Road Safety Bill [HL]

My Lords, it is always a pleasure to follow the noble Earl. There was I thinking that the cubit, the span and the palm were good measurements—and he wants us to adopt something else! This Bill can be welcomed in the main. It is largely sound, although there is controversy about the graduated penalty points proposed for speeding. There is a whole long list of subjects which could contribute to road safety which are not mentioned in the Bill; I shall refer to some of them later. I reiterate the fundamental view on these Benches that while it is inevitable that most journeys will be made by road, the Government should do all that they can to provide alternatives and to promote the use of those alternatives. As there is considerable reluctance by many car drivers to use other means, it is worth acknowledging that various degrees of coercion will be necessary. Let me applaud the most recent pronouncements about road pricing made by the Secretary of State for Transport. I expect to hear about plans to improve the alternative means—and not just in Scotland and Wales. The Minister identified that the British road system is safer than most by international comparison. However, he also reminded the House of the steady statistic of 3,500 deaths on the road each year, which   comes to nine or 10 per day. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw referred to serious concern about the non-use of installed seatbelts and the greater chance of death in accidents. He also referred to the difficulties that occur in the detection of drugged drivers. At Question Time today my noble friend also mentioned the merits of the Northern Ireland probationary period with its ““P”” plate, which the Minister praised, but unfortunately it gets no mention in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, mentioned the use of single and double summer time as a road safety measure. The noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, added to that. That triggers complaints from north-west Scotland regarding dark mornings but I refer to evidence on that matter from the west of Ireland and, indeed, from Iceland. Iceland maintains GMT despite being in what ought to be the GMT plus one zone, as it is mainly 20 degrees west. My noble friend Lord Glasgow encouraged me and others to enjoy some self-flagellation. Therefore, I shall seek a religious solution in the statement, ““I am a sinner too””. The noble Earl, Lord Peel, spoke about motorcyclists. One of the matters that worries me about the groups of motorcyclists who charge about the countryside is that I believe that the tail-enders are at risk because they are trying to keep up with the others on lesser machines and, frankly, they do not know where the group is going to which makes them extremely dangerous. The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, spoke about bridge strikes. We certainly agree with him that these have a disproportionate effect on the railway concerned. I also agree that the railway gets the implied presumed blame for level-crossing accidents, and that Network Rail must become a statutory consultee. I believe that the contents of the Bill will be generally helpful in small ways. Few will disagree with the mobile phone penalty enhancement. If only all forms of driver distraction could be eliminated by legislation. The means of tackling unlicensed and foreign drivers and the financial penalty deposit seem to be a way of dealing with motorists who are currently getting away with certain offences, or are believed to be getting away with them. The introduction of tests for identified bad drivers and the trialling of alcohol ignition locks may well reduce road accidents—I hope that they will. However, I also hope that the penalty for tampering with an alcohol ignition lock will be substantial and that it will be used in exemplary fashion. The tightening up of standards for number plate suppliers will end what may well be a lucrative trade. At least the new plates will be readable even though the observation of the correct spacing may frustrate some wags. I was amused by the convertible and its female driver in Alloa whose plate officially read B 17 CH. Clause 40, dealing with LPG gas conversions and presumably hydrogen cells, reminds me that I had expected that in London there would be issues of ““dodgy”” LPG conversions following the exemption of LPG cars and vans from the congestion charge. Clause 41 concerns the transport of radioactive material. I hope that the hierarchy of transport for that kind of material is by rail and sea first and by road only as a last resort. The most controversial element of the Bill seems to be the graduated penalty points for speeding. We have all received lobbying material on that. The Bill seeks to punish even harder the most blatant of speedsters, and with justification. However, others point out that pedestrians have a very reduced chance of surviving a collision with a vehicle which is travelling at any more than 30 miles per hour. They quote a mantra that 50   per cent will survive a 30 mph crash but 90 per cent will die in a 40 mph crash. The question is whether the reduction in penalty points from a standard three to a scale of two to six will downplay the importance of observing the urban and village speed limits. I am also interested in one aspect of Clause 16 that concerns speed assessment equipment detection devices. Will any compensation be paid and how much notice will be given to motorists and manufacturers? I see many advertisements in magazines and newspapers offering these devices. Does that clause include a ban on GPS-based devices that advise on the whereabouts of cameras? Like other noble Lords I have received much lobbying material that points out many subjects which would contribute to road safety but which are not included in the Bill. If the Bill were a Christmas tree I believe that it would disappear under the weight of all the matters which lobbyists would like us to hang on it. There is no mention of road pricing with its presumed decongesting and hence safety effect although it is being talked up elsewhere. There is a need for the technology to improve. There may also be a civil liberties issue about the Government knowing where all vehicles are. We have heard much about rural road hierarchies but there is no mention of that in the Bill. While urban speed limits may well be catered for, rural speed limits are in need of attention. Most motorist deaths occur on rural roads. There is a surprising rule that there cannot be a speed limit in a small village if there are no street lights. That really does not make sense. I read a good complaint that no attempt was being made to introduce a new offence of causing death by   careless driving. That was allied to a call for a non-criminal damage liability for motorists involved in accidents with vulnerable pedestrians. I have seen calls for more traffic police, for event data recorders to be fitted in all vehicles—the veritable ““black box””—for default speed limits in urban areas of 20 miles per hour and in villages of 30 miles per hour and for local authorities to have a duty of road danger reduction imposed upon them. It is a pity that there is no mention of a penalty points offence for parking in a bus lane or on a bus stop, as favoured by my noble friend Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay. That practice can make boarding a bus very difficult for the immobile and thwarts the efforts to introduce low floor buses with level access. The issue of conspicuity came up twice. Motorists should be encouraged to wear fluorescent jackets on the road at night and lorries should be marked along their sides with retro reflective tape and not just across the rear. It seems that although lorries account for just 1.4 per cent of vehicles, they are involved in 15 per cent of accidents, but are not necessarily the cause of them. The Red Cross raised with me the issue of introducing first aid training in the driving test, reflecting the preventable deaths that occur before the casualty reaches hospital. Others called for restrictions on the size of vehicles on our unclassified rural roads and for a blanket 40 mile per hour speed limit wherever there is no centre line marking. I am sure that there are many more such issues but those I have mentioned caught my attention. Will the Minister indicate whether the Government will welcome amendments that would add to the scope of the Bill? In conclusion, the Bill is largely administrative but the trend is towards greater road safety. Whether it can be added to will determine whether it can be made even more effective.