Road Safety Bill [Lords] |
|
Stephen Hammond (Wimbledon) (Con): I am listening to the Minister’s argument with some interest. Can he explain why that exact same argument does not apply to two points? Logically, it could do so. I fail to see, therefore, why the courts cannot be given the greater flexibility. Dr. Ladyman: We are talking not necessarily about courts but about the penalties that would be incurred through a standard penalty notice. The hon. Gentleman is right: a person has six strikes before he loses his licence, but at least two points are a significant dent on the licence and would make people realise that they can tot up eventually to 12 points. One point is too far from losing one’s licence. That is what this is all about. The points on a licence mean two things to the average man or woman behind the wheel. First, they feel closer to losing their licence, which is a dramatic and harmful event, and, secondly, if they are being honest with their insurance company, believe me, the points hit the pocket far harder than the rather puny fines that we offer, even with the increased amounts in the Bill. Two points at a time are a sufficient reprimand to make it clear to people that they cannot go on for ever: they will ultimately lose their licence. One point
I began by saying openly that the alternative argument has some merit. Having pondered it and reflected on the circumstances in which one would use it, I came to the conclusion that two to six points was the correct range to offer and that anything wider would either have perverse consequences or would not be acceptable to Parliament. Amendment No. 88 again relates to restricted roads. I understand what the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland is getting at. The bottom line is that he thinks that in a 30 mph zone the minimum should be three points. When we carry out our consultation and then debate the matter when we seek our order, that may be exactly the conclusion that we will reach—that it should be three points in a 30 mph zone. We went out to consultation on the notion that in certain circumstances it could be two points in a 30 mph zone. As we are taking a power rather than enacting the power, it is reasonable to give ourselves the flexibility of two to six points, which is why I have encouraged the hon. Gentleman to seek to withdraw his amendment. Equally, I will understand if, when we come to drafting the order we decide to offer two points in a 30 mph zone, the hon. Gentleman will argue for three, and I look forward to debating with him. The HGV issue is more complex. The day after I saw what can happen when an HGV travelling at speed hits something is probably not the best day to ask me to increase their speed limit. Opposition Members may have forgotten the dangers caused by HGVs, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, South referred. I can tell the Committee that 25 per cent. of accidents in which people are killed or seriously injured on motorways are caused by or involve HGVs, although we are discussing single-carriageway roads rather than motorways. The right hon. Member for East Yorkshire said how much brakes had improved. Yes, brakes have improved, but HGVs have got a heck of a lot bigger. It has been some time since my early scientific days when I had to do Newtonian calculations, but I have just done a quick, back-of-an-envelope calculation on the difference in energy between a 40-tonne vehicle travelling at 40 mph and a one-tonne vehicle doing 60 mph, which are the speed limits on our single-carriageway roads. The kinetic energy, which needs to be transferred into potential energy—in other words, the crash damage—if someone is hit by a 40-tonne truck doing 40 mph is 16 times greater than that if they are hit by a car doing 60 mph. That is why we must be very strict about speed limits for HGVs. They are enormous vehicles nowadays. A 40-tonne truck doing 40 mph has a heck of a lot of kinetic energy and will do an awful lot of damage if it hits someone. That is why 40 mph is probably still the right speed limit. 5.45 pmWill 40 mph always be the right speed limit on single carriageway roads? Hon. Gentlemen make a reasonable point when they say that that has been the speed limit for many decades and surely things have
I accept the argument that sometimes people get frustrated when travelling behind these vehicles. However, someone who gets frustrated travelling behind a lorry doing 40 mph would probably get equally frustrated travelling behind a lorry doing 50 mph. As the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland pointed out, at least it is easier to get past a lorry doing 40 mph than it would be to get past one doing 50 mph. In terms of reduced frustration, keeping HGVs to 40 mph is the safe thing to do. I hope that my explanation will encourage hon. Members to withdraw or not press their amendments and that subsequently we can agree that clause 17 should stand part of the Bill. Mr. Paterson: We have had an interesting debate. On the question of flexibility, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wimbledon (Stephen Hammond). The Minister’s arguments for two penalty points apply equally to one point. We can all provide anecdotes, but the anecdote from the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) about his constituent was very relevant. It was interesting to hear that the Minister and his officials had discussed a range going from one to 11 penalty points. That is attractive to me on the basis of the point that we made this morning that we do not want to alienate the vast mass of motorists. The constituent going into a 30 mph zone who had taken his foot off the accelerator and was slowing down is a classic example of someone who should be treated leniently, whereas the idiot doing 60 mph in a 30 mph zone should be dealt with much higher up the scale. I very much favour more flexibility, and it was illuminating to hear that the Minister had had that discussion. There are real merits in our proposal to go down to one penalty point, because there are people in this country who are at risk of losing their licences and livelihoods and not because they are bad drivers. Travelling salesmen drive very long distances—I used to drive 1,000 miles a week—and, given the extra controls, are getting caught exactly as the constituent mentioned by the hon. Gentleman was. There is a real problem in this Committee: we must address the country as it is. This is where I pick up on the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, South. It would be lovely to teach the frustrated motorists to be patient on the single lane rural roads where I live, but let us live in the real world. That is simply not going to happen, and we have to be blunt about it. People are frustrated by truck drivers— Mr. Harris: And always will be. Column Number: 63 Mr. Paterson: I take issue with that. It would be a real safety gain if we were to increase truck speeds. The hon. Gentleman and I disagree fundamentally on this point, which makes for an enjoyable debate. He asked whether there are any examples of when speed increases have made a difference. I cannot resist giving him the evidence from a 1999 report by Stephen Moore of the Cato Institute. There is an enormous laboratory working on this issue—it is called the United States, which imposed the 55 mph limit. Stephen Moore said:
At that time, there was strong lobbying that the decision would lead to an apocalypse on the roads of America and would cause 1 million additional injuries. Ralph Nader said:
This is absolutely relevant to the idea of increasing speed limits. It goes back to this morning’s discussion that the matter is not one of pure speed but of appropriate speed. Stephen Moore went on to say:
We must look at the world as it is and the roads as they are, not as we would like them to be. A report commissioned in British Columbia concluded:
On single lane, major rural roads, motorists are frustrated by trucks travelling at 40 mph. We must recognise that fact. It was very helpful of the Minister to dig around to find out why the 40 mph limit was set, but in 1963 the technology was very different. My right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire is absolutely right. Not only do we have disc brakes, we have ABS and different suspension systems. The Minister referred to the impact of whacking into a 40-tonne truck—that is what happens with vehicles in the oncoming lane. Thank goodness the Minister did not have an unpleasant incident yesterday. It was probably because the traffic was flowing and there were three lanes in each direction. The danger occurs on single lane roads, with traffic flowing in different directions. The current limit is dangerous. It frustrates drivers, and no matter how much the hon. Member for Glasgow, South would like the world to be different, it is as it is. Large numbers of car drivers are trying to pass trucks, and because of speed cameras many truck drivers are being very careful. The limit is adhered to very strictly, which is dangerous. We must consider the roads as they are. We must discuss stick and carrot; both are required. I am afraid that a constant attempt at coercion will alienate more and more drivers. Column Number: 64 5.53 pmSitting suspended for a Division in the House. 6.10 pmOn resuming— The Chairman: I have allowed extra time because the Whip from Her Majesty’s Opposition was also a Whip on the Floor of the House for the last Division. I have therefore allowed longer than I perhaps should. However, we should recommence our debate. The hon. Member for North Shropshire was about to sit down, and I know that the Minister wants to respond to the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon). Mr. Paterson: I was just ending my comments, as I think we have had a thorough debate. We are minded, particularly given the interesting comments made by the Minister about an option of between one and 11 penalty points, to press our amendment to a Division. It is worth getting a feel from the Committee on the point of one. I am intrigued by the idea that there was serious discussion in the Ministry about an option of between one and 11. That would have been a clever way of catching the hard core, as we discussed this morning, while being helpful to constituents, such as that of the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East, who were caught with their foot off the accelerator, coasted past the sign a little too fast and got caught. We have made our case on the issue of variable limits, and we are pretty clear. The Minister’s response about HGVs was also helpful. It is fascinating that in the 21st century we are still binding trucks by an ancient decree that goes back to the 1960s, when technology was very different. I think we dealt with that fairly well. I may or may not have converted the hon. Member for Glasgow, South on the issue of speed; sadly, he is shaking his head. I did not think that we would. We have had an interesting exchange. I adhere strongly to the view that pure speed does not kill, but inappropriate speed does. In this case, we are talking about inappropriate speed. Mr. Harris: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that speed limits should be decided more by the safety needs of a community than by the technical prowess or standard of a vehicle? Mr. Paterson: I think that that is a most helpful intervention. That is an incredibly important point. It is exactly what I am arguing. It is sensible to set limits—we have talked about the 85th percentile—at speeds that will be accepted by the vast majority of drivers. I cited the case this morning of Park lane, which was absolutely fascinating. Mr. Harris: To clarify, I meant the safety requirements of the community through which a road progresses, rather than the desires of the driving community. Surely what is important when it comes to
Mr. Paterson: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. There are moments when one sees the ball come up, sees an open goal and wants to whack it in. That is exactly what I feel coming from a rural area where 40 people have been killed on the A5, a single-lane road, in the past 13 years because the road is inappropriate and the speeds are inappropriate on that road. I feel for communities. Overtaking happens on that road because of frustrated drivers. The hon. Gentleman does not have to tell me about the impact on communities. Inappropriate speed damages communities. Mr. Knight: Is not it fair to say that no Opposition Member has suggested that if the speed limit for heavy goods vehicles were to be increased from 40 mph to 50 mph, that should override local speed limits in villages, which might be even lower than 40 mph? 6.15 pmMr. Paterson: My right hon. Friend is right. We went through those issues this morning in some detail. I am strongly in favour of varied limits. I cited the Canadian case in which limits outside schools are varied at different times of day. I think that major roads go through villages in my hon. Friend’s constituency in Yorkshire, so he will have relevant knowledge. The limit appropriate in some small villages will not be appropriate elsewhere. We did that to death this morning. We established clearly that limits should be set according to circumstances and that flexibility and variability are the name of the game. In a last attempt to convert the hon. Member for Glasgow, South, I will say that setting an arbitrary limit on a big sign, in black writing with a red ring around it, does not solve the problem. There was a 30 mph limit in Park lane, and the average speed was over 40 mph. The limit was then changed to 40 mph and the average speed dropped below 40 mph. Ms Keeble: I cannot remember the exact figures, but I think that it is right to say that the average speed of travel around London has not changed since Victorian times, or something like that. It is the impact of congestion, not of the judgments that people make about how fast they can go. If Park lane were clear, people would probably drive down it at 80 mph if they could. The figures that the hon. Gentleman is talking about are to do with what happens on the road. The argument is exactly the same as saying, “A speed limit of 30 mph was set across London and, look, people are not driving any faster than when they used to when they used horses and carts.” It is nonsense. Mr. Paterson rose— Column Number: 66 The Chairman: Before the hon. Gentleman replies, it appears to me that the Committee is regurgitating a debate that it has already had, and I hope that that will not continue. Mr. Paterson: I shall not be tempted to go further down that route. We have had an interesting debate. We think that there are merits in our amendment proposing replacing the reference to “2-6” penalty points with “1-6” penalty points. I should like to press that to a vote. I am also interested in testing the mood of the Committee on the issue of raising HGV speeds from 40 mph to 50 mph. The Chairman: May I help the hon. Gentleman? He can certainly press amendment No. 55 in due course, when the Minister has replied, but if he wants a vote on new clause 13 that must be taken much later in our deliberations. Dr. Ladyman: I realise that I was remiss in not responding to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East about whether the new arrangements will apply to new drivers. Yes, they will. Of course, new drivers are off the road at six points, not 12 points, so a six-point penalty for new drivers will potentially mean that they have only one hit. To be frank, I think that that is right. New drivers who are not responsible about speed, straight after passing the test, have only themselves to blame if they lose their licence and have to retake the test. I repeat in response to the hon. Member for North Shropshire that I am not saying that there is no merit in the idea of greater flexibility. The attractiveness that I found in a wider range of penalty points turned out to be superficial. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will soon also realise that that attractiveness is only superficial. As to HGVs I ask him to ponder a new fact between now and the time when the new clause is put to the Committee. The stopping distance in metres of a truck doing 40 mph is 39 m. The stopping distance of a typical car at 60 mph, which is the equivalent speed on a single carriageway road, is 51 m. When the speed of the truck is increased to 50 mph its stopping distance is 58 m. That is seven metres further than a car takes to stop on the same road. If the hon. Gentleman can still vote to increase the speed to 50 mph he is not the man I thought he was. Question put, That the amendment be made:— The Committee divided: Ayes 5, Noes 11. [Division No. 2] AYES Bellingham, Mr. HenryHammond, Stephen Knight, rh Mr. Greg Paterson, Mr. Owen Scott, Mr. Lee
NOES Column Number: 67 Carmichael, Mr. Alistair Harris, Mr. Tom Iddon, Dr. Brian Keeble, Ms Sally Kidney, Mr. David Ladyman, Dr. Stephen McFadden, Mr. Pat McKenna, Rosemary Rowen, Paul Roy, Mr. Frank Slaughter, Mr. Andrew Question accordingly negatived. The Chairman, being of the opinion that the principle of the clause and any matters arising thereon had been adequately discussed in the course of the debate on the amendments proposed thereto, forthwith put the Question, pursuant to Standing Orders Nos. 68 and 89, That the clause stand part of the Bill. Question agreed to. Clause 17 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 18 Speed assessment equipment detection devices Mr. Paterson: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in clause 18, page 21, line 35, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’. The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 58, in clause 18, page 21, line 37, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’. No. 59, in clause 18, page 22, line 6, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’. No. 60, in clause 18, page 22, line 23, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’. No. 61, in clause 18, page 22, line 33, leave out ‘detection’ and insert ‘interference’. New clause 12—Amendment of Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions 2002—
Mr. Paterson: We turn to an issue that attracted quite a lot of press attention after Second Reading, when it was revealed that the Minister and I both have devices in our cars to advise us where speed cameras might be located. It was also revealed that, sadly for him, the hon. Member for Glasgow, South does not
The Minister intervened on me in that debate. There was not a huge amount of time to go into it, but there are three possible devices, two of which we think are perfectly legitimate and one of which we think definitely is not. The purpose of our amendments is to make changes regarding the word “interference”. We do not have to spend an enormous amount of time on this, Sir Nicholas. The device that I have has an updated memory and is effectively a global positioning system map. It tells me when, according to its memory, I am likely to approach a place where there is either a fixed camera or something called a “mobile”, and it squawks in a tiresome manner at something called a “blackspot”. I have never quite understood what a blackspot is, but I suspect that it is a section of road that is frequently patrolled by police cameras; I have not bothered to check what it is. I do not see anything wrong with that device. There is no doubt that it has made me drive better in the two years since it was given to me as a Christmas present. I am more aware of where cameras are, and, above all, it stops me looking for them. This point was made to me by some drivers’ groups, and I touched on it in the last debate. There is a danger that when people have six or nine points on their licences, they are so paranoid about getting clocked by a camera that they frantically look for cameras everywhere. The device obviates things. It makes an audible sound—it bleeps in quite a tiresome manner—to tell me that I am within 100 yards of a fixed camera or one of the other spots I mentioned. It also has a digital monitor showing my exact speed. The variation between what the gadget and my speedometer say is interesting. The Minister has touched on this. There is quite a variance, sometimes as much as 3, 4 or 5 mph. I think this is a legitimate device; it has certainly helped me. I hope the Minister will endorse that this sort of device is legitimate. There appears to be a second type of device, and mine may come under this category, because it occasionally starts bleeping. It did so on one occasion when I was going to an agriculture show in Cornwall, and I noticed that I was approaching a policeman with a speed gun. I have not gone into the technology of how it works, but it may count as a detector, and therefore be an illegal device, under the clause. It seems to me that a detector of that sort, which picks up—by radar or whatever—that a monitoring gun is nearby is a good idea. We have detectors in our heads. You have them, Sir Nicholas, and so do I; they are called eyes. I think eyes are a good idea. I think seeing what is going on is a good idea. I think being told things by a detector is a good idea. I cannot see that there is anything illegitimate in having such a device in a car that informs the driver. I recently talked to the heads of technology at Renault and BMW, and also to some people from DaimlerChrysler. We know that all car companies are looking into creating more intelligent cars that give
Dr. Ladyman: Is the hon. Gentleman telling me that he is therefore in favour of intelligent speed adaptation being fitted in cars? Mr. Paterson: I am in favour of drivers being given as much information as possible, to make it easier for them to make decisions. Dr. Ladyman: ISA devices would not just give information. Potentially, they can take over controlling the speed of the vehicle; they could take that decision away from the driver. If the hon. Gentleman is serious about wanting to free up the driver so he can concentrate on the road, I presume that he is also in favour of that technology. |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2006 | Prepared 22 March 2006 |