| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4 Jun 2009 : Column 148WH—continued
The final issue that I should like to address is speeding, which others have mentioned. I have long been a supporter of the campaign to change the default speed limit in residential areas from 30 mph to 20 mph. The importance
of the issue was brought home to me just last week when I was going from door to door in the Stepping Hill ward in my constituency. Time and again, residents of Lyndhurst avenue, which has already been designated a 20 mph zone by Stockport council, told me of the problem that they face on a daily basis of boy racers and others rat-running at excessive speed through what should be quiet residential areas. The same applies to the Arundel avenue area of Hazel Grove, and I am sure such problems are not uncommon. The danger to pedestrians, particularly children and the elderly, is obvious, but this is also a basic quality of life issue for people who live in such areas, who are fed up because of the behaviour of a minority of inconsiderate car drivers.
The consultation sets out clearly the danger caused by speeding and accepts that 20 mph zones not only reduce the severity of injuries, but reduce by some 70 per cent. the number of accidents involving pedestrian injuries, as we have heard. It also states that the Government will encourage local authorities to introduce 20 mph zones. That is good news, but I am concerned that because the current systems and protocols require local authorities to obtain police evaluations or consent from the Government, they are too unwieldy and difficult to allow 20 mph zones to be introduced swiftly where they are needed. Will the Minister commit to a review of the way in which local authorities apply for 20 mph zones and try to make it easier for speed limits to be based on local circumstances?
Finally, we are all aware that without enforcement, many of these policies are toothless. Quite simply, drivers must know that they will be caught if they break the rules. We need more police officers on the roads to spot dangerous drivers. People who use mobile phones while driving, drink and drug drivers and those who speed need to know that they can and will be caught. Too many drivers feel that they are beyond the long arm of the law. That must change sooner rather than later.
3.31 pm
Mr. Robert Goodwill (Scarborough and Whitby) (Con): It is a great pleasure to speak under your chairmanship, Mr. Benton. This debate is particularly timely as my second son passed his driving test yesterday. We now have two to worry about.
When a train or an aeroplane crashes, as happened this week, it dominates the headlines for days. However, every day of the week, death on our roads goes unnoticed by the national media. The number of people killed on our railways in the 36 years between 1967 and 2002 was 2,903. As hon. Members are aware, that is lower than the number of motoring-related fatalities in the single year of 2007, which saw 2,943 men, women and children die on Britain’s roads. The death toll on our roads is a continuing tragedy about which none of us—whether in government or in opposition—should ever be complacent. Whether as road safety officers, car manufacturers or motorists behind the wheel, everybody has a part to play in addressing this tragedy.
I welcome the extent of the cross-party consensus. There is tripartite consensus in this important area. Whenever we feel that the Government do the right thing or come up with the right answer, we will not
hesitate to give them our full backing. The Minister has not been tempted into gimmicky suggestions that do not have the support of scientific research, which some politicians might have been tempted to introduce.
Much of the progress over recent years is due to major improvements in car design and safety features. We must congratulate car manufacturers on their important achievements in that area. However, it would be unwise to over-rely on advances in car safety technology and expect it to provide all the answers. Since 2004, the annual decrease in the number of people killed has averaged only 3 per cent. No one should be comfortable with that plateau. We have slipped down the international league. We used to lead Europe, but the Swedes have passed us.
There are three groups of drivers that we are concerned about and must address: drink-drivers, young drivers and motorcyclists. One of the most worrying dangers on our roads today is drink-driving. In 2007, drunk drivers caused 460 fatal accidents. Over half the drivers killed at night were over the limit. There have been welcome advances over the last 30 years to crack down on drink-driving. A key factor in that success is the UK’s tough approach to punishment, in particular the 12-month ban.
The importance I attribute to that gold standard of punishment is one reason I am yet to be convinced that an across-the-board reduction to 50 mg is the right way to tackle drink-driving. European countries with lower limits tend to have a range of penalties for different alcohol levels. In Portugal, the minimum ban for drink-driving is 15 days. In Austria, the maximum is one month. A blanket reduction in the blood alcohol limit in the UK would inevitably give rise to pressure to introduce graduated penalties. Reducing or diluting the penalties for drink-driving would be deeply unwise and would send completely the wrong signal. Anybody who thinks that fines and points will be effective should look at the hundreds of thousands of people who are caught speeding every year, for which those are the penalties.
As well as the obvious deterrent value, the signal sent by the UK’s tough approach to punishing drink-driving has played an important role in the cultural shift during the latter years of the 20th century. It has become steadily more socially unacceptable to drink and drive. That cannot be said of every country in the world and it is a behavioural change that we jeopardise at our peril. It is a precious advantage that we should not undervalue.
The UK seems to be lagging behind a number of countries on the issue of drug-driving. We still rely on the field impairment test, or FIT, which is the test that was used prior to the introduction of breathalysers by Barbara Castle. It involves the person suspected of being under the influence walking along the white line on the road. The authorities in France, Germany, Belgium, Romania, Croatia, Italy, Australia, Spain, Switzerland, Finland, Iceland, the Czech Republic and Luxemburg have authorised roadside drug-testing equipment, which is deployed and in use. Why is the UK falling behind?
When choosing which drug to take, people might decide that alcohol is more likely to land them with a ban than other drugs. As well as roadside drug-testing equipment, we should look at the offence. At the moment, the offence is driving while impaired. If we had accurate blood or saliva testing, the offence would have to be reviewed and become an offence of having drugs in
one’s system. A consequent problem is that although a level could be set above which driving is likely to be impaired, the drugs being dealt with are illegal, unlike alcohol. One solution would be the Director of Public Prosecutions judging at what level prosecutions should be brought, even though having any drug in one’s system would be an offence. The shadow Home Office and justice teams are at an early stage in negotiations on this difficult issue. I am sure that the Minister has had similar discussions.
Young men are a major source of problems on our roads. A toxic combination of inexperience, overconfidence and an inappropriate attitude to risk means that young men sadly often fill the pages of local newspapers following nasty accidents. Achieving attitudinal change must be a crucial goal in tackling the problem effectively. A number of ideas in the Government’s consultation paper on improving education on road safety are attractive. In particular, I welcome the emphasis on viewing learning to drive as a long-term ongoing process, rather than as a one-off test. That point was made by my predecessors in the Conservative transport team during the passage of the Road Safety Act 2006.
I hope that the Government consultation will result in an improved driving test. Some suggestions made by the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) are worthy of consideration. The Conservative party has suggested that the manoeuvres—the three-point turn, reversing round a corner and parallel parking—could be taken out of the test and instead be signed off by an instructor. That would buy valuable time in the test, so that there would not have to be a more expensive driving test, which could have the effect of deterring young people from taking the test.
Motorcyclists make up only 1 per cent. of road traffic but account for 19 per cent. of casualties. I have great concerns about the way in which the new motorcycle driving test was introduced. It was delayed. The answer to a parliamentary question by the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) revealed that within the first three weeks of the test being in operation, there were 14 incidents involving the 50 mph swerve and break aspect. Ten of those incidents resulted in injury and three people were taken to hospital, two of whom were blue-lighted by ambulance. What is the Minister’s view on the risks related to that aspect of the test? It is very daunting for a driver to be faced with the examiner checking with a radar gun that he is travelling at 50 mph, and then to have to do a particular manoeuvre. We want to make sure that the risks involved in that aspect of the test are not such that the Department could be held liable for some serious injury. We are also concerned about the distance that people still have to travel for their test. Young riders could conclude that they might as well keep riding with L-plates rather than make a long journey of up to 30 or 40 miles each way to take the test.
I am interested in some of the new Mayor of London’s suggestions, which could be adopted around the country. Research on motorcycles using bus lanes, which the previous Mayor tried to suppress, has shown the advantages of that practice, so I hope that it can be extended around the country. Boris has also suggested that cyclists should be allowed to turn left when lights are red so that they can get out of the way before the lights change and
heavy lorries turn, as they often use their rear wheels to cut the corner and can get the cyclists. Some people say that cyclists go anyway in London, but that seems to be a London phenomenon, as other cyclists around the country seem to be much more law-abiding. Certainly, as long as there is no risk to pedestrians, I hope that the Mayor will be allowed to progress with that idea when the full risk assessment has been done.
The Minister might know that the Opposition have suggested changing the speed limit for large goods vehicles on single carriageway trunk roads. Currently, the speed limit for lorries on trunk roads is 40 mph, which we believe to be unacceptably low because it leads to accidents being caused by frustrated drivers overtaking in dangerous places. The head-on accidents that often follow from that dangerous manoeuvre are some of the worst accidents on our roads. Some supermarket lorries even have an apology on the back to explain to following motorists that they are travelling so slowly—unreasonably slowly, in some people’s view—because of the law. Has the Minister looked into that? I think that an increase in the speed limit would, unusually, improve road safety. Indeed, as many people who use the trunk roads know, many lorries already ignore that law.
I know that the Department has looked at some research on intelligent speed adaptation, where cars are fitted with a device that will, unless overridden, limit the car’s speed to the speed limit. My car has a speed limiter, which I can set manually—it is always a good idea for a shadow Transport Minister to try to drive within the speed limit. It would be sensible for satellite navigation systems that flash up the speed limit to be linked to that adaptation, not with any compulsion, but for people who do not want to pick up any points. I suspect that people who have nine points on their licence would be very attracted by the idea of a car in which it would be impossible to break the speed limit. When driving around a town where one does not know all the roads, it is often quite difficult to be sure what the speed limit is on any part of the road. I know that a trial has been done in Leeds with eight Skodas that were fitted with that mechanism, and the majority of the drivers who used it thought it was good. We do not want to impose that mechanism on people against their will, but I would like to hear the Minister’s view on whether the industry would be keen to make it an option in cars.
The hon. Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) talked about shared space, which I am not a great fan of, although my predecessor, the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), was more of a fan. I thought that she missed the whole point of shared space, which is that motorists are not sure where they should drive and so they drive very cautiously. The problem is when a motorist is on a piece of road and there is a green light in front of him, particularly if the road has fencing along each side, and he knows that the limit is 30 and goes for it. In a shared space system, which might be appropriate in some town centres, there is no certainty on anyone’s part, be they a cyclist, pedestrian or car driver, as to where people have a right of way, so motorists proceed very cautiously. The evidence from the Netherlands, where that system has been adopted more widely, is that it results in better road safety. I know that there are concerns about how it would work
with blind and partially sighted persons, but it would be useful to have some pilot projects in the UK to see how it would work out. I am not altogether sold on the idea, but seeing is believing.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments on some of the questions I have raised, and I assure him, as I am sure that the Liberal Democrats would also do, that when he makes sensible proposals that will result in less carnage on our roads, we will be more than happy to try to support him however we can.
3.45 pm
Jim Fitzpatrick: I am pleased to respond—briefly, I anticipate—to some of the points that have been raised. In my introductory comments, I omitted to pay tribute to the hon. Members for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr. Goodwill) and for Cheadle (Mark Hunter) for their contributions to policy development and to raising the profile of road safety. As I said, the issue is not party political. It is a genuine cross-party, cross-House campaigning issue on which there is much common ground and on which we can benefit from each party’s assessment of proposed policies.
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Nia Griffith) for being here and contributing to the debate, because we all know of the pressures on colleagues, particularly today—indeed, we can see that from looking around the Chamber. She made one comment about child seat belts, which we all know about, and most of us would not think of going out with kids in the car without belting them into the back. I was at Bromley-by-Bow tube station at half-past 6 this morning, waiting for colleagues to turn up to engage in some activities—she will probably understand why I was there at that time in the morning—and a car pulled up by the station. A chap was driving it with his wife in the passenger seat and two kids in the back who were not belted in. I could not believe it. I saw that there were belts, even though it was a relatively old car, so I knocked on his window, which is a bit of a risk in London at that time. The guy rolled his window down and I said, “Excuse me, sir, I’m terribly sorry, but you’ll get a fine if you don’t put seat belts on your kids in the back of the car, and, besides, it’s very dangerous. If you have a crash, they’ll go straight through the windscreen.” I was surprised that his reaction was one of total politeness. He said, “Thank you very much. You’re a really decent chap, and I’m very grateful that you pointed this out to me,” and then strapped his kids in. I am not recommending that everybody should do that at any time in London, but I was pleased by that gentleman’s reaction, and his kids are safer as a result of his attention.
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s comments about rural roads and their dangers, particularly for people who are not used to driving on them and do not know about the risks of going around blind bends, or of something being in the road or coming out of a hedge. We hope that the mapping we propose to do will help to some extent, because it will flag up the most dangerous roads, so that when people plot their route or use their satnav, we might be able to give them some technological advice, in the years ahead, and tell them about those roads and the dangers they present.
We are collecting better information on 20 mph limits and zones. As we have all said, the policies that we propose to improve road safety should be evidence-based. A number of towns and cities have extensive knowledge and information about 20 mph limits and zones, which we are gathering within the Department so that we can share it with other local authorities and see what worked where, what did not work and why. We want to roll out better guidance so that we can promote 20 mph zones and limits.
Mark Hunter: Will the Minister give way?
Jim Fitzpatrick: The hon. Gentleman made this point very strongly, so I am happy to give way to him on it.
Mark Hunter: I am grateful to the Minister for his thoughtful responses to our questions. One concern about the limits is enforcement—I hope he will forgive me if he was about to come to that. In my constituency and the Greater Manchester conurbation, local police divisions no longer have their own separate traffic police as they have all been centralised in Manchester, which means that we see far less of them. It is generally understood that the police, certainly in our neck of the woods, are giving less priority to traffic offences than they were previously, although not everything can be a priority at the same time.
Does the Minister agree that the police need to be reminded about the importance of these issues and that they need to allocate reasonable resources towards trying to ensure that all these good schemes are enforced? We all support 20 mph zones. I implemented such zones outside schools when I was the leader of the council many years ago. They work, but they need to be enforced, and the police have a crucial role in that. Does he have any thoughts as to how the police might be reminded that this is a fairly important issue to them as well?
Jim Fitzpatrick: This is clearly an important issue; I totally agree with the hon. Gentleman about its significance. Given that the Home Office does not have a Secretary of State at present, perhaps I could make a comment under the radar.
My Department engages with the Home Office on a regular basis to ensure that we both share the best information and evidence. I have regular meetings with Chief Constable Giannasi who now leads for the Association of Chief Police Officers on road safety issues. The association is doing all that it can to ensure that the police in all the constabularies are giving enough attention to road safety. The pressures on the police mean that they are constantly moving their forces around to deal with priorities as they see them in different areas.
As the road safety Minister, I do all that I can to ensure that road safety is maintained as a high-profile issue for all local authorities and for all constabularies, and I know that ACPO does the same.
Mr. Goodwill:
Has the Minister ever looked at the New Zealand experience of using school control zones, where 20 mph limits are advised by electronic signs which are activated only at times of the day that the head teacher determines? That means, for example, that the motorist does not have to comply with the limit at
3 o’clock in the morning or during school holidays, which means that they are more likely to comply when the lights are flashing.
Jim Fitzpatrick: At the risk of making this sound less exciting, I believe that Scotland has some of those signs as well. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that we should make a cross-party trip to New Zealand to have a look at them, someone might suggest that we should just go to Scotland. The Daily Telegraph might want to run a line on that, but perhaps we should not go there.
We are looking at that experience. Clearly, such signs make sense. However, as more and more community schools are being used during extended hours, a variable speed limit may be appropriate only from midnight until 7 in the morning. Those matters are under review. Clearly, common sense ought to prevail and we should ensure that we do not cause unnecessary congestion.
My hon. Friend asked about car park layouts and out-of-town shopping centres. Forgive me, I do not mean to absolve myself of responsibility, but it occurs to me that that is a matter for the Department for Communities and Local Government. It is a planning issue, and, as a planning matter, it ought to be, and I am sure is, taken into account during the planning process. Out-of-town centres should be required to have appropriate transport infrastructure to ensure that people using all modes of transport, including pedestrians and the vulnerable, can get around safely without resorting to using a car. That is apparently covered in guidance from DCLG about out-of-town centres. The Department for Transport contributes to and collaborates in its preparation.
I recognise the picture that my hon. Friend paints, because I have had the same experience myself. Perhaps she might want to take the issue up with DCLG and copy me into the correspondence. Again, as we have discussions with DCLG, it may be appropriate to look at what the latest information was, how recently it was refreshed, and whether it needs to be reviewed.
The hon. Member for Cheadle raised an interesting point about data. As he suggested, we are always keen to ensure that our information is as accurate as possible. I hear what he says about an accident investigation branch. However, the number of road casualties is completely different from the number of accidents dealt with by the marine, air and rail accident investigation branches.
We are proposing in our consultation document that a new independent panel should focus on the data that emerge on fatal accidents from expert police accident investigation, and, through that, give us a steer as to where we might want to be. As has been said, the marine accident investigation branch, air accident investigation branch and rail accident investigation branch have so few accidents to investigate that they can deal with them all. They do not have eight every day. We would have to create a whole new constabulary to investigate that many accidents.
| Next Section | Index | Home Page |