§ Mr. ROBINSONasked the Minister of Transport whether he has any evidence as to the success of the experiments with silence zones; whether there is any information as to the increased safety of road transport resulting from this experiment; and if it is sufficient to justify the general prohibition of the use of motor 656W horns and other noisy indications of approach?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAYes, Sir. The institution of the silent zone has met with overwhelming approval. It was not primarily instituted to promote safety, but to increase the opportunities for rest and recuperation of workers and the sick respectively. Evidence goes to show that this purpose has been achieved without any increase in the number of accidents being attributable to the new regulation. In reply to the last part of the question, I am not at the moment prepared to make the prohibition general.
§ Mr. McKEAGasked the Minister of Transport how many people have been convicted during the last three years of failing to give audible warning of their approach or failing to have their vehicles fitted with a proper instrument enabling them to do so; and whether, in view of the new orders regarding silence on the roads, it is proposed to repeal Section 59 (b) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and to withdraw Nos. 15 and 72 of the Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) Regulations, 1931, which prescribe these offences?
§ Mr. HORE-BELISHAThe figures for which the hon. Member asks are not available. The Regulations prohibiting the use of motor horns during the night hours make the necessary modifications in existing Regulations. Section 59 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act does not relate to motor vehicles at all, and no question of its repeal therefore arises.