Although I like dogs, I am still old-fashioned enough to believe that, if anybody is to be killed on the Queen's highway, I should prefer that it was a dog rather than a human being. Some people are inclined to forget that fact. We all know that if a dog which is not on a lead runs into the carriageway, causing a man to swerve to avoid it, he may hit somebody else and then there is death and destruction.

My suggestions, whether addressed to motor-cyclists or anybody else, may appear to be elementary, but I think they need to be reiterated again and again until the accident rate amongst motor-cyclists has been substantially reduced. I am sure that, if due regard is paid to these points, the number of motor-cycle accidents will be reduced. I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships that this terrible problem of motor-cycle accidents, and in particular the accidents in which head injuries are sustained, is fully appreciated. It is no idle phrase to say that the Ministry and the Government are really alert about this matter. I can assure your Lordships that that is so. Those engaged in this research which I have discussed are now pressing ahead very hopefully. Designers and manufacturers must search for cheaper and more attractive models. Whether they are to be called "bowlers" I cannot say. The opening remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, suggested to me a strong predilection for dress designing. I have never heard them called "bowlers" before, although the word may be less daunting than "crash helmets." I know that it is not easy in these days to produce anything cheaply, but I do not think my words will be wasted if I ask manufacturers of crash helmets to pay particular regard to the social aspects of their products, even at the risk of reducing their own profits in order to put a cheaper design on the market as soon as possible. As regards the limits of attractiveness, there has been comment in certain quarters that Her Majesty's Government are paying undue attention to the æsthetics of this grizzly business. I do not agree at all. Since we have to rely on persuasion, we must concentrate on making the helmet attractive.

Finally, may I appeal to a larger audience than is enclosed in these four walls—to the motor-cyclists themselves? Every time they venture on the roads they court death far more than does any other road user. May I beg them to observe the suggestions I have made, and to obtain a suitable crash helmet, in their own interests, and to wear it wherever they can? Any crash helmet is better than none, and some already on the market are quite good. If the result of our debate to-day stimulates the demand for these helmets I shall feel that we are beginning to make genuine progress. This is a dreadful problem, and the only answer to it lies in the heart of the motor-cyclist himself; and I hope that the powerful organisations interested in their welfare will bring the point forcibly to their notice. I would end by apologising once again to your Lordships for the length of my speech, but I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a problem which must be tackled.

EARL HOWE

Can the noble Earl say whether there is any prospect of a conference of motor-cycle clubs throughout the country being called by the Government?

THE EARL OF BIRKENHEAD

I cannot say now, but it seems an interesting idea. I should like to look into it, and I will give the noble Earl the opinion of my right honourable friend as soon as I can.

Back to