Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I welcome many of the proposals in the Road Safety Bill, although I regret that the opportunity presented by its appearance has not led to a raft of initiatives which in themselves might not amount to much, but which, taken together, could create a safer driving climate. Some of the provisions in the Bill touch on major matters, while others are largely of a technical nature and there is inevitably an element of tidying up about the Bill. I begin with speeding. I am not one of those in this House once described in a memorably witty phrase by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester—who I see is in his place and who is due to speak after me—as being of the ““poop poop tendency””. Such noble Lords rail against the use of camera, which is a crusade much favoured by the tabloids. Indeed, I would go further than the present formula allows. I do not feel that the installation of cameras should rely on the somewhat callous and mechanistic formula of four deaths or serious injuries over a measured stretch of road over the past three years. It must be right to let common sense and local knowledge play a part as well. I speak as someone living in a village where the driving conditions are extremely hazardous. It is regularly used as a rat run, often at speeds greatly exceeding the limit. We are weary of the constant emphasis on urban speeding, and would welcome similar attention being given to villages where there should be far more blanket 20 mph speed limits. The move towards mobile cameras, while predictably creating bleats of anguish from those same quarters, is   surely another essential element in this continual campaign. We all speed at one time or another. My interest in studying the speeding characteristics of motorists arises from having had some 25 years on the bench—I apologise to the House for not having declared an interest earlier as a magistrate now on the supplementary list. I am convinced that many motorists are completely unaware of limit signs because they are distracted for one reason or another. The situation is not helped by the reckless way in which we spray speeding zones around, often over comparatively short distances. I know of a road where over the distance of a mile the limit goes from 60 to 40 to 30 to 20 and back to 30. Some people will, and indeed do, argue that the limits are all there for a reason and, up to a point, that is undeniable. But if the lack of attention to which I have already referred is present in the driver, such confusion only makes matters worse. The fact is that much of our speed control policy dates from the time when someone carrying a red flag preceded the vehicle. Is there a possibility of an undertaking from the Government that over the next few years there will be a national review of speed limits to bring them into line with the 21st century, modern conditions and modern automobile technology? Over a period of about 20 years—and such social changes are inevitably gradual—a sea change has occurred in the way in which society views driving with excess alcohol. As our roads become ever more crowded, that kind of stigma must attach itself to unacceptable and persistent speeding as well. I think, in particular, not of the proverbial little old lady—even though, theoretically, she may inflict just as much damage—but of habitual, reckless and anti-social speeders who specifically, and with calculation, defy the law. All young men like speeding until they grow up. Unfortunately, some of them never do and are catered for not only by the motoring pages of respectable newspapers and magazines, some of which ought to know better, but also by some spine-chilling specialist publications that were referred to in a recent Question in another place. Examples cited were claims of going through the Hatfield Tunnel at 188 mph and of doing an estimated 140 mph in a quiet country lane near Bath that, according to the driver, would be kamikaze at a speed of 70 mph. We all cherish the freedom of the press, but I ask the Minister whether the Government would be happy with a publication that advocated housebreaking, described its virtues in detail and egged readers on to follow suit? Why has there been no prosecution? These people have admitted what they did and have bragged about it. What are the police doing about it? Finally on speeding, I shall make a point about the rigidity of electronic speed surveillance where, unlike the human intervention of the traffic policeman, no allowance can be made for driving conditions, circumstances and so on. There should be an agreed policy about discretion where the limit has been exceeded. If drivers are to be prosecuted for going 2   mph over the limit, as one chief constable has reportedly urged, there will be no allowance for faulty speedometers and I confidently predict a substantial increase in the number of minor shunts as drivers check the speedometer rather than the car in front of them. Speed is an important topic and it is one of the reasons why I welcome the graduated penalty points proposal. I also welcome the banning of speed detection devices and the speed limit exemptions for emergency service vehicles, though I have to admit that I have in my time been in a police car that exceeded the motorway limit for about 20 minutes when the only emergency was that we were late for a meeting. The increased provisions for the retraining of serious drink-driving offenders and the introduction of alco-locks are to be welcomed, but I remain concerned—I want to emphasise this point—that we are still failing to get to grips with the problem of those driving under the influence of drugs. I would welcome an assurance from the Minister that this is now a priority objective, particularly as recent newspaper reports suggest that the means to provide accurate roadside testing will soon become available. Making the offence of using a mobile phone while driving an endorsable matter is long overdue. Nothing is more infuriating than someone who says, ““I told you so””, but on this occasion I have to say it. Many of us knew that without the additional sanction of penalty points, some motorists will continue to take risks and ignore the law. I take the view that it is not holding an object that is the main distraction, but the holding of a   conversation, perhaps with disturbing news or requiring considered thought, which provides a danger element. So I would include hands-free phones in the ban as well. I accept that that is not a popular position and in any case it would be almost impossible to enforce. Unenforced and unenforceable law is, by definition, bad law. I make a plea for the Government to share in the justifiable anxiety of the police about the practice of tailgating which has been identified as one of the principle causes of accidents on our roads. Driving without due care may not be a sufficiently effective way to stamp out that pernicious and dangerous habit, so the Government might think about bringing in a specific offence. If the regulations proposed for the supervision and regulation of number plate suppliers are what I take them to mean, a tightening-up exercise is welcome news indeed. Time was—a long time ago now it seems—when the slightest deviation from the prescribed formula was jumped upon, but nowadays tolerance seems to be stretched to its limits and some number plates are almost unreadable, even at close quarters. Personal vanity on the one hand and so-called humour on the other are poor ingredients for legibility and identification. I also add my voice to that of other noble Lords on introducing a Red Cross course for first-time drivers. I think that makes it a straight flush and perhaps the Minister will, accordingly, take note of that. Another area that the Government might have looked at concerns road signs. Quite apart from the inordinate amount of time that it appears to take to repair roads in this country, in my experience, frequently signs are not removed immediately a job has been completed. Similarly, on motorways, for example, ad hoc speed restrictions for early-morning mist sometimes remain on long after the danger has passed, presumably because someone has forgotten to switch them off. It does not require Einstein to realise that irrelevant signs will come to be disregarded, with all the dangers that that implies when they refer to a real hazard. Accordingly, some kind of penalty system should be in place to ensure that tidying up is done as a matter of course. If the Government claim that such a provision is already in place via other legislation, surely more should be done to implement it vigorously. In conclusion, the wider the legislative net is drawn in traffic matters the greater is the need for effective enforcement. It is surely an irony that the greater the   number of vehicles on our roads, the smaller the   numbers of traffic police there are to deal with the problems that they create. Traffic police numbers are down by 12 per cent over the past five years, and although no one would quibble about the need to divert some police to more important and life-threatening areas like terrorism, the fact remains that one cannot go on robbing that particular resource indefinitely, even though the National Police Plan, strangely, does not have traffic enforcement as a priority. Will the Government undertake to ensure that a proportion of the new officers whom we all need so desperately are assigned to traffic duties? Furthermore, will they ensure—via ACPO, if that is what it takes—that in future traffic division numbers are ring-fenced? With such a government assurance, I hope, ringing in my ears, I sit down and wish the Bill well.