Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
|
Ms Sally Keeble (Northampton, North) (Lab): Is not the hon. Gentleman’s point that accident rates are not entirely dependent on speed limits? We know that in this country, because some of the roads that he mentioned, which in Northamptonshire, too, have high accident rates, do not have good lighting. They are rural roads. Many other factors must be taken into account, and he is not making an argument against the speeding issue at all. Mr. Paterson: I am touched that the hon. Lady was listening so carefully to our debate this morning. That is exactly what we were saying: circumstances and conditions decide accidents; it is not pure speed. All I am saying is that I could find no real evidence of any research in this country, and all I could dig out was some stuff from the United States. Her hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South queried whether I had any evidence, and I am giving the evidence that uniform and differential speed limits have made no huge difference either way. That was the lesson from the Wyoming legislative service office study. Mr. Harris: I apologise for interrupting the hon. Gentleman’s flow, because I am enjoying it. However, if the surveys and international comparisons from which he quotes conclude that there is no real difference one way or the other, and they suggest that a change will not improve road safety records, why does he argue for change—albeit accepting that it would not make them any worse? Mr. Paterson: That is exactly my point. I expected people from his point of view to be popping up, saying, “It is a scandalum magnatum to be talking about increasing any speeds at all.” My point is that from the international studies I am citing, change did not make any great difference either way. The studies are inconclusive, and that is an important point. Column Number: 52 It is worth listening to the industry professionals. It is perfectly fair to listen to them, because they have to live with the situation every day and hear from their drivers. Again, we run into our dear old friends, the speed cameras. I suspect that for years, as motors have got more powerful and drivers have developed more confidence in their braking systems, drivers have been going over 40 mph. Now they are being clocked more frequently by speed cameras, which make no distinction in relation to the conditions we rattled through this morning. That is becoming a real problem for the industry. The industry is convinced that drivers, whose jobs depend on this, are now being really careful; I cannot think of anyone who is more dependent on a clean licence than a commercial truck driver. They are now being ultra-prudent, which is frustrating car drivers who then overtake on single-lane roads at inappropriate moments. I received a letter from Roger King, the chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, which says:
That point is endorsed by the Freight Transport Association, which also picked up on the point about pollution. Chris Welsh of the FTA sent me a note and, on the question of pollution, said:
He continues:
Our contention is that the limit was set in the mists of time and truck technology has moved on. The advent of speed cameras has meant that truck drivers are now being extra cautious and are adhering very strictly to the 40 mph limit. That is leading to car drivers getting frustrated and an increase in head-on collisions when car drivers overtake at inappropriate moments on single-lane roads. There would be an efficiency gain and a safety gain if the speed limit for HGVs were increased from 40 to 50 mph. Column Number: 53 Mr. Harris: I want to make a few brief comments in response to the thoughtful and interesting comments made by the hon. Member for North Shropshire. I declare another interest: my father was an HGV driver for most of his working life. Fortunately, he was never involved in a serious accident despite the fact that he drove for his whole life with a very severe handicap because he had only one eye. Now is perhaps not the time to go into detail about the hours of fun my brothers and I used to have with the spare glass eyes in the sideboard when he was away driving long distance. He obviously took his job as an HGV driver extremely seriously and was an extremely careful driver, but I have to take issue with what the hon. Gentleman said about HGV drivers being extra cautious these days. At the start of the debate we heard from the Minister about his near-death experience on the M6 yesterday, when the vehicle he mentioned as having caused the accident was, unsurprisingly, an HGV. I would be interested at some point during these proceedings if we could have a figure from the Minister about the number of motorway accidents in particular that have been caused by HGVs rather than cars. That would possibly illuminate the discussion about exactly the kind of damage and deaths caused by trucks on the road rather than private cars. The hon. Gentleman talked about his main thrust being to increase the speed limit that HGVs have to adhere to, particularly on single-track roads. We have had the arguments before: because trucks have better braking systems, are more fuel efficient and are safer vehicles, they should be allowed to travel at a higher speed. Yet, presumably, any new regulation would apply to all vehicles, regardless of their age. Of course, they would all have to meet an MOT and the standards imposed by the Government, but to say that because the newest trucks are admittedly safer than older vehicles and therefore all vehicles should be allowed to drive at the higher rate is a dangerous argument. The hon. Gentleman talked of drivers losing patience, being stuck behind HGVs on a single-track road. I agree that a there is curious cultural phenomenon in this country; even when I am not in a particular hurry to go anywhere and have all the time in the world to get from A to B, as soon as I sit behind a wheel and get held up at a traffic light, I suddenly start to feel impatient. I wonder if, instead of pandering to that irrational instinct, we should be encouraging drivers, particularly new drivers, to learn patience and to understand that it is not all about how quickly one gets from A to B, but how safely. The hon. Gentleman talked about dangerous overtaking manoeuvres. That is something we should do everything we can to avoid, but we should not legislate to allow people to travel more quickly in order to alleviate their impatience. Surely the danger is that allowing such trucks to travel at 10 mph higher than they are currently travelling at is not going to make people less impatient? People will be more impatient to overtake, because 50 mph or 60 mph are never going to be enough for those drivers who see getting from A to B in the quickest possible time as the most important thing in their lives. Column Number: 54 The idea that British motorists throughout the country are suddenly going to feel relaxed about following a truck travelling at 50 mph instead of 40 mph is bogus. That will never happen until we change the culture of driving in this country to emphasise how important it is simply to have patience and to understand that the most important thing is not how quickly one goes from A to B, but how safely. At a later point perhaps we might discuss exactly how we can inculcate that new culture as part of the driving test. I will leave those comments for the time being. Mr. Carmichael: That was a most insightful contribution from the hon. Member for Glasgow, South, offering us a rare glimpse into the upbringing that has made him the man he is today. A childhood spent playing with glass eyes explains so much all of a sudden. I will deal first with amendments Nos. 55 and 56 in the name of the Conservative Front Bench and then speak to amendment No. 88 in my name. I would be reluctant to support amendments Nos. 55 and 56, the effect of which is to lower the floor for penalty points from two to one, unless a more comprehensive case were made. The construction of penalty points and the way in which that system operates, from a minimum and with 12 totting up to a period of disqualification, make me reluctant to accept any radical tinkering. I have some reservations about the reduction from three to two, and a reduction from three to one would be a step more than I would be prepared to countenance. 5.15 pmMr. Knight: Is not what the hon. Gentleman just said a contradiction in terms? He referred to radical tinkering. Surely it is either radical or tinkering. It cannot be both. Mr. Carmichael: The right hon. Gentleman may well be correct. For the record, I should say that it is a more radical change than I would be prepared to countenance. Amendment No. 88 would retain the minimum of three points for restricted roads, which are, in effect, those with a 30 mph limit. I hope that the amendment will find some sympathy with the Minister. He spoke this morning about educating the motoring public and changing attitudes. He said that we must start thinking of speeding as unacceptable in the way that drink-driving is unacceptable. We tabled the amendment because there is an attitude that just a bit over is somehow acceptable. We would say, and the Minister has already said, that in fact that is not acceptable. Roads that are designated as restricted tend to be in what are loosely called built-up areas. They are areas with housing, shops and schools, and many pedestrians and other non-motorised road users. In such circumstances, a reduction from three points to two does not send the correct signal. It would be preferable to retain a penalty point minimum of three for restricted roads—those with a 30 mph limit. Column Number: 55 I wish to say a few words about new clause 13. From all that the hon. Member for North Shropshire said, I presume that it is a probing amendment. It is one that I was inclined initially to dismiss out of hand, but the hon. Gentleman made some good points about the nature of the vehicles that are on the road now and the way in which technology has advanced. Of course, that change is not restricted to heavy goods vehicles; it also applies to private cars. However, before we took such a route, we would want more extensive and objective evidence than that which the hon. Gentleman supplied. The views of the Road Haulage Association and the Freight Transport Association—I believe that those were the two organisations that he mentioned—are interesting and instructive, but nobody would claim that they are disinterested bodies. There would be other reasons why they might welcome an increase of the sort that the hon. Gentleman proposes. I also take issue with the hon. Gentleman on the question of impatient motorists being forced to pull out and overtake. His argument can play on both sides—in favour or against. He seems to be suggesting that the impatience of other road users would end because heavy goods vehicles would be allowed to go from 40 mph to 50 mph. That view displays the sort of optimism that I would normally associate with a Liberal Democrat. I do not really see any justification for it at all. I think that motorists will remain as impatient if they are stuck behind a heavy goods vehicle at 50 mph as they are at 40 mph. However, if they are going to overtake a vehicle travelling at 50 mph instead of 40 mph, that is a more difficult manoeuvre and the likelihood of a head-on collision to which the hon. Gentleman referred is that much greater. Mr. Knight: The Minister said earlier that he believed that speed limits should be appropriate if they are to command respect. One could extend that argument to cover all aspects of road traffic law, because in order that motorists respect it and, hopefully, adhere to it the law needs to be seen to have a cause. That theme should remain with us while we consider the rest of the Bill. It is interesting that everyone who has referred to the new penalty points scheme has referred to it as a flexible points system, but the Government’s proposal is not a flexible points system at all; it is a movement from a single prescriptive system to a range of prescriptive alternatives for such offences. The courts will not have the opportunity to say that because of special circumstances they will not award penalty points. Parliament is saying that penalty points must be imposed, and that they shall be this or that depending on certain circumstances—whatever other circumstances there may be. I would have preferred the introduction of a genuinely flexible points system so that the courts could themselves determine whether, in a particular case, they should award penalty points or not. Column Number: 56 Dr. Ladyman: The right hon. Gentleman might be mixing up the fixed penalty notices—for which the circumstances and the points will be prescribed—with the situation in which someone wishes to take their chances and go to court, either because they think that there are mitigating circumstances, or because they think that they are not guilty. If the court finds that person guilty, it has flexibility in how it punishes that person. Mr. Knight: I invite the Minister to come back further, because, under the proposals, if a motorist has exceeded the speed limit by a certain percentage, the courts will be told—I believe—how many points to impose. Mr. Carmichael: There is an obvious caveat to what I am about to say, in that it is now quite some years since I dealt in practice with this area. My recollection, however, is that there is provision under either the Road Traffic Offenders Act or the Road Traffic Act for a proof to be held on special reasons, which would relate to the circumstances of the offence. That would allow the court to reduce the number of penalty points or indeed impose none at all. It was very rarely successful, because according to case law it is a fairly difficult standard of proof to meet. That discretion does remain available in exceptional circumstances, however. The Chairman: I am not sure whether that is an example of the Lib-Lab pact, but I thought that the right hon. Member for East Yorkshire was seeking a response from the Minister. Mr. Knight: I gave way to the hon. Gentleman. Dr. Ladyman: My understanding is that the court has flexibility, but I shall check with my lawyers and provide elucidation later. Mr. Knight: I am grateful to the Minister. My answer to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is that there are different types of flexibility. If the threshold of special reasons is set as high as I understand it to be, it is not really flexibility in the sense I argued. I think that there is a case for the courts to judge each circumstance on its merits, and I understand that they have to impose a certain number of penalty points unless there are exceptional circumstances that are very difficult to prove. I am not talking about the totting-up provisions but the awarding of points in relation to an offence. I start from the position that I should like the whole system to be far more flexible, and therefore I support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire. In fact, I wish he had tabled amendments to say, “Zero upwards”, because that would be true flexibility. I support what my hon. Friend said about heavy goods vehicles. Before the second world war, they were required by law to have on their mud flaps the maximum speed that they were permitted to travel, which at the time was 20 mph. Some of those early
At some point in our history, the speed limit must have increased from 20 mph to 40 mph. The comments made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South would have applied against moving from 20 mph to 40 mph. We are seeking a modest increase from 40 mph to 50 mph. Why should there be such an increase? My hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire said that the reason for the 40 mph limit is lost in the mists of time, but I think that it was introduced about the time when diesel engines were starting to be used in heavy goods vehicles. The Government of the day wanted to rid our roads of steam-driven lorries, which were dirty, noisy, heavy and damaged road surfaces. Yet the steam vehicles were capable of doing more than 40 mph and the diesel vehicles were not. In addition to the speed limit, the Government introduced an axle weight which penalised the owners of heavier vehicles. Dr. Ladyman: Opposition Members are usually so thoroughly well informed that I am surprised that they are not aware that the restriction was first raised to 40 mph in 1963 and applied to all roads by the Motor Vehicles (Variation of Speed Limit) Regulations 1962 made under powers set out in the Road Traffic Act 1960. I thought everybody knew that. Mr. Knight: Can the Minister tell us what the speed limit was raised from? Did it increase from 20 mph, as I said, or 30 mph? Mr. Harris: Following the right hon. Gentleman’s logical argument that speed limits should be increased with technology, does he envisage any eventual upper limit to the legal limit at which trucks should be allowed to travel? In 100 years’ time, when we have rocket-powered trucks, will there be an upper speed limit of 500 mph? Mr. Knight: I would rather deal with the present and the immediate future, not the fantasy of a time when no one in this Committee will be alive to bother about it. [Interruption.] I will answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. I certainly think that a speed limit that relates to a specific class of vehicle should be kept under regular review. There are many reasons for saying that heavy goods vehicles should have lower speed limits than normal motor cars, not least because of their weight and their capacity to cause damage in an accident. When the hon. Gentleman next finds himself stuck behind a heavy goods vehicle, I ask him to read what is printed on the back of it. Most of them now carry a sign saying “Warning. This vehicle has air brakes.” What does the hon. Gentleman think that means? Why does he think there is a warning to other motorists that an HGV has air brakes? It is because air brakes are more efficient than the standard type of brake. In 1963 when the 40 mph limit came in, all vehicles had the drum braking system, which has since been supplanted in motor cars by disc brakes, which are more efficient. Now, heavy goods vehicles have gone a stage further
When considering a speed limit, we need to ask what progress has been made in enabling a heavy goods vehicle, which is a dangerous weapon if it is heading in one’s direction in certain circumstances, to be brought to rest within so many feet. Given the advent of disc brakes, it would not be unreasonable to increase the limit to 50 mph. In many cases, it could be argued that it would be unsafe to drive at 50 mph in a heavy goods vehicle or indeed a motor car, but that is a different point. We are considering whether it is appropriate to maintain a speed limit that was introduced in 1963, given that we have moved from drum brakes to disc brakes to air brakes. We could accept this modest uplift in the speed limit; many accidents are caused not solely by a vehicle’s speed, but by speed that is inappropriate given the road conditions. 5.30 pmMy hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire also referred to matters that are not as important as the safety of a vehicle and its ability to stop, but are nevertheless not without force. Heavy goods vehicles have moved from having three-speed standard gearboxes to four-speed and five-speed ones, and now their gearboxes can have eight or even 10 speeds. Such vehicles do not therefore travel in top gear; they use more fuel and are not as environmentally friendly as they might be. In my constituency, dual carriageways are few and far between and in many circumstances on a fine day when the road is relatively clear, heavy goods vehicles could safely travel at 50 mph. At the moment, queues of holidaymakers travel at 40 mph because they cannot overtake the heavy goods vehicle ahead, which is travelling slower than it safely could because of the speed limit. That limit ought to go, and we ought to embrace the new clause. Dr. Brian Iddon (Bolton, South-East) (Lab): Interestingly, I do not get many complaints about speeding offences. However, at my last surgery, one of my constituents came to see me to complain about the inconsistency of the penalty system. This guy had decided to pass his driving test and get a job. He became a self-employed landscape gardener. One day he was travelling into Blackpool, coming out of a 70 mph area to a 30 mph area, and, like many drivers, just took his foot off the accelerator to allow the car to slow down. He was caught by a speed camera at 36 mph, not far from the 30 mph sign, which he had seen, and he collected three points. Regrettably, the same thing happened as he went into Liverpool, and he collected a second three-point penalty for driving at 38 mph. His licence was revoked under the Road Traffic (New Drivers) Act 1995. I ask the Minister for clarification on whether the variable points proposed by the Bill would apply also to probationary drivers, who under the 1995 Act remain probationary for two years. Would the same flexible penalty system exist for them? If this guy had gone to court and pleaded that he needed his vehicle
My constituent brought in a cutting from a local newspaper, which reported that a driver had collected points on his licence and was in danger of losing it because he had been doing 62 mph in a 30 mph zone. That was, of course, very excessive. The gentleman went to the magistrates court and pleaded with the bench that he could not afford to lose his licence because of his job. The magistrates did not ban him from driving and revoke his licence. When those two drivers are compared, it seems very unfair. There is no excuse for doing 62 mph in a 30 mph area, yet the driver who did that preserved his licence, while my constituent lost his. Does the flexible points system also apply to probationary drivers under the 1995 Act? Dr. Ladyman: Let me begin with the notion of changing the power in the Bill to allow flexibility between one and six points. This might surprise the hon. Member for North Shropshire, but I agree that the idea is not without some merit. When I first became the Minister and realised that I had to take responsibility for this Bill, and started talking it through with my officials, I challenged them on whether we had got the range right at two to six points. I said to them, “This is only a power. We would have to come back to Parliament for an order, so why not give ourselves a power of between one point and 11?” One point would be for very minor offences and 11 for something so serious that the courts would want to say, “That’s it for you; you can’t commit any more offences, otherwise you’ll have a ban. We want to make the penalty points so serious that you can’t commit any more offences.” We talked about that suggestion for a long time, and we went round the houses. The first problem with that was that Parliament would feel that we were giving ourselves too much flexibility; it would argue that we should pull back on that. Secondly, we felt that if the court had given somebody 10 points because of a very serious offence, and a one-point penalty was allowed, they could still commit another offence before they got a ban. Yes, if someone got 11 points, then even a one-point penalty would be appropriate, but then we asked ourselves: “Under what circumstances would an 11-point penalty be given? How would we justify that to Parliament?” We found it very difficult to come up with answers to that. Likewise, we found it difficult to suggest a situation in which one point—which the hon. Member for North Shropshire proposes—would be appropriate. Ultimately, an argument persuaded me not to table an amendment of my own to the Bill allowing a penalty of one point. That argument has already been highlighted several times today in Committee. We talked about the ACPO guidance, and at times we slipped into the error that some motorists slip into of thinking that the guidance means that the speed limit in a 30 mph zone is 34 mph, because if someone goes
If we introduced the notion of one penalty point, the only circumstance in which it would be likely to have any merit would be where one was at the limit of the ACPO guidance, or perhaps just 1 mph over it. The consequence of saying that the driver would then get only one point might be to encourage people to think that the ACPO enforcement level was actually the speed limit. In other words, someone could drive at 34 mph in a 30 mph area knowing that if they got caught it would be only one point—and what are the chances of getting caught, anyway? That was my concern. That would be the only circumstance in which we could try to justify providing for one point, and it would have the perverse consequence of encouraging people to go over the speed limit. That is why ultimately I became convinced that the original Bill, offering a power of between two and six points, had got it right. That is the argument I put to Conservative Members in asking them to withdraw their amendments. They should ask themselves under what circumstances would they make one point available and what the perverse consequences would be. If they are honest with themselves and objective, they will probably come to the same conclusion that I did with my officials: that we should stick to two points as the minimum available. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 22 March 2006 |