Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for introducing this wide-ranging Bill. I commend the Government’s efforts on road safety. We the usual suspects have the opportunity to save far more lives than all the efforts of the Home Office team looking at anti-terrorism legislation. All noble Lords will be pleased that this Bill is an early Lords starter, with plenty of time to examine it. Before making any substantive comments, I should remind the House of my interests. I am president of the Heavy Transport Association; an active patron of the   Road Rescue Recovery Association; and a serving TA officer involved in logistics. I hold a class 1 HGV licence, which is not as good as the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and I am a time-expired qualified army driving instructor, but I could requalify quickly if Mr   Blair made it necessary. Finally, I privately operate some very heavy goods vehicles. I have an anxiety that the Government may be responding to pressure from road safety organisations to increase penalties for road traffic offences in order to take greater account of the consequences of an offence; that is, if someone is killed or seriously injured. I have two difficulties with this approach. First, why does one bad motorist who causes a fatal accident receive a heavier penalty than an even worse offender whose victim does not die, perhaps because he was wearing a seatbelt or perhaps because of the rapid intervention, one hopes, of a doctor or first-aider? Secondly, we know perfectly well that the majority of bad accidents involve young drivers. They are rarely deterred by penalties and they think that they are immortal. Before any noble Lord intervenes on me, I have some suggestions to deal with the latter. I make no apologies for using the word ““accident””; it is very useful. Many noble Lords, and those outside the House as well, believe that there is no such thing as an accident, and they are right. Many accidents are unnecessary and involve offences, but, most importantly, they are avoidable and reducible, as the Minister and many other noble Lords have pointed out. Our record is good and improving, but we all know that we can do even better. On roads, I draw particular attention to the desirability of grade-separated junctions on trunk roads, and I am grateful for those that I have seen built on the A1 south of Stamford. Every one of them prevents a brutal, high-impact accident occurring at its location. Roundabouts can reduce severity of accidents, but there is a heavy penalty in fuel consumption, particularly for goods vehicles, and in slow-down of traffic flow. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, talked about the problem of bridge-bashing. He suggested the use of a ““sacrificial structure””, if I may put it that way, and I strongly support him. Noble Lords should be aware that a bridge-bashing accident can be fatal. We need also to remove all possible confusion as to the height of a bridge. Therefore, bridge heights need to be shown in metric measurements only. In fact, all dimensions and distances on UK roads ought to be expressed metrically; that is, in metres and kilometres. Why are we persisting with medieval measurements while we are, or at least we were, considering joining a single currency? If we worked only in kilometres, our speedometers would have a much clearer display, making it easier to comply with speed limits. When I was working with Smiths Industries, we made 3,000 speedometers containing the wrong odometer gearing mechanism. They were fitted to cars and every single one had to be withdrawn. What does a continental businessman think when he comes to the UK and sees a sign which states: ““London 56 miles””? It means nothing to him. Most of us will have experience of kilometres on the Continent, but what would we think if we saw a sign in France which stated: ““Paris 80 leagues””? It would mean nothing to us. We religiously test our cars and goods vehicles every year, but few accidents are caused primarily by failure of the vehicle. Incidentally, I need some reassurance about Clause 20, which may have some unintended consequences. It deals with compulsory disqualification for the second offence of driving a dangerous vehicle. I am not suggesting relaxing the testing regime, far from it. If we did so, we would soon have far more accidents caused by defective vehicles. But the vast majority of accidents is caused by a failure on the part of the driver or, to put it more charitably, driver error. Most of the offences which your Lordships have mentioned have an underlying cause of poor driver skills. If a motorist speeds, his driving is simply not up to standard. We could address this problem by making the driving test even harder, but it is already quite hard; it is a high hurdle. Incidentally, a question has to be raised about the driving test. About 50 per cent of candidates fail, but are we failing the right 50 per cent? For instance, girls tend to fail for failing to make normal progress, but few accidents are caused primarily by failing to make normal progress. The driving test should be seen only as a start and not a once-in-a-lifetime event. Pass Plus is welcome, but those who take it are not the problem. They are already taking their responsibilities very seriously. So, in summary, we are testing vehicles annually and we test drivers only once in their lives at the age of 17 or 18. We then assume that their driving skills will improve continuously thereafter. Thankfully, in most cases, they do, at least in some respects. Where a fleet driver training scheme is implemented, accident rates in that fleet can be reduced by about 20   per cent, irrespective of the age or the experience of the drivers. This is because everyone’s driving skills can be improved. There is no such thing as a perfect driver. It would be political suicide to suggest that every driver should be retrained every five years, but it could reduce accidents by another 10 or 15 per cent. That would of course impact on the cost of insurance and would probably be cost effective. Clauses 23 and 24 deal with driver training courses. I cannot avoid detecting some timidity on the part of the Government, and in Committee I shall table amendments to provide for retraining for most drivers who commit moving traffic offences. Experience of pilot schemes shows that those courses are taken seriously and that most of the students enjoy them. Some noble Lords may query the cost. First, I should not be surprised if the cost of the training was not exceeded by the direct avoidable costs of the accidents to the drivers and operators of the vehicle, in terms of insurance costs and vehicle operating costs. Secondly, there is a high avoidable cost to the state of road traffic accidents. But finally, and perhaps more importantly, it is morally wrong to allow motorists to continue to drive when we know that their driving is not up to standard and we do nothing about it. I hate overtaking anything on a single carriageway. It is inherently dangerous, with potentially a very high impact speed that is often in excess of 100 mph, which is not survivable in the event of an accident. Many noble Lords may not be aware that the speed limit for a heavy goods vehicle on a single carriageway is 40   mph, no matter how good the single carriageway is. Unless there is a central reservation in the road, the speed limit for a heavy goods vehicle is 40 mph. I shall support my noble friend Lord Hanningfield in his amendment to increase the speed limit to 50 mph for a heavy goods vehicle on a single carriageway. Of course, there will be single carriageways for which that is not suitable, but then we can have a lower speed limit for a heavy goods vehicle. The Minister will probably claim in winding up the debate that HGVs are not able to stop as quickly. But he may be forgetting that HGVs enjoy much better visibility because the driver is higher up. Also, most of the time, HGVs braking potential is limited by tyre adhesion and not by the efficiency of the brakes, which is probably why they all have to have anti-lock braking systems. I also fear that there may be a hidden statistical problem. A head-on collision involving two cars, one of which is overtaking a heavy goods vehicle, might not be recorded as an accident involving a heavy goods vehicle. If any work has been done on that problem—perhaps by the TRL—I should be extremely grateful if the Minister could draw it to my attention by writing to me. Many noble Lords have referred to alcohol. The Bill covers compulsory retests, but I am not sure why they click in after a two-year ban. Why not a one-year ban? In addition, some noble Lords have pointed to other countries with lower blood-alcohol levels. I am pleased that the Government have not gone down that route; most of the countries with lower BACs also have lighter penalties, which would send entirely the wrong signal. It would almost certainly increase the number of inadvertent incidents of ““morning-after”” offences, even if the consumption the night before was quite modest. I am intrigued about the alco-lock provisions in Clause 13, but am concerned about the drafting of new Section 34D(12), to which the noble Earl, Lord Glasgow, alluded. The provision does not appear to catch a sober person giving the alco-lock a clean blow. It catches any interference with the mechanism, but if a completely sober passenger blows into the device, that is not caught. We shall have to look at that matter carefully. I welcome the proposals for rest places on trunk roads and motorways, but I am extremely concerned about the provisions for truck-stops for drivers of goods vehicles. The situation is not good; our provision is very poor compared to that of our continental partners. The truck-stops at South Mimms, Thurrock services and Clacketts Lane are all grossly overcrowded, especially at night, and heavy goods vehicles are obliged to park on slip roads, which then causes the police terrible problems of enforcement. In many cases, the facilities are well below standard; often the ablutions in those establishments are frankly disgusting. As a result a very large number of heavy goods vehicle drivers sleep in their cabs overnight in lay-bys. Of course, there are no toilets, no ablutions and no security—and no alternative. It is little wonder that there are very few female truck drivers and a severe HGV driver shortage. I appreciate that there are severe planning difficulties associated with those service areas, but I do not believe that it is right either morally or in terms of efficiency for a large number of workers in an economically essential activity to have to work in such conditions. Many noble Lords have supported the idea of a first aid test. They will not be surprised to hear that in my time I have undertaken a lot of first aid training, but I was not aware of its potential to save so many lives. We need to think very carefully of how, not if, we can take advantage of that possibility. In any case, we ought to consider whether HGV drivers should have to hold an in-date first aid at work certificate. There is a problem with speed cameras and penalty points. I know of one retired army officer and one Baroness on the Benches opposite who have nine penalty points. Neither of them has had accidents for many years. I suggest that the Minister has to introduce graduated penalties; if he does not, at the current rate of issuing penalty points, there will be a large number of mature, low-risk drivers who will be banned from driving under the totting-up procedure. Many noble Lords have referred to the recreational use of motorbikes and 4x4s. I believe that there is a desperate need for proper off-road playgrounds in suitable locations, but I recognise that there are planning difficulties. Many noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord   Berkeley, will be concerned and disappointed with the behaviour of a very small number of police officers. There was one court case in which the police officer was accused of driving at 159 mph. I would be grateful if the Minister could write and tell me what the speed rating was of the tyres on the vehicle in question. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, will join me in an amendment to require records of training runs to be kept by the police. That could easily be achieved by using satellite tracking technology, which is already used for heavy goods vehicle commercial operations. The tone of this debate bodes well for the later stages of the Bill. I apologise for taking so long.