|
Mr. Jamieson: The new clause would increase the speed limit from 40 mph to 50 mph on single carriageway roads. However, it is phrased in such a way as to cover only rigid vehicles drawing one trailer, where the aggregate weight exceeds 7.5 tonnes. I think that the hon. Member for Christchurch may have intended to cover all vehicles of more than 7.5 tonnes.
Mr. Chope: If that is the only objection that the Minister has to my new clause, I am very relieved.
Mr. Jamieson: Oh no, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will not be as lucky as that this afternoon.
I acknowledge the importance of the transport industry to the UK economy. Moving goods around
Column Number: 338
rapidly is important, particularly with the ''just in time'' principle that many companies work on these days. I also accept that allowing vehicles to travel faster could improve some journey times in some cases. There are two questions: first, to what extent being able to travel at 50 mph rather than 40 mph would decrease journey times; and secondly, whether one can do so safely.
4.45 pm
Mr. Knight: Did the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 impose that speed limit, or was it a codifying piece of legislation, with the speed limit imposed at an earlier date? When were such vehicles subject to the 40 mph speed limit? What is the comparable speed limit for those vehicles in France and Germany?
Mr. Jamieson: That is some extra technical information to get hold of before we complete. It may even be coming to me now. Right, it says, ''No, I don't know. Have to write.'' There we are. All the gathered intelligence in the Room cannot tell us, so I shall jot a note to the right hon. Gentleman.
The 40 mph speed limit for heavy goods vehicles on single carriageways exists for a purpose. Even with the technological advances in braking systems and tyres, heavy goods vehicles take longer to stop than cars travelling at the same speed. Whereas an HGV travelling at 40 mph could pull up in time to avoid hitting a car travelling at 60 mph which was stopping in an emergency, an HGV driver is unlikely to do so if his vehicle is travelling any faster.
Even at the current 40 mph speed limit, the HGV accident involvement rate on single carriageway rural roads is 45 per cent. higher than for cars. If the HGV speed limit were to be increased, all the evidence points to the fact that it would result in more casualties. Notwithstanding the constituency of the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross, which is perhaps atypical—I do not mean that unkindly—because it is a rural area and has few major roads, for most of the time and most of the journey, HGV drivers will be expected to be on major trunk roads or motorways, where they travel at a maximum of 60 mph. Usually, the single lane road would form the smallest part of the journey. We do not expect HGVs in general to travel long distances on minor roads, except in some circumstances in England and in parts of Wales and Scotland.
The hon. Member for Christchurch referred to safety and accident records. We looked at a sample of 632 overtaking accidents on single carriageway roads between 1999 and 2001 where the identity of the overtaken vehicle was known. Some 44 of those incidents, which is only 7 per cent., involved vehicles overtaking HGVs. By far the majority of overtaking casualties—43 per cent—involved vehicles overtaking cars. So the numbers are not large.
I said in my letter that people might be irritated, and I stand by that, but if we are irritated it does not give us an excuse to do something that puts our life and other people's lives at risk. Attractive as the new clause may sound, in road safety terms I must ask the Committee to vote against the motion if it is put to a vote.
Column Number: 339
Mr. Chope: I certainly shall not push the matter to a vote, because the new clause does not go as far as I had intended, as the Minister realised. He quoted some statistics and promised to provide my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire with some data, so with that information we may want to revisit the subject.
The point made by the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross was the one that I had very much in mind when I drafted the new clause. If it had been possible to limit it to A roads, it would have probably overcome some of the Government's concerns. Again, if one limits it to A roads, however, one has a definitional problem, because some of them are of a much lower standard than others.
Frankly, the Minister is not on to a good point about the stopping distances, because it is incumbent upon heavy goods vehicles to travel at a safe distance from the vehicle in front. That is what we expect them to do, although the way many of them travel on the motorways, it defies belief that they could ever stop in time. However, that is another story and we shall not get into that now. We have had a short and interesting debate, but time is pressing on. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New clause 15
MOTORCYCLES IN BUS LANES
'All bus lanes when buses are moving in the same direction as traffic in the adjacent vehicle lane shall be open to use by motorcycles.'. —[Mr. Chope.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Chope: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
We had sort of curtain-raiser for the new clause last night at the all-party reception with the Motor Cycle Industry Association and other motor cycle groups. I was delighted that, when I drew the attention of those present to new clause 15, it received overwhelming support. It also enjoys the support of the Liberal Democrats, which is a bonus.
Mr. Wilshire: All of them?
Mr. Chope: Well, certainly the two who were at that event. It would probably depend on the way the pendulum swings, so I take my hon. Friend's point. However, I am grateful for their support because in the Minister's peroration on the last debate, he said that, in road safety terms, he could not concede on this. Yet in road safety terms he must allow the new clause to go through. There is overwhelming evidence that allowing motorised two-wheelers to use bus lanes improves road safety. That is the clear finding of the Transport for London survey, which shows that there has been about a 20 per cent. reduction in accidents, despite an increase in the use of bus lanes when motor cycles have been allowed to use them.
I will say no more about the matter, as the case for doing what I suggest is overwhelming. There needs to be a national standard. Otherwise, it is very confusing if we leave it to each local authority—or within London, to each borough—to decide for itself. The
Column Number: 340
local authorities in Colchester and Peterborough have already done what I suggest, and people are thinking of doing it in Essex. If it is a good thing in some areas, why not in all areas? Surely, in the name of road safety, we should now make it a national standard.
John Thurso: We did, indeed, have the curtain-raiser for the new clause yesterday. I can confirm its provisions represent a long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment, for which we were happy to reiterate our support. The arguments have been put and there are many other important new clauses to get on to. One point that I would pick up on is that a number of local authorities have already gone ahead with this provision. Rather than wait for it to come in piecemeal, authority by authority, let us get on and do it nationally.
Mr. Jamieson: A long-standing Liberal Democrat commitment is usually the time it takes to get from one doorstep to the next. Of course, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, that could take a considerable period of time, whereas in my constituency it does not take long at all—although in my constituency we have abolished the Liberals, so we do not have the problem that we had there some years ago.
The purpose of designated bus lanes is to give priority to buses and other classes of traffic. The more that other motorised vehicles have a statutory right to use them, the more their purpose can become devalued. However, I am very sympathetic to the principle of improving facilities for motor cyclists, including their use of bus lanes. Some local authorities have allowed motor cyclists to use bus lanes, and the Secretary of State has permitted motor cycles and licensed taxis to use the M4 bus lane. That was a sensible and welcome move. However, there are concerns for the safety of other road users, in particular cyclists and pedestrians. We are awaiting the results of trials allowing motor cycles into bus lanes in London and Swindon before revising the guidance, which recommends that motor cycles are not normally allowed to use bus lanes. I understand that Transport for London has extended its trial by 18 months, as it wants more evidence before it makes it a permanent feature.
I was at the all-party reception last night, and I saw a flash of inspiration come over the hon. Member for Christchurch because he thought that in allowing motor cycles into bus lanes he had found a Tory policy that was actually popular. What he did not tell us, however, was that generally the Conservatives are opposed to bus lanes. If it were not for Labour Members, there would not be any bus lanes for the motor cycles to use. Some time in this debate, I would be interested to hear—
The Chairman: Order. The Minister must keep to the new clause.
Mr. Jamieson: I am sorry, Mr. Pike. I was responding to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman.
In Birmingham, for example, where one bus lane has been taken out for a good reason, I am told that the Tory local authority has no intention of putting it
Column Number: 341
back. There will be no motor cycles in that lane. We must take careful note of what the hon. Gentleman said last night. I hope that the motor cycle fraternity will bear it in mind, as they cast their votes for the new, popular Tory policy, that the Tories may be in favour of motor cycles in bus lanes, but they are not in favour of bus lanes.
| 
