Road Safety Bill [HL]

We have had another interesting and lively debate and one that could have been predicted. The arguments have been well rehearsed on previous occasions. I will make one obvious salient point—my noble friend Lord Faulkner expressed it first, so I will admit to plagiarism. This is a road safety Bill. Therefore, it behoves those who wish to present amendments to indicate how they would enhance road safety. The noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, and the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, said that common sense suggests that we should increase the limit to the speed at which a certain proportion of drivers drive regularly on our motorways. The answer to that was given by the   noble Earl, Lord Dundee, first. People drive at 80   because the speed limit is 70 miles per hour. If the speed limit were 80, they would drive at 90. This is not a question of people observing speed limits rigorously when they are absolutely sure that the limits are the right ones and having a level of tolerance when they think that they are the wrong ones. That is not so at all. People know that their cars can go faster. The majority of vehicles can get up to these speeds with ease and therefore the driver is not constrained by feeling that he is driving his car at its extremity. At 90   miles an hour the vast majority of cars—certainly the ones that occupy the outside lanes of the motorway—always give drivers the impression that they are fully under control. There is no constraint with regard to that. So where does common sense cut in? There is a well known belief that it is quite difficult to enforce speed limits tight to the margin. The higher one goes, the more difficult it is to operate in the margin. The police have a margin at 30 miles an hour, where they do not enforce the speed limit at 31 miles an hour, although I am not saying that now and again one or two people do not get caught close to that lower limit. However, even with cameras—particularly with cameras—the police need the security of knowing that they will win the case and that the information is sufficiently accurate. I am afraid that the problem with cameras is that the tolerance level is a percentage level, so as the speed rises, so the percentage of tolerance has to be increased. The simple fact of the matter is that every motorist in the country will believe—and they will be reasonably right in their belief—that if the police do not hit him at 75 mph, even at 80 mph, when the limit is 70 mph, they will certainly not hit him at bang on 80   mph when the limit is 80 mph, because the technology would not secure the prosecution. The police would be obliged to operate a level of tolerance beyond 80 mph. What would that mean? Of course, it would mean a level of tolerance pushing towards 90   mph. It would not be a question of common sense, but a question of every driver knowing what the outer limit was as far as likely prosecution was concerned. That is the nature of progress in a car. If I am causing puzzlement because a number of noble Lords are not attracted ever to driving a car close to the speed limits, all I can say is that our fellow citizens do. Every day, one just knows that that is the case. If you stick to the speed limits on any road in Britain, you will find yourself under a degree of pressure. You will certainly be passed if it is possible to pass you. As the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, indicated, if you go along at 70 mph on the motorway, you will be passed by a very substantial proportion of the traffic. I got a nod of agreement from the noble Viscount, Lord Goschen, on that. I will not get a nod of agreement when I say that if the limit were 80 mph, pretty similar proportions of motorists would be driving in excess of that speed too. If noble Lords proposing the amendment were to say, ““But we’ve got evidence to show that the faster the traffic goes and the more contented and fulfilled the driver is, the safer the traffic””, it might be a different matter, but it is not so. Perhaps I may appeal to the common sense of the noble Lord, Lord Cobbold, by asking whether it is likely that the roads become safer at higher speeds. First, there is our old friend, reaction time, and our old friend, the question whether even the safest of cars can brake as effectively from 90 mph as they can from a speed that is 10 mph lower. We have of course the evidence from those who have tried this exercise. In the United States, we are able to compare those states which raised the speed limit—modestly, to 75 mph—with the many states which kept the old speed limit. The beauty of the United States’ federal constitution is that no state has to do what the others do. The difference between the states that increased their speed limits and those that did not was a 38 per cent accident rate. It is not always that one can refer to the United States as a laboratory for all aspects of social activity, but I think that driving a car is not a bad laboratory. After all, the United States have the highest level of car ownership in the world and that is the evidence that they have produced. Of course we understand the power of the argument that laws are valid because they meet with public opinion and are obeyed voluntarily by our fellow citizens without need for enforcement; and that any law which requires total enforcement is not doing its job because it does not have the support of the public. But let us be absolutely clear about the motorway speed limit. If we increase that   speed limit, our fellow citizens—and we ourselves perhaps—would stretch the limits beyond the speed limit, because that is what we do. In answer to the question of the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner, the technology exists. Between Junctions 10 and 15 of the M25, that most beloved of motorways, gantry-mounted controls operate variable speed limits. Nobody has ever dared to ask, ““Why don’t you up them a bit to 80””? ““Variable speed limits”” mean that a 70 mph limit is in force and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, indicated, the speed limits are sometimes reduced because of traffic conditions and traffic flow, and, of course, weather conditions. Would that we had the technology right across our motorway system. We do not have it, and that is why we cannot use variable limits in that way. But I have no doubt, given the increase in car ownership and the problems of congestion on our roads, that we probably will have to face up to the bills involved in this technology. It has been installed at those particular junctions on the M25 for two reasons: first, the extensive roadworks as the road is being constructed there; secondly, it is the most intensively used motorway in the United Kingdom by quite a significant margin. That is why the technology is in place there. I hope that answers the noble Baroness’s question, but it may not have done.