HL Deb 13 January 1971 vol 314 cc106-23

3.11 p.m.

LORD FERRIER rose to call attention to the Annual Report of the Road Research Laboratory, Road Research 1969 and to the continuing problem of road safety; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I would not venture to initiate a debate on road safety in your Lordships' House if I did not sincerely believe that such debates make a valuable contribution to the study of the problem. This House is a near perfect forum in which to discuss it, and I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name. Not only are your Lordships motorists—and most are very experienced drivers—but many serve on county councils and other road authorities: a number are magistrates, and some have advanced technical and professional qualifications: indeed, a body of articulate individuals with a wide range of interest in and knowledge of the subject.

I think I am safe in saying that all your Lordships are actuated by compassionate concern for people. It is, therefore, unnecessary to dwell at any length upon this scourge of our generation, unless it be to say that perhaps future generations may look back on our road casualties with unbelieving horror—as we look back on public executions and the like. It is odd to contemplate the strictness of our laws and our regulations safeguarding workers from machinery in manufacturing processes and mines, while millions of people, night and day, use our roads in conditions of peril from moving machinery which would never be tolerated in a factory.

The recent disaster in which 66 people lost their lives at the football match at Ibrox—concerning which we shall hear more later in the day—sent a wave of horror, and rightly so, throughout the country; yet twice as many people (many of them children) die violently before their time on our roads every week, and something like a thousand (again, many children) are injured, some grievously, every day. Without wishing in any way to belittle the Ibrox tragedy, one is tempted to inquire whether we ourselves, the Press, the broadcasters and even perhaps the Churches, have reached such a state of resigned acceptance of road casualties that our sense of proportion has been completely blurred.

Setting aside the cost in anguish, pain and bereavement, which cannot be measured in money terms, it has been estimated that road accidents in 1968 cost the nation close upon £250 million; in which year the related cost to the National Health Service, under the existing formula, was £13 million. My information is that the Government are in the course of revising, these formulæ, and it would be interesting if the Minister could expand or revise such figures as I have given, applying them to, say, 1970. Incidentally, there are some interesting details on the subject on the cost of accidents at page 38, in Part I of the Road Research Laboratory's Report. This is not the occasion for me to make any extended analysis of these costs, but we all know that the figures unfold a terrible story of carelessness, folly, selfishness and ignorance. I expect your Lordships agreed with the Minister of Transport when he stopped the publication of "holiday" casualties out of context with the grim toll throughout the year.

The Civil Estimates disclose that in 1969/70 the Road Research Laboratory's operations cost some £3½million. I wager that these operations have saved many times that sum.

While I have been preparing for this debate, the Royal College of Physicians' report on cigarette smoking has reactivated another train of thought; namely, the duty of Government to protect the public weal against expense which is thrust upon it by the carelessness or neglect of the individual. Surely the burden of road casualties on the public purse justifies not only intense research but even imposes on the authorities a duty to press on with measures to reduce its impact, because the National Health Service figure I have quoted is not by any means the only item of public expenditure which is involved.

To turn to the incidence of insurance on the matter, the insurance industry is addressing itself to the whole question of adjusting premiums to known risks arising out of the responsibility, or the irresponsibility, of individual drivers. After all, the insurance industry bears the brunt of the outlay in repairing the mechanical and physical damage which takes place, and it is studying the matter very closely. However, this is a very complex matter to which I do not propose to make further reference, although it has a direct bearing upon the road accident consideration. In general terms, it is safe to say that increased flexibility over premiums is to be welcomed. Great Britain has the highest number of motor vehicles per mile of metalled road in the world; and a fact upon which we can congratulate ourselves is that, relative to the density of traffic, the incidence of road casualties in this country is lower than in any other country. But this is not enough.

My Lords, it is not my intention to make a long speech—I could go on and on—but I will not do so as there are many in the list of speakers who are better qualified than I am to be specific. Therefore, I will refer only briefly to the Road Research Laboratory's Report, and concentrate on Part Two, Chapter 2, headed "Safety Division". I believe that Mr. Lyons and his crew are to be congratulated on the Report. It ranges—and I take two headings at random—from "Driver Abilities" to viscoelasticity in tyres. Having followed these Reports for some years, I am struck by the increasing complexity of them. The Report is really now an advanced scientific paper—and the science is becoming more exact. In fact, it is almost a series of scientific papers to judge by the headings of the various Parts. On page 60, we see: …it would appear that the relation between the number of accidents and the square root of the product of the flows is not linear—which is different from previous thinking. The lay mind boggles at what the previous thought might have been. But, joking apart, I think we can accept that the Laboratory's end product in terms of practical recommendations and guidance is clear evidence that the scientific approach is being applied in a practical way. The Director's chief problem must be decisions as to priorities in the lines to be followed. These must be legion, and I venture to suggest that the record of this debate may assist him in that respect.

Of course, the Laboratory is not alone in its efforts, and it is satisfactory that so much co-ordination exists between it and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the Motor Industry Research Association, the tyre people, the British Medical Association, the British Insurance Association, the motoring organisations and, of course, the police and the road safety officers. The success of the 1967 Act is undoubted, and the introduction of the breathalyser has unquestionably had a beneficial effect upon driver behaviour.

I believe that your Lordships can look back with some satisfaction upon the part that this House played in respect of that Act. I sometimes feel that enough credit has not been given to Mr. Tom Fraser, who prepared the ground for it when he was Minister of Transport, and the noble Lord, Lord Lindgren, who spoke on his behalf in this House. It may be fair to say that an outstanding development in the last few years is the improvement in the safety of vehicles—their brakes, their tyres and their internal design. The recent "turn-up" in the United States' automobile industry has stimulated interest in the subject and, incidentally, has shown how much the U.S industry could learn from our own.

I have one criticism of the Report to which I shall turn later but, to continue in general terms, the Road Research Laboratory, which was originally under the Ministry of Technology, although so highly technical is now part of the Ministry for Transport Industries, under the ægis of the Department of the Environment. This grouping is a conception which has received a fairly general welcome. I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to paragraph 30 of the White Paper on The Reorganisation of Central Government, which sets out the approach to road safety. Bringing together the interests of the Transport Ministry and the local authorities is a great advantage. The Department of the Environment, which we all hope will reduce paper work, is a very sensible organisation. Some flippant wag has said that the D.o.E. is where the buck stops.

It is to be hoped that the Minister will sound a clarion call throughout this whole system for collaboration in regard to road safety. At the top, it will be more than ever possible for him to measure the enormous cost of road accidents not only upon the State but, through the insurers and the insured, upon the entire community. He can then set that "outgo" against the outlay required to make all roads, old and new, as safe as can be. What is more, he can emphasise the need to speed up paper work, cutting out red tape and ensuring that, at all levels, individuals in the Department are conscious of their responsibilities in this respect. As the noble Lord, Lord Beeching, as President of RoSPA, said at the recent annual conference: Let there be diligence in removing hazards.

The new Highways Bill saves me from taking up more of your Lordships' time on the Department. The Minister for Local Government and Development in introducing the Bill in another place, said: Anyone embarking upon even a modest measure of highway reform would wish to achieve five objects. First, to make the highways safer; secondly, to build the highways quicker; thirdly, to keep the highways better; fourthly, to make people's participation in the planning of highways simpler; and, fifthly, to make compensation for adjoining owners fair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Commons, 8/12/70, col. 273.] By the way, the Bill does not extend to Scotland and it will be interesting to know what the Government's intentions may be as regards Scotland.

The Minister's fourth and fifth points bring me to what I regard as the main burden of my speech. I hope it is not being a burden, but your Lordships know what I mean. I trust that your Lordships will bear with me if I dilate upon what is a rather bird's eye view of the future of road safety. Where does our civilisation stand in its attitude to the motorcar, the machine? We can accept that the speeding up of the provision of well-designed roads and the by-passing of towns and villages have a direct bearing on reducing accidents, especially to pedestrians and children. Traffic density is so important a factor in the incidence of accidents. There have been some interesting articles by Mr. Graham Jenkins in the 1969 issues of Housing and Planning Review on this wide subject.

But how is pressure to be taken off our roads and streets? Is the number of private cars to increase, portending in addition pollution of air and environment—a veritable Jaganath's car? One remedy is the segregation of traffic, and what does that mean? Does it mean the development of pedestrian-only precincts? Does it mean the expanded use of the public service vehicle, if not by compulsion by force of circumstances? In the A.A.'s publication Drive for the New Year, the Transport Minister is reported to have said: We are facing a steadily-growing vehicle population. It is inevitable, therefore, that some form of restraint, apart from the natural one of congestion, will have to be employed in many of our cities. All have their own particular problems and it is for city authorities to decide for themselves on the best measures to take. That is all very well, but the ability of city authorities to decide must surely be circumscribed if no orbital highway exists to by-pass a city's through traffic. Take, my Lords, the City of Edinburgh. The orbital highway, which has been planned for years but not completed, does not come under the City's authority at all, except for short lengths. That is the sort of factor which the D.o.E.—assuming that the Highways Bill will apply to Scotland—will help the authorities to straighten out.

Another method of traffic segregation is some measure of return to the use of the railways. In balancing the cost of accidents against possible preventive expenditure, is it going to be possible to redevelop railway services by reduced short-haul fares and freights, with day return and season tickets at rates competitive with the motor vehicle? Might not subsidies to this end be cheaper, not only in money but also in social terms, than some of the vast roads which threaten our land? One of the comparisons which I have been given is that a mile of motorway costs £12 million and a mile of Tube costs £5 million. With motor taxation amounting to £1,600 million a year, and road expenditure at, say, a third of that figure, is the balance being fairly allocated?

In conclusion, I should like to turn for a moment to my criticism of the Road Research Laboratory's Report. In my view, more weight might be given to the stationary vehicle and other obstructions as contributing to road accidents. I can leave speed limits, crash barriers, safety belts, headlights, eyesight tests, level crossings, driver training, dimensions of heavy vehicles, drivers' working hours, the need for additional police and so on, to be developed in the course of the debate. But I have a bee in my bonnet about stationary vehicles, and I propose to let it buzz. Collisions with such vehicles or collisions caused by avoiding them are killers, and more strenuous efforts by Press and broadcasting and publicity media should be brought to bear on the subject. Stoppages due to mechanical failure or, worse still, adverse weather conditions; stoppages for the delivery of goods; the travelling shop, or simply the inconsiderate halting on bends or blind rises, do not seem to be regarded by the offenders as the deadly risks which they are. I sometimes think that the patrols of the motoring associations might do more to help by drawing the attention of offenders to their iniquity. I gather from a report that Government regulations are in preparation for improved distinctive painting and rear lighting of commercial vehicles, and perhaps the Minister can give us an indication of what he has in mind.

So far so good. This also covers the possibility of the red triangle which can be put out when a vehicle is stopped, and which is obligatory in Italy, at least. But there are other lethal obstructions, of which hole-diggery is one—a lovely word which I have culled from the B.B.C. in Scotland. Hole-diggery is bad enough, and it is to be better controlled under the Highways Bill; but can something be done now to make it incumbent upon persons who put up temporary signs "Road Works", "Traffic lights ahead" or the ubiquitous exclamation mark (a very satisfactory one)—to take them down or to obscure them when the danger ceases to exist, even temporarily? As it is, these signs are brought into contempt. Far too many are left in position when there is no danger.

The other stationary obstacle of which we shall hear more, I have no doubt, is the pile-up in fog—expensive, but not proportionately lethal; and I refer your Lordships to page 45 of the Report, which was a little bit of a surprise to me, I must say. Despite the fog warning lights on motorways, these multiple accidents seem to continue, and one suggestion I have received from a correspondent for whose skill and experience I have the greatest respect (and, what is more, he is a master mariner) is that the police might be equipped with a pyrotechnic flare which they can set off in the event of a pile-up to create a red glow up through the fog which would be visible for many miles in all directions. This need not be, of course, at the focal centre of the pile-up, which it is often impossible for the police to reach easily.

However, my Lords, whatever the technical artifice, whatever the road safety device, it remains that the ultimate responsibility for road safety rests with each individual driver; and I would end with an apposite tongue-twister from another correspondent with wide and inter-continental experience. I quote him: Do not say to yourself, 'I shall overtake now because I cannot see anything coming'. Let it be, instead, 'It is safe to overtake now because I can see that there is nothing coming'". My Lords, I commend the Road Research Laboratory's Report to your Lordships' notice, and I look forward to this debate confident, as I said when I began, that the proceedings in your Lordships' House will make a significant contribution to the nation-wide consideration of this desperately important problem. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.

3.34 p.m.

LORD AIREDALE

My Lords, having regard to the length of the list of speakers I propose to confine my observations to one topic only, which happens to be the penultimate topic of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier—the spectacular multiple crashes on motorways in fog. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord say that these were expensive but not proportionately lethal. However lethal is the multiple crash in fog, it certainly needs to be dealt with, and I believe there is one way of dealing with it. I believe that the civilian population in peace time would readily accept that discipline which was imposed upon Service vehicle drivers in wartime when faced with the problem of driving their vehicles through the wartime blackout—which, after all, was not all that dissimilar from the problem of driving through fog.

There was a perfectly simple rule imposed which every soldier could readily understand. It was simply that you had to drive your vehicle in such a way that you could stop within the distance which you could see in front of you. If you ran into something in front of you, whether a stationary obstruction or a vehicle which you had been following which was slowing down, you were charged with an offence, and it was a serious offence. It was not an offence as to which your commanding officer had power to deal with you: it was automatically a court-martial offence. It was very nearly automatically a court-martial conviction, too, because the number of total brake failures on vehicles is infinitesimally small; therefore it was almost certainly a court-martial conviction if you ran into something in front of you.

My Lords, by that token, whenever at the present time 70 vehicles have a pile-up on a motorway in this country, I should like to see 69 prosecutions, and I believe there would be 69 virtually certain convictions by the magistrates. I would not go further and say that there should be 69 swingeing and savage penalties imposed, because I do not believe that is necessary. I think that by the time he has smashed up his car and lost his no-claims bonus, has given himself a very bad shaking, and probably somebody else, too, if not worse than that, the average person has probably learnt his lesson; but I think there should be 69 disqualifications from driving for a period, because this is the punishment which people go to really great lengths to avoid. The wealthy man is not really very concerned with the prospect of a fine, however heavy; but a disqualification, which interferes so much with their social as well as their working lives, is what people really go to great lengths to avoid. If this discipline were begun to be imposed upon the civilian population to-day, as it was in war time, in the blackout, on soldier drivers, I believe it would go a very long way towards ending this appalling holocaust of multiple crashes in fog on the motorways.

3.38 p.m.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I should like first of all to thank the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, for introducing this Motion to-day, and for giving the House the opportunity to discuss this very important subject. The problem of road safety is one which, quite rightly, lies outside the sphere of political controversy. There is no dispute about the aim of containing and reducing the horrifying toll of accidents and casualties on our roads, and, though opinions differ on the policies we should pursue, differences are practical rather than ideological. My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Indus-ties is at present undertaking a review of road safety measures, including proposals made in the past and new ones put forward. I can assure noble Lords that any suggestions which may be made will be drawn to my right honourable friend's attention, and that he and his Department will give them the most careful study. I thought it might assist the House if I confined myself to looking at the pattern of accidents—who gets hurt, when and where—and to saying something about what has been and is being done to tackle them. My noble friend Lord Sandford, who will be speaking later, will try to look to the future and to deal with questions which noble Lords have raised.

First, to look in more detail at the accident situation, no one could deny its gravity. Last year, 352,894 people were injured on the roads, 7,365 fatally and 90,719 seriously. As the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, public opinion was rightly horrified by the tragedy at Ibrox Park. I have no wish to minimise that catastrophe, but I, too, should like to point out that more people are killed on the roads in four ordinary days.

A minimum estimate of the economic cost to the nation of road accidents is £320 million a year, and it is increasing each year.

What are the underlying factors? First, there is the inexorable rise in the number of motor vehicles. There are now about 6 million more vehicles on the road than there were ten years ago—a rise of no less than 74 per cent.—and motor vehicle mileage has risen by some 88 per cent. Casualties, too, have risen but less sharply: deaths in 1969 were 13 per cent. higher than in 1959 and casualties of all kinds were 6 per cent. higher. The fact that accidents have increased more slowly than traffic is due to an appreciable extent to the changing composition of traffic, particularly a decline in the use of motorcycles and bicycles. Though these are very useful vehicles when ridden with proper care, the fact remains that their riders are very vulnerable. A motorcyclist is, mile for mile, about twenty times as likely to be killed as a car driver (even allowing for age he is something like five times as likely to be killed), and a pedal cyclist is about ten times as likely to be killed. The switch from motorcycles and cycles to cars has thus by itself brought about an improvement in the level of accidents, but it is not one than can be expected to continue indefinitely.

A major feature of the casualty figures is the increasing proportion of young people who are killed or injured. Ten years ago, people under 25 accounted for 21 per cent. of all casualties. Last year, the proportion was 35 per cent. To some extent this is because of the trend to a younger driving population and because more young people to-day own or have access to a vehicle than was the case ten years ago. We may expect this trend to continue. But it is disturbing to note that all the indications are that young drivers and motor cyclists have a higher propensity to be involved in accidents than do the middle-aged, and that their injuries are more likely to be fatal or serious.

I must draw attention also to the problem of pedestrian casualties, which in number are second only to casualties to car users. Last year, 83,000 pedestrians were injured, 27,000 of them fatally or seriously. No less than 40 per cent. of fatal and serious pedestrian casualties last year were under 15 years of age and, of all pedestrians, children between the ages of five and nine run by far the highest risk of death or serious injury. Last year, there was a welcome drop in child casualties, but the fact remains that 866 children were killed and over 15,000 seriously injured. Until last year, the number of children killed or seriously injured had risen continuously for eleven years.

Two final points. The upward trend of casualties was checked mainly in the last three years after the Road Safety Act, 1967, came into operation—and, in fact, casualty levels are still below what they were in 1966, even though traffic is some 10 per cent. higher. This reduction is due in large measure to the drink and driving provisions of the Act, which are still working well. During the last complete year of the operation of the Act (October, 1969— September, 1970), casualties between the hours of 10 p.m. and 4 a.m. were still 18 per cent. below the level in the last corresponding period before the Act came into force. Second, the problem of road accidents is common to every modern society. International comparisons in this field can be misleading, because of the very different conditions in each country and the different bases on which countries produce their statistics. But it may serve to put matters in perspective if I say that taking one basis of comparison—deaths per 1,000 vehicles in 1968, which is the latest year for which figures are available—Great Britain, with 0.49 deaths per 1,000 vehicles licensed, had the lowest rate in Western Europe.

I turn next to the measures which have been taken or are in hand. These fall into three main categories, in so far as they apply to roads, people and vehicles. Any programme which is designed to make the best use of our resources must involve measures of all three kinds, though the balance between them needs to be kept under continuous review as the pattern of accidents changes and new advances become possible. To take vehicles first, standards of safety in design and performance have risen markedly in recent years: for example, lighting, brakes, tyres, and driver visibility are better on to-day's models than on those of ten years ago. Both manufacturers and Government have contributed to these improvements. For instance, since April, 1968, all vehicles have been required to have tyres with a minimum tread depth of 1 millimetre. Further improvements are continuously being studied and brought into effect. From the beginning of this year, long lorries are required to carry two spaced amber reflectors on each side. From November this year, heavy vehicles will be required to have new reflective yellow and red fluorescent rear marking, which should reduce the risk of vehicles running into the back of these lorries. This point has already been made in the debate. On the so-called secondary safety measures, draft regulations have recently been published which would require seat belts to be so designed and fitted that they can be put on and adjusted with one hand.

In addition to vehicle requirements there has been, particularly in more recent years, a wide range of maintenance requirements laid down by the Government. In recent years the Government have in some cases led the industry by requiring the fitting of features designed to protect vehicle occupants from injury (for example, seat belts) which would probably not have become standard fittings as quickly if no more than commercial considerations had been taken into account. This departure from the criteria of commercial interest where new features can be costly puts a high premium on the ability to assess the cost-effectiveness of proposed new measures. The Department is continually trying to improve its techniques for making this kind of assessment, and draws on research, at the Road Research Laboratory, in industry here and overseas.

Next, there are measures to make the roads themselves safer. Improved roads unquestionably make a major contribution to a reduction in road accidents. Dramatic improvements can of course be obtained from major schemes: the injury accident rate for motorways is less than one-third, and that for dual carriageways one-half, that for rural Class "A" roads carrying two-way traffic. But small improvements at selected sites can often produce very favourable results at low cost. Traffic management schemes can often be just as useful in helping to solve safety problems as in reducing congestion, and properly designed schemes can help the pedestrian as well as the motorist. The Department's area road safety units continue to make it their main task to assist local authorities in assessing the contribution that any of these measures may make to accident prevention on the basis of local knowledge and of detailed analysis of the local accident situation. In due course it is hoped that all major authorities will undertake accident investigation and analysis as an integral part of their planning of expenditure on roads.

Third, and most difficult of all, is the education and training of the road user. I am convinced that this is the area where most attention will be needed. The road users' problems are becoming steadily more complex: roads are busier; street parking, particularly near junctions, makes the pedestrian's life extremely hazardous. Traffic management schemes help to reduce accidents but require new knowledge on the part of the road user if they are to be fully effective. As the road environment becomes more demanding, it is essential that there should be a corresponding improvement in our skill and attitudes and in the extent and quality of road safety education and training.

The responsibility for child safety lies, obviously, mainly with parents. It is a depressing fact that last year no fewer than 3,991 children aged five or under were killed or seriously injured on the roads. One wonders what these children were doing and how many of them could have been saved by adult supervision. We have to accept that this is not an easy area in which to work, and not one where significant advances are likely to be made in the short term, particularly since for some children there is no alternative playground than the street. But I should like to see much more done to bring home to parents their responsibility.

Schools provide the right atmosphere and facilities for inducing an understanding of the wide range of road safety problems that a child must face. Much has already been achieved in the primary schools through the work of road safety officers and the police, with the support of the Department and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. An increasing number of secondary schools (now more than 10 per cent.) are providing pre-driver or driver training for their pupils. Pre-driver training is normally directed at 14 to 15-year olds, and generally includes theoretical tuition in driving skills and techniques; instruction in traffic signs, traffic law and the Highway Code; explanation of the problems facing motorists and common accident situations; and possibly some off-the-road practical driving. It is aimed mainly at inculcating responsible attitudes to driving and helping the pupil to acquire the background knowledge he will later need as a driver.

Driver training, on the other hand, centres on practical instruction in the car, both off the road and also on it, and naturally has to be directed at 17–18-year olds. To help headmasters and others who are thinking of beginning pre-driver and driver training courses the Department issued a booklet in 1969 called Driver Training for Young People. My right honourable friend's Department is helping to support a research project at Salford University designed to evaluate this pre-driver and driver training. So far as I am aware, this is the first attempt in any country to conduct a proper evaluation of this kind of training.

Another most promising development has been the National Cycling Proficiency Scheme started in 1958 by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents at the request of the Department, both as a means of making child cyclists safer on the roads and also teaching them the road user skills they will continue to need in later life. The scheme operates through local authorities. Police officers, school teachers, members of voluntary organisations and individual volunteers serve as instructors, the standard of training being supervised by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. The children are given practical training in simple cycle maintenance, riding control and the Highway Code. Films and other training aids are available and the Society produces a wide range of literature, both for instructors and children. The estimated number of children enrolled for training his risen from 150,000 in 1959 to 272,000 in 1969. The number of children passing the approved test on completion of training has also increased steadily from 100,027 in 1959 to 181,326 in 1969. During the 11 years in which the scheme has been in operation the numbers of road casualties among child cyclists, which had been increasing in the 1950s, have fallen appreciably. We consider that training should now be made freely available for children of 7 and 8 and that they should be encouraged to train again under the existing scheme after they are 9. The number of children who will in the next few years become eligible for training will require a progressive expansion of the scheme to a target of over 500,000 by 1974, but I am sure that this investment will prove to be well worth while.

Training for older road users can also be valuable. Motorcyclists are an example. As I have already said, the motorcycle is essentially a much more vulnerable machine than a car. The rider must constantly maintain his balance; he has no protection other than his clothing in the event of an accident; he is exposed to weather which may make it difficult for him to see, and his machine is not easily seen by others. Attempts to make the machine safer are continuing; and it is encouraging that about two-thirds of the riders now wear crash helmets. But, even so, motor-cycle riders sustain nearly as many fatal and serious injuries as car drivers, although there are about ten times as many cars licensed as there are motor-cycles and the motor-cyclists' share in total motor vehicle mileage is now only 2 per cent. Comparatively few new riders take any training before venturing on to the roads, and we are anxious to see more of them do so. The Royal Automobile Club and the Auto-Cycle Union has for many years, with the help of a Government grant, run a joint scheme which is based on motor-cycle clubs throughout the country, and I believe that very great credit is due to them for undertaking this work.

Driver standards—by which I mean not only technical competence but behaviour and attitudes—are of vital importance. A good deal of progress has been made. For example, a new and searching test has been introduced for drivers of heavy goods vehicles. This sets a standard, which was often missing before, at which the industry's driver training schemes now have to aim. Ordinary driving tuition has been given a shape through the Ministry's Register of Approved Driving Instruction, inclusion on which is now compulsory for all professional car-driving instructors. This involves passing written and practical examinations about driving and tuition techniques and subsequent checking by my right honourable friend's Department.

Again, in 1969 the former Ministry of Transport published its manual, Driving, which I am sure many of your Lordships will have read and which is full of sound advice aimed at improving and maintaining driving standards. And to support the various training and educational measures my right honourable friend's Department has for the last three years undertaken a sustained publicity campaign designed to increase the road user's knowledge of hazards and how to deal with them and to introduce a more positive attitude to road safety. It has included such features as care in overtaking and turning right, pedestrian safety and the wearing of seat belts.

Finally, I should mention the organisational side of road safety activity. The Government's role in road safety is primarily to get the right framework of law and regulation, the allocation of national resources to research, making the environment safer and encouraging the individual to become a better informed and a safer user of the road. I should like to stress the importance of creating the right environment. Many accidents occur because our town and city centres were not laid out to cope with the volume and type of traffic which has descended on them. Properly planned redevelopment can do a great deal to remove the conflict and danger which are such a common feature of urban life.

Local authorities have a large part to play in this process. The primary planning responsibility is theirs, and as much responsibility as possible for traffic and safety regulation has been, or is being, given to local authorities, subject to the overall responsibility of my right honourable friend to ensure high standards. The creation of the Department of the Environment under my right honourable friend the Secretary of State to unify Government functions which affect people's living environment indicates the importance which the Government attach to a co-ordinated approach. The Department and its regional organisations—the Divisional Road Engineers and the Road Safety Units—are ready to help with guidance and advice; and, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, will certainly give any clarion call which is necessary. But, of course, many other bodies are involved—the police, schools, the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, the motoring organisations, the Press and broadcasting authorities, as well as the voluntary efforts of industry, chambers of commerce and individuals. I would pay tribute to the many organisations and individuals who have contributed to what has been achieved and whose co-operation and enthusiasm will be so much needed to meet the problems of the future. We all use the roads, and a safety programme will get nowhere without the understanding and cooperation of the public.

THE EARL OF ARRAN

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask whether he would agree that the number of deaths on the roads in 1968 was for the first time higher than in 1934, omitting the war years, despite the 700 per cent. increase in vehicles since that date? I know that the figures are shocking, but I merely wanted to get the facts.

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I cannot comment on the figures which the noble Earl gave for 1968; perhaps my noble friend Lord Sandford will be able to do so later.