Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, there is something unusual about this debate. When debating Bills concerning crime and punishment we usually refer to ““them”” and not ““us””. This Bill deals with offences that at one time or another nearly all of us have committed and are quite likely, honestly, to commit again. How many of us have never exceeded the speed limit? How many of us have never driven a short distance without fastening our seat belts? How many of us have never driven a car without at least one known or suspected defect? How many of us have never driven a car without a trace of alcohol in our bloodstream? Of course most of us think that we know our own strengths and limitations. I think that I know when it is safe to overtake, when it is safe to drive at more than 60 mph and how much alcohol I can take before my driving is impaired. However, I am not everybody; and I may be wrong. Road safety laws—some of which will be decided during the Bill’s passage—will have to apply to everyone: the responsible, which of course is ““us””; and the irresponsible, which is ““them””. So to a large extent we are here to debate how great a punishment we ourselves deserve when and if we are caught. We all approve of the Bill’s aim: to reduce the number of deaths or serious accidents on the road; 3,400 per year is a shocking figure. In order to reduce road accidents we may have to introduce new, irritating and inconvenient restrictions. Those restrictions should be imposed only if they can be shown to help reduce road accidents, not, for instance, as a means of securing convictions. Speed traps are notorious in some parts of Scotland. Some of us doubt whether they are always set up entirely in the interests of road safety or to enable the police to secure their quota of convictions. Many of us have talked about speeding, which is a difficult aspect of road safety. It is a question of where to draw the line. I would not draw it in such a severe way as the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. We all accept the self-evident truth that high speeds kill and moderate speeds can save lives. But restrictive speed limits must be imposed only in places where excessive speed is most likely to cause accidents. When drivers cannot see the reason for a particular speed restriction they tend to ignore it: for example, 30   mph limits imposed long before reaching built-up areas; or temporary motorway repair signs restricting one to 40 mph two or three miles before one reaches the roadworks. It is surely counterproductive to impose tough speed restrictions too widely. It diminishes the impact of speed limits that really do need to be strictly adhered to. Equally, the Bill’s exemptions for those who do not have to obey speed limits must be looked at carefully. They refer mostly to the emergency services, which must be able to reach serious accidents as quickly as possible, but it is not uncommon for pedestrians to be knocked down by speeding police cars. Do we really approve of police cars pursuing villains through crowded high streets at 90 mph? What about a policeman driving on motorways at 150 mph to test his car’s capabilities? Apparently, that was not an offence. One of the more imaginative aspects of the Bill is the proposals for dealing with drink-drivers. In those cases we are not just talking about binge drinkers returning from a riotous night out but also serious and often very sad alcoholics. Before they can ever be allowed to drive again, they are to be subjected to a medical test, quite rightly. Presumably, although it is not clear in the Bill, they will have to show that they have kicked the habit before being allowed back on the road. I would like the Minister to confirm that. If a drink-driver wishes the period of his disqualification to be reduced, the courts in certain circumstances are to be given the power to allow the offender to take part, at his or her own expense, in an alcohol ignition interlock programme, which has been referred to several times. I was unaware of the scheme before reading the Bill but I am now intrigued by this wonderful new Heath Robinson device. If you want your car to start, you must breathe into a tube; if you have drunk no more than perhaps half a pint of beer, it will burst into life, however if there is too much alcohol in your bloodstream it will refuse to let you start it. I cannot understand why a young drunk could not get his non-driving, non-drinking girlfriend to breathe into the tube for him, and off he would go. But maybe this ingenious device already has an answer to that. In any event, I am thinking of buying some alcohol interlocks for my friends for Christmas. As mentioned several times, a continuing road-safety danger is falling asleep at the wheel—in this case I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Gibson. It is more likely to happen on motorways and dual carriageways, therefore I greatly welcome the imaginative idea of trunk-road picnic areas and the prospect of their introduction on motorways as well as dual carriageways. Sleepiness can overcome all of us, sometimes very suddenly and unexpectedly. It does not only happen after a good lunch or a late night; sometimes we have an immediate need to stop and rest. At present on many motorways there are long stretches with no turn-off. The new roadside picnic area scheme is intended to solve that problem. Incidentally, I was once awoken by a policeman while asleep in my car on the hard-shoulder. I think that he let me off with a caution, but I remember it very well. Many noble Lords have already mentioned another very imaginative idea that deserves serious consideration and should be incorporated into the Road Safety Bill: new drivers taking their driving test for the first time might also be obliged to pass a first-aid course. That is extremely sensible. As the noble Baroness mentioned, according to the Red Cross, 57 per cent of road deaths take place between the time of an accident and the arrival of the emergency services. If first aid could have been administered during that time, many lives may have been saved. We all surely support the Bill in principle; it is the details that we need to get right. It is surely a question of getting the right balance between too many restrictions and successfully reducing the number of deaths and serious accidents on the road. But I still believe that the best way to reduce road accidents is to encourage more people to travel by train.