SPEED LIMIT POLICY

HL Deb 05 March 1969 vol 300 cc165-71

3.37 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, with permission I would repeat a Statement which my right honourable friend the Minister of Transport is making in another place on speed limit policy. The Statement is as follows:

"Since we published the Green Paper, How Fast?, last July we have talked about speed limits to 40 organisations and corresponded with hundreds of individuals.

"We are clear that speed limits, properly applied, can help safety. Our discussions have confirmed my own view that there is no novel departure, no single remedy, no new general limit which would radically improve safety. We considered the possibility of introducing a new blanket limit of 60 m.p.h. on all single carriageway roads outside towns. But we have concluded that a measure of this kind would be too blunt an instrument. Instead we propose a package of measures to develop the existing system; to direct it more specifically to those roads and vehicles where speed limits will most contribute to safety, and to ensure that limits are set and kept at realistic levels.

"Within this broad policy we propose the following measures: one, the use of more 50 m.p.h. limits and some experimental 60 m.p.h. limits on stretches of road with bad accident records; two, the adoption of 40 m.p.h. limits in some villages on main roads; and, three, in towns, retention of 30 m.p.h. as the basic limit but with more use of 40 m.p.h. limits on main traffic routes. We thought carefully whether the time has come to put the urban limit generally up to 35 m.p.h. but have decided against. Again, this would be too blunt. We cannot accept the risk that speeds on residential roads might rise significantly, and accidents with them. It is better to differentiate main traffic routes where higher limits will not increase risks.

"The Greater London Council and Metropolitan Police asked for a 35 m.p.h. limit in London but I think the same arguments also apply. I am, however, suggesting to the G.L.C. an immediate joint review of London limits, on trunk and principal roads, to get the main traffic routes right. I very much hope they will join me in this.

"On vehicles, I propose to raise the non-motorway limit on light goods vehicles of 30 cwt. and below from 40 m.p.h. to 50 m.p.h. Similarly I propose to raise the limit on motorways and non-motorways for touring caravans from 40 to 50 m.p.h. with some conditions to prevent badly matched combinations of car and caravan. But, for the time being at least, I propose to reduce the motorway limit for heavy goods vehicles from 70 m.p.h. to 60 m.p.h.

"The Government have already decided that this country should move towards a metric system. We propose, subject to further consultation, that speed limits should become metric in 1973. The lower end of the scale will then be 50, 65 and 80 k.p.h. and the experimental lengths of 60 m.p.h. limit will become 100 k.p.h. if we can get a much needed improvement in driving behaviour, I should like to raise the present 70 m.p.h. limit slighily to 120 k.p.h. This overall limit will apply as at present to all roads where no lower limit is in force.

"Speed limits depend on enforcement. Police manpower is limited but more realistic limits should themselves make enforcement easier. My right honourable friends the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland will also be putting to the bodies concerned proposals for fixed penalties for speeding.

"My Department, together with the Scottish and Welsh Offices, will shortly issue to local authorities new, more precise criteria for all levels of limits. We will ask them to keep those limits for which they are responsible under regular review, using these criteria, to ensure that they are reasonable and accepted as such by drivers."

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for repeating this Statement in this House, and also for the note of realism it contains throughout. The Minister's attempt to consult public opinion on speed limits by means of the Green Paper, How Fast? was very much to be welcomed. It is of course essential to carry the majority of driver opinion for speed limits to be properly observed.

My Lords, there are two points about which I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd. The first is with regard to speed limits in urban areas. First, let me say that I think the noble Lord is right to stick to the 30 m.p.h. limit rather than to raise it to 35 m.p.h. in urban areas. But the corollary is that where the 30 m.p.h. limit is unrealistic and not observed it should be revised to 40 m.p.h. in the outer urban areas. My question is: What action will the Minister take to oblige local authorities to conform to the new criteria which the noble Lord has told us about and which the Minister is sending out in his circular?

My second question refers to the enforcement of speed limits. The Statement tells us that speed limits depend on enforcement, and we can all agree with that; and fixed penalties on their own are not going to do anything for us. We all know that the presence of mobile policemen has an electrifying effect on all drivers. What action will Her Majesty's Government take to in- crease the strength of the mobile police units throughout the country? This is particularly relevant in the context of the debate now going on and in which my noble friend was just complaining, rightly, about the stop on the growth of police forces. Would the noble Lord please answer those two questions, both of which are relevant to making this realistic approach fully effective?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am grateful for the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, and for his recognition of the efforts of my right honourable friend and his officials to consult public opinion. It was rather different from the question put earlier to-day about the "arrogance" of the officials in this Department. As to the question about local authorities, it is for them, of course, to decide what adjustment should be made. As my Statement made clear, the new criteria will be issued and we shall certainly try by persuasion to get the local authorities to take a realistic view of the roads in their area. However, if my memory is right there are powers in the 1968 Act under which the Minister of Transport can impose a decision.

With regard to enforcement and the question of mobile police, I am to-day replying for the Ministry of Transport and I think that is a question which could perhaps be put to my noble friend Lord Stonham on another occasion. The fact is that if speed limits are realistic, experience has shown that the general run of motorists keep to them. Therefore the police have to deal only with a small number of people who infringe them, and the possibilities of enforcement are that much greater. The question of enforcement lies not only with the police but also with having realistic criteria generally acceptable to drivers.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, I should like to welcome the Statement which the Minister has repeated. I am quite sure that this is the right approach—to treat each road situation on its merits rather than to have a uniform or standard solution throughout the country. May I ask whether there is any evidence that by taking the motorway speed limit up to 75 m.p.h.—that is, to 120 kilometres per hour—there are likely to be more accidents? If there is no evidence of that, would it not be better to go to the 75 m.p.h. limit now instead of waiting until 1973? It would, as I understand it, give a better margin between the heavy road vehicle, which will be limited to 60 m.p.h., and the 75 m.p.h. limit which will be permitted to the private motorist?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this matter has been carefully examined, but the view of my right honourable friend is that, having regard to the general standard of driving on the motorways, there would be a serious risk of increasing the number of accidents and casualties if we were to raise the speed limit at the present moment. My right honourable friend hopes that in the course of two or three years, with sustained publicity to bring home to drivers the size of the accidents and the death rate involved on these roads through careless driving by motorists who are perhaps travelling too fast for the capabilities of their vehicles, we shall be able to move. But my right honourable friend feels that it would not be worth the risk to make a change now.

LORD CONESFORD

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many appreciate the thoughtful nature of this approach and will wish to study his Statement further? Is he also aware that some of us are getting a little tired of applying to a speed limit the word "realistic", if that means that it will not annoy any motorists, and never considering the pedestrians at all; and that there are some pedestrians who also want a realistic assessment made of their requirements? May I invite his attention to one particular matter, the case of villages on main roads? Many of us know of villages on main roads where there is at present no speed limit at all and where there are also no pedestrian crossings. Will he take a realistic view of the requirements of the inhabitants of those villages?

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I will take note of what the noble Lord has said. I have a good deal of sympathy with some of the points he has made, but not with others.

THE MARQUESS OF ABERDEEN AND TEMAIR

My Lords, may I suggest that the limits that are proposed would have to be looked after, certainly as they are to-day, but that there are many people who completely ignore not only speed limits but notices and everything else? When this matter of road safety was being discussed we discussed that point. There is one thing that I should like to suggest. It is that everyone should be persuaded to drive like a gentleman. It would very much help if every car was bound to carry the Highway Code. Then if the drivers not only read it but obeyed what it says, this would reduce accidents very considerably.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I always enjoy the interventions of the noble Marquess and it was for this reason that I did not intervene when he was making his point. However, if I may say so with due respect, he was moving slightly outside the rules of your Lordships' House.

LORD GRIMSTON OF WESTBURY

My Lords, if I may return for a moment to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers, I wonder whether the Minister would have another look at this matter, because once it has been announced that it is thought that the peed limit might well go up to 75 m.p h. in a few years' time, is it not likely that most motorists will think that it is all right to do that speed now? There is also the question of the accuracy of speedometers. Five miles per hour does not seem much, but I am sure it would be better to have another look at the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Byers.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, this matter will be under review. My right honourable friend has said that by the time we go over to the metric system it is hoped that driving standards will have improved. But if we were to take the noble Lord's point to its full extent we should have to consider raising other limits, which I do not think most motorists would wish to see. But this matter will be under constant review by my right honourable friend.

LORD BYERS

My Lords, I am merely asking the noble Lord to get a move on.

LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD

My Lords, may I return to the point of enforcement with one further question? Is the noble Lord aware that in other countries experience has shown that it is impossible to get proper observance of speed limits without a pretty large number of mobile police on the road? Will the noble Lord please return to this point? And will he bear in mind something that he may not have in mind at present; namely, that although the Home Office are responsible for the payment in a general way, the cost of the mobile police falls on the Vote of his right honourable friend the Minister of Transport, and it is from that Ministry that the money has to be provided?