I do not support the amendment for many reasons. First, the throughput of motorways is very much determined by the average speed of the traffic moving through them. If a few vehicles are going very fast and some are going relatively slowly, fewer vehicles will go through than if everyone went through at a constant speed. That is the science behind the cameras that have been put on the M25, where the variable limits are adjusted so that the maximum number of vehicles can get through the motorway at a given time. There are certainly plenty of speed cameras in force on the M25, mainly because men are working there.
The noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, mentioned a speed camera that has raised £1.2 million. That it is perfectly true. The cameras that he mentioned are at Bristol. They have been erected while the motorway is being repaired. They have been in operation for only a month or two. The limit is 40 miles per hour. They have raised all that money because people have been going through at speeds in excess of 100 miles an hour. In all the motorway service stations in the area big notices warn people that there is a speed limit. It is to protect people who are working there. I am certain that I have these statistics right: in the same period three workmen have been killed and seven seriously injured. No other industry would tolerate that level. If three railwaymen had been killed and seven injured there would be shouts for a public inquiry and all sorts of things, whereas on the roads it is dismissed as just more casualties.
The 70 mile per hour limit is, as has been said, widely not observed, but we know that people go along at about 80 miles per hour and that is more or less tolerated. However, we also know that, if the limit were raised to 80, the amount of tailgating and other unsocial behaviour by people bullying their way along the motorway would increase no end. To mix up lorries which are supposed to go at only 56 miles per hour with cars going along at 90 or 100 miles per hour is a recipe for disaster and tragedy. Certainly, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that if he is expecting any support from me he is certainly mistaken.
Road Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Lord Bradshaw
(Liberal Democrat)
in the House of Lords on Monday, 4 July 2005.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Road Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
673 c476 Session
2005-06Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2024-04-21 12:51:41 +0100
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260954
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260954
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_260954