HC Deb 24 November 1925 vol 188 cc1186-8W
Sir W. de FRECE

asked the Minister of Transport the numbers of omnibus accidents in the Metropolitan area during, the last three years, indicating in how many instances vehicles belonging to the London General Omnibus Company were involved and in how many instances omnibuses of independent ownership?

RETURN showing the number of accidents to persons and property known to Metropolitan Police to have been caused in the streets by motor omnibuses during the years shown:—

Year. Number of Accidents.
1922 … 3,432
1923 … 6,875
1924 … 8,670
1925 (10 months, October) … 6,826

These figures can only be classified as to ownership of omnibuses concerned in those cases in which fatal or non-fatal injuries arose. Where damage to property only is involved particulars are not available to enable such classification to be made.

The following Return shows the number of Injuries (fatal and non-fatal) which have occurred during the periods above mentioned and indicates the Proprietors owning the omnibuses. These figures form a portion of the total of the accidents referred to above.

1922. 1923. 1924. 10 months ending October 1925.
Fatal. Injuries. Fatal. Injuries. Fatal. Injuries. Fatal. Injuries.
London General Omnibus Company.
47 1,270 77 2,329 104 2,355 68 1,750
Independent Ownership.
13 344 24 500 50 988 49 1,232

Mr. GROVES

asked the Minister of Transport whether his attention has been called to the fact that on 4th October a double-decked motor omnibus skidded 50 yards along the road, between Rochester and Gravesend, and all the passengers inside the vehicle were cut by pieces of broken glass; and whether he will consider the question of making it an obligation upon the proprietors of all passenger-carrying public vehicles to instal non-splinterable glass, thus ensuring a greater degree of public safety?

Lieut.-Colonel ASHLEY

My attention has already been drawn to this accident. As I have previously informed the hon. Member, I am anxious to encourage the use of some form of unsplinterable glass in public-service vehicles, but I am advised that, for reasons of cost, it would not for the present be practicable to make its use compulsory.

Mr. LOCKER-LAMPSON

I have been asked to reply, and will, with my hon. Friend's permission, circulate a statistical table in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the table promised: