Clear the Way
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHEN the Lords recently held a debate on road accidents they put forward their arguments and suggestions, for the most part, in a sober fashion. The discussion was mainly a series of variations on a fairly straightforward theme. Lord Llev.'ellin, president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, set the ball rolling by emphasizing the need for educating road users, for propaganda and for better roads.
The remaining speakers dealt with each of these points in various ways. The general impression was that all parties were agreed on what ought to be done, but that some members of the House of Lords thought the Government could act more quickly than at present.
The situation is disturbing, Lord Lucas, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, gave the total number of people killed and injured in road accidents during May as 16,615 and during June as 19,125. There is little doubt that the rise of over 3,1/00 has a the abolition of petrol rationing.
The temptation to fasten the guilt on the user of petrol should be resisted. The decision to free petrol was in part a recognition by the Government of the importance of roads and road transport, and it is the duty of the Government to do everything possible to mitigate any evil effect. direct connection with No problem has been interests. Each class of No problem has been interests. Each class of more obscured by sectional road user blames the other. The main cause of road accidents is variously given as speed. cyclists, pedestrians, buses, trams, lorries, schoolchildren and too few policemen.
To add to the babel of accusing voices, there is the road-rail problem. The number of pedestrians injured by trains is remarkably few, unless account is taken of the number of pedestrians who make a habit of strolling down the permanent way with a dog and a shopping basket.
The railway supporters are in a good position to belabour their rivals at least on the subject of accidents. The onslaught goes on just as heartily in spite of nationalization. It used to be widely held that much of the antagonism to the motor-vehicle user was inspired. and even subsidized, by the railways. The existence of railway M.P.s was, of course, scarcely disguised, but it was not only from the direction of Parliament that the attacks came.
Stiffened From Behind
Organizations of various kinds put forward views so pronounced and uncompromising that it seemed very much as if their opposition were stiffened from behind the scenes. There were individuals who must have spent a large part of their time in writing letters to the Press, denouncing the inhumanity of the road user—an occupation not without its joys, perhaps, but singularly unremunerative unless some outside interest were willing to finance the correspondents.
Presumably, these under-cover activities, if they ever went on. would have ended with nationalization. Otherwise, there would be the unedifying spectacle of one
of the British Transport Commission's Executives hitting another below the belt. In fact, the campaign continues with undiminished ferocity. The policy of "use the trains and save the children" is still urged frequently in the correspondence colunms of the Press.
The problem of road safety is raised at every opportunity. Only recently, an article in the " Railway Review," on the subject of transport costs, abruptly branched off into an ingenious attack on road transport, which, "in relation to deaths and injuries, has become. the most expensive and wasteful form of transport in existence. Under such a system, income is not related to real costs and losses of lives are not considered in assessing the progress made."
This diatribe, in common with most other partisan approaches to the subject, begs the question by ignoring the possibility of improving the roads. If the loss and damage resulting from road accidents be high—and they have been put at £100,000,000 annually—that fact may be regarded as justification for spending at least the same amount on roads designed, among other things, to reduce the risk of accidents. Better roads would mean other economies. Higher speeds would reduce transport costs. Smoother progress would save fuel, tyres and human tempers.
Propaganda against the road user may easily have
a boomerAng effect. The position is grave, and may become worse despite good will and publicity. There are,. bioadly speaking, two possible remedies: either to suppress road transport or to improve the road system.
Suppression, or at least stringent control, has been given a long trial, without notable success. A good deal of the Lords' debate was taken up with the review of past legislation, and suggestions for the future.
Fines On the Spot
The Government spokesman, as well as opposition
speakers, approved the logic of making cyclists use cycle tracks provided for them. The payment of fines on the spot for jay-walking was mooted. Practically every category of road user received its share of censure, but the criticism all strengthened the case for modern roads embodying the principle of segregation. Restriction in such circumstances may actually give the public more than it takes away. Clearing the roads may clear the way for the solution of the road problem.
The drawing of attention to the accident rate, with the object of stirring up action against road user, may have the opposite effect of shaking the Government out of its lethargic attitude towards road construction and maintenance.
The main, if not the only, difficulty is finance. On this score the road user has a justifiable complaint. He finds that the Government year after year cuts down the sum permitted for expenditure on the roads, while increasing item by item the taxation on vehicles and their fuel. If the reverse process were adopted, or, better still, if road expenditure were equated with road taxation, the Government would soon notice decided improvements in efficiency and safety