HL Deb 13 February 1984 vol 448 cc3-4

2.41 p.m.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, I beg to leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Question was as follows:

To ask Her Majesty's Government for how many seconds it is necessary to remain strapped in one's seat-belt after a heavy impact in order to secure the maximum benefit of this device.

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, in a single head-on collision, less than one second; but it may be greater where the accident sequence is prolonged, such as when there is more than one impact or the vehicle rolls over.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer. I would ask him whether he is aware that there is still considerable anxiety among those who support the general principle of seat-belts lest further and avoidable injury be caused by the delay in releasing the mechanism. In view of what the noble Lord has just said, would it not be reasonable to ask him to be good enough to direct at least part of the research effort of his department into manufacturing some reliable and simple timing device whereby a passenger or driver could be released after the worst effect of the impact?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, I take careful note of what the noble Lord. Lord Diamond, has said, and I can tell him that research is continuing both in Europe and in this country on automatic release systems; but these have not proved to be as effective as the conventional belt. The noble Lord may wish to know that in those accidents which have been the subject of intensive study it has been established that the people involved in the accident have in fact taken some 30 or 40 seconds to collect their thoughts after the accident and, at that time, to release themselves.

Lord Mow bray and Stourton

My Lords, if, as my noble friend has indicated, the second crash which takes place is more likely to be from behind, because, if you crash into the vehicle in front, the following vehicle is likely to crash into you from behind, will Her Majesty's Government consider neck rests to prevent the head from being thrown back because of the impact from behind?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

My Lords, it is true that a secondary accident may be more damaging than the first accident, which normally takes place at about 30 m.p.h. Whether head restraints or neck rests, as my noble friend calls them, are entirely necessary is a matter which is still undergoing evaluation.

Lord Diamond

My Lords, does not the very important piece of information which the Minister has been good enough to give us—namely, that it takes on average 40 seconds before a person in a car gathers his thoughts sufficiently to release himself—make it clear that that period is quite sufficient for the person in question to be burned to death or drowned in a car which has fallen off a jetty or something like that? Therefore, ought not the Minister to use renewed efforts in terms of researching for some device which would automatically avoid this further disaster?

Lord Lucas of Chilworth

No, my Lords. That does not follow, because in the study of 3,000 accidents—and I refer to the Transport and Road Research Laboratory Report 811—only three occupants in the whole of the survey were in vehicles which caught fire and only one occupant was in a vehicle which was submerged in water. Of the three which caught fire, only one was trapped in his vehicle and, in fact, he had died before the fire started. In the case of the submerged car, the driver escaped and spent nine days in hospital before dying of a lung infection. The two do not follow.