Matters of moment, September 1983

Browse pages
Current page

1

Current page

2

Current page

3

Current page

4

Current page

5

Current page

6

Current page

7

Current page

8

Current page

9

Current page

10

Current page

11

Current page

12

Current page

13

Current page

14

Current page

15

Current page

16

Current page

17

Current page

18

Current page

19

Current page

20

Current page

21

Current page

22

Current page

23

Current page

24

Current page

25

Current page

26

Current page

27

Current page

28

Current page

29

Current page

30

Current page

31

Current page

32

Current page

33

Current page

34

Current page

35

Current page

36

Current page

37

Current page

38

Current page

39

Current page

40

Current page

41

Current page

42

Current page

43

Current page

44

Current page

45

Current page

46

Current page

47

Current page

48

Current page

49

Current page

50

Current page

51

Current page

52

Current page

53

Current page

54

Current page

55

Current page

56

Current page

57

Current page

58

Current page

59

Current page

60

Current page

61

Current page

62

Current page

63

Current page

64

Current page

65

Current page

66

Current page

67

Current page

68

Current page

69

Current page

70

Current page

71

Current page

72

Current page

73

Current page

74

Current page

75

Current page

76

Current page

77

Current page

78

Current page

79

Current page

80

Current page

81

Current page

82

Current page

83

Current page

84

Current page

85

Current page

86

Current page

87

Current page

88

Current page

89

Current page

90

Current page

91

Current page

92

Current page

93

Current page

94

Current page

95

Current page

96

Current page

97

Current page

98

Current page

99

Current page

100

Current page

101

Current page

102

Current page

103

Current page

104

Current page

105

Current page

106

Current page

107

Current page

108

Current page

109

Current page

110

Current page

111

Current page

112

Current page

113

Current page

114

Current page

115

Current page

116

Current page

117

Current page

118

Current page

119

Current page

120

Current page

121

Current page

122

Current page

123

Current page

124

Current page

125

Current page

126

Current page

127

Current page

128

Current page

129

Current page

130

Current page

131

Current page

132

Current page

133

Current page

134

Current page

135

Current page

136

Current page

137

Current page

138

Current page

139

Current page

140

Current page

141

Current page

142

Current page

143

Current page

144

Current page

145

Current page

146

Current page

147

Current page

148

An opportunity lost?

We have to admit it, our hearts leapt when we read a newspaper headline “Speed limits to rise”. At last, the miserable 70 mph limit on Britain’s motorway system was to be increased to a sensible (and normal) 80 mph, surely?

Unfortunately not. Transport Under Secretary Mrs Lynda Chalker has proposed a series of 31 changes to the speed limits for commercial vehicles, coaches, and cars with trailers in a draft set of regulations which will be set before Parliament after discussion. Most of these are upwards and welcome, a car towing a trailer for instance being allowed to cruise at 60 mph on motorways and 50 mph on other roads.

What is so surprising is that the changes are proposed simply because the existing limits are so widely ignored, apparently. If Mrs Chalker is so rightly concerned that the law should not be an ass, we wonder why she did not attend first to the most abused limit of all, that of the 70 mph limit for cars on motorways?

We have endured this 70 mph limit since 1967 and have seen the effect, and consequences, of vehicles bunching up into groups, just as critics said would happen. Bunching is rare in Germany where most sections of the vast autobahnen system are free of any limits for private vehicles, and are unusual in France where a more sensible 130 km/h (80 mph) speed limit prevails.

If any law brings otherwise law-abiding citizens into conflict with the police it is that concerning speed limits. Young officers are, we gather, encouraged to meet certain targets in prosecutions, therefore concentrating on motoring offences (so much easier, and less time consuming, than looking for burglars and muggers), while some of their more experienced colleagues are not above dressing up the evidence a little to make it more convincing.

The practice of policemen in falsifying evidence to courts seems to be increasing, and involving more and more motorists. Some officers (a minority, we hope) do not see any wrong in telling a magistrate that they followed a car for half a mile at a steady speed, when they clearly did not, in stating that a motorist was doing 90 mph when that was their speed while catching up, and embellishing their testimony in other, similar ways to make it sound more weighty.

Most magistrates know that this is a practice but have to give the benefit of any doubt to the police; more and more motorists are aware of it, too, but realise that their voices are in a wilderness — no-one likes to talk about “bent coppers”, and heaven knows their job is bad enough when they attend a motorway pile-up. Perhaps they believe that their duty is best served by catching all the drivers exceeding 70 mph before they have their accident (in their opinion). The diligence does, of course, add substantially to the coffers of local authorities and helps to keep the police patrols on the road, but there is nothing that could justify the bringing of false evidence to secure a conviction. That is the beginning of the end of our free society. Mrs Chalker speaks of “concern about the 70 mph limit on coaches,” being prepared to “consider evidence from interested organisations that this limit may be too high”. That sounds like Big Sister at work, for what interested tell-tale parties could she have in mind, unless environmentalists . . . or the outgoing chairman of British Rail, Sir Peter Parker?

An express coach travelling at 70 mph on a motorway can be rather daunting on a wet day, when it travels along in a high-speed blanket of spray leaving one with the choice of accelerating past when it is safe to do so (and breaking the law in the process) or falling back and following this obstruction for dozens of miles. The risk of a coach driver falling asleep at the wheel is probably higher than any connected with his actual speed — and would actually increase if the limit were to be lowered. Mrs Chalker’s statement mentions that the British Standards Institution has nearly completed its research on reducing spray from the wheels of heavy lorries (we hope this includes coaches), and will be the subject of draft regulations in the autumn. If that is the case, we have no doubt at all that coaches should continue to run at 70 mph and that motorists should be permitted to increase their speed, legally, to 80 mph or more. Mrs Chalker has indicated that there is time for discussion, and we will make our views known to her.

Next month’s Motor Sport will include a petition against the 70 mph speed limit, so make sure you obtain your copy and use the petition fonts. There may never be a better opportunity to make our views known to a transport minister, so if in the meantime you wish to make your feelings known on the subject write to Mrs Lynda Chalker, MP, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Transport, 2 Marsham Street, London SW 1P 3EB.

A predecessor in 1967, Mrs Barbara Castle, took note of the original Motor Sport petition against the 70 mph speed limit which, perhaps, changed her mind about lowering the limit to 60 mph after the trial period. Let us see if her present-day successor has a more enlightened attitude. —Michael Cotton