EMERGENCY SPEED LIMITS (Hansard, 29 January 1974)

§ BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
No, my Lords. The 50 m.p.h. limit was introduced as a fuel economy measure and my right honourable friend considers that it should continue for the time being.

§ BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his reply, may I ask him whether he would agree that although a majority of motorists are complying with the restrictions, either for reasons of patriotism or because the increased price is a deterrent to unnecessary motoring, there are many motorists who have to get from point A to point B as speedily as possible in the interests of their job, their employers, and often of their country?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I fully appreciate that the limit may be inconvenient to many motorists who cannot use other means of transport, but this is a measure to conserve fuel during a time of shortage.

§ LORD MOYNE
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether there may not be a case for continuing this speed limit, which has proved very popular with less nimble pedestrians and less impetuous motorists alike, and also whether there are as yet any significant figures to show any fall in the number of fatal accidents since the 50 m.p.h. limit was imposed?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, it is too early for us to have figures which are accurate and statistically proper so I cannot give those to my noble friend. With regard to his first and major question, the answer is that it would be wrong to continue for other reasons something which was introduced for a specific purpose, which I think motorists understand. To try to continue it for other reasons would probably not meet with 167 their consent and we should be encouraging them to break the law.

§ LORD AVEBURY
My Lords, surely it would not be wrong to continue with a measure which has already resulted in the saving of a great many human lives and has reduced the number of casualties on our roads significantly, according to figures which have already been published and are available to the House. Before the noble Lord makes a final decision on this matter, will he call for the most up-to-date and accurate statistics that are available and then make a Statement to the House on those figures, so that we may judge accordingly whether the limit should be maintained?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, as I told my noble friend a moment ago, there are no figures which are at all accurate. I think we should all agree that because there are fewer cars, and because people are travelling more slowly, there are probably fewer accidents. But there are other points to be taken into account, such as that mentioned by my noble friend Lady Macleod of Borve. The 50 m.p.h. limit is inconvenient to many people; people's time is money; money is trade, and we are a trading nation. Safer driving does not necessarily have to coincide with one speed: it may be that over 70 m.p.h. is not a safe speed but that in the long run 50 m.p.h. is too slow.

§ VISCOUNT HANWORTH
My Lords, would not the Minister agree that it might be more effective in reducing accidents if we imposed a universal 20 m.p.h. speed limit?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, the noble Viscount might well suggest that we should go back to horses: that would be safer still.

§ BARONESS SUMMERSKILL
My Lords, is it not a fact that there have been reports from hospitals that the number of motoring accidents has been reduced?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I think there is a general indication to that effect, but whether the reduction is because of the lower speed or because fewer people are motoring we do not know. However, there are other aspects to this question, as I have pointed out.

§ LORD SEGAL
My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is better to travel hopefully than to arrive, as this Government have so repeatedly demonstrated?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord.

§ LORD CROOK
My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is fortunate for some people that they are able to travel by car, while others have all the trouble of trying to travel by rail?

§ LORD BLYTON
My Lords, does not the noble Lord consider that if the Government were to travel at the maximum speed limit to settle the miners' dispute the roads of our country could become racing tracks?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I think the noble Lord, Lord Blyton, would agree that that is another question.

§ LORD ALLERTON
My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that petrol consumption—and presumably the object of this legislation is to reduce the consumption of petrol—is dependent much more upon the width of the throttle opening than on the actual speed of the vehicle? Would not he agree that once the vehicle has gained momentum there can be very little difference between the amounts of petrol consumed at 50 m.p.h. and at 70 m.p.h.

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I should not like to bandy words with my noble friend on the technicalities, but the general indication is that with the average family car—which is what we are talking about, although it may not be what my noble friend drives—the saving is of the order of some 8 miles per gallon.

§ LORD POPPLEWELL
My Lords, will the noble Lord publish figures of the road accidents which have taken place since the imposition of the 50 m.p.h. limit as compared with a similar period before the imposition of this limit?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, that I am not trying to dodge the question. As I have already said twice before, the figures are not available at the moment. This exercise has been introduced primarily not to reduce accidents but to conserve fuel.

§ LORD POPPLEWELL
My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the figures are not available, is he aware that we look with grave suspicion on that statement? Although the publication of these figures was stopped some two years ago, we hear from various chief constables and safety authorities in various parts of the country that the accident rate has been reduced in consequence of the reduced speed limit.

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I told the noble Baroness, Lady Summerskill, just now that there are indications of a reduction in accidents; but I am speaking on behalf of the Government, and official statistics are not yet available to the Government. I repeat that this is not the object of the exercise.

§ BARONESS EMMET OF AMBERLEY
My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he thinks this is the right moment to discuss this particular question, which is only a temporary measure introduced in an emergency?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I think my noble friend Lady Emmet of Amberley has hit the nail on the head. This is a temporary measure, to conserve fuel during a emergency.

§ LORD CROOK
My Lords, when the noble Lord talks about statistics, does he mean that the Government have not troubled to look at the figures issued by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, the 50 m.p.h. speed limit has been in force only since December 8, and we are now at the end of January. To obtain meaningful statistics takes a longer period than that.

VISCOUNT ST. DAVIDS
My Lords, has the noble Lord been surprised, as I have, having done a journey at a speed limit of 70 m.p.h. and then later having done that journey at the limit of 50 m.p.h. at the small amount of time lost when travelling at the slower speed?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, what the noble Viscount says might well be the case. I am not prepared 170 to answer whether it is or not. It depends on the type of road and on many other things. On the M roads the journey is going to be slower, on the ordinary roads there is not much difference.

§ LORD LEATHERLAND
My Lords, when the noble Lord issues these statistics will he take care to see they are more accurate than those of the coal stocks which have been issued by the Govern ment in the last year?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord, Lord Leatherland, that Her Majesty's Government never intentionally issue false figures.

§ BARONESS MACLEOD OF BORVE
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that motorists are grateful to this Government for not implementing the possibility of petrol rationing?

§ EARL HOWE
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a high compression engine can be seriously damaged by a speed of 50 m.p.h.? Is he further aware that consumption of petrol at 50 m.p.h. in some motor cars can be greater than that at 70 m.p.h.? Is he also aware that the difference in consumption between a speed of 50 m.p.h. and 60 m.p.h. is almost negligible? Would he take this point into consideration when the Government come to review this speed limit?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
My Lords, I must tell the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that I answered this question a moment ago. We are aware of the fact and are legislating for the majority. I accept from him that there may be the odd car which gets caught out, as my noble friend said.

§ EARL HOWE
My Lords, it is not the odd car.

§ LORD THOMAS
My Lords, when considering time saving, would the noble Lord agree that much more time could be saved by better traffic planning on suburban roads than in wide open motorways?

§ LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON
Yes, my Lords, but I think that is another question, too.