(North West Hampshire) (Con)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about
speeding offences on roads to which a 20mph limit applies; to
make provision about the enforcement of moving traffic offences;
to require 24 hour staffing of works on specified public roads;
and for connected purposes.
As I am sure you are aware, Mr Deputy Speaker, life as a motorist
has changed significantly over the past two decades. Cars have
become safer, more efficient, greener and quieter, and yet
despite the fact that the motor car is possibly one of the
greatest contributors to human wealth, happiness and freedom, it
has become seen by many as the root of all evil. Despite the
enormous benefits that cars bring to our constituents’ families
up and down the land and, indeed, to people across the world, for
many motorists, the world seems to be filled with councillors and
officials who are dedicated to making their lives more difficult.
Driving is becoming a minefield of potential traps and penalties,
such that drivers are becoming paranoid and resentful about the
entire system. When that happens, order tends to break down, and
the time has come for a rebalancing.
In the Bill, I propose three modest measures that would achieve a
better balance and would hopefully see better results generally
for motorists and members of our communities across the board.
First, I propose that anybody caught speeding between 20 mph and
30 mph does not receive penalty points, rather they would be
required to attend a speed awareness course. Repeat offences
would require repeat attendance at speed awareness courses. I
should declare an interest, having been at a speed awareness
course recently after I was caught unwittingly doing 24 mph on
the Embankment, along with the Archbishop of Canterbury—not at
the same time or in the same vehicle, but he was also done for a
similar offence.
The roll-out of 20 mph speed limits across the country has
brought benefits in terms of road safety, but it has left many
thousands of drivers disproportionately punished for straying
over the limit. The fact that drivers can receive three penalty
points for doing 24 mph in a 20 mph zone and for doing 57 mph in
a 50 mph zone seems unfair to many and is in danger of
discrediting the system. In addition to penalty points and a
fine, drivers so punished would also face higher insurance
premiums at a time when premiums are rising significantly in any
event. As it stands, it is possible for someone to lose their
driving licence by driving at 24 mph four times in three
years.
Two years ago, it was revealed that as 20 mph zones were rolled
out across London, Transport for London was setting a target of a
million speeding fines a year with the Met police. That
represents a huge increase in prosecutions and the accumulation
of points. Analysis of Department for Transport data by
Claims.co.uk confirms that of those speeding in a 20 mph zone,
49% were exceeding the limit by 5 mph or more, and only 19% were
driving above 30 mph. Those numbers, of course, imply that 51% of
those caught speeding were doing less than 25 mph.
In evaluations, speed awareness courses have proven to be
significantly more effective in preventing reoffending than
penalty points and a fine. If our objective is to improve road
safety, particularly on residential roads, it would be more
effective to put people through repeated courses, perhaps with
increasing intensity and time required. That would be a more
proportionate approach and would achieve better road safety.
Points would of course still apply for those who fail to attend
courses or, indeed, who fail their courses, which I understand is
a possibility.
The second element of the Bill is for non-speeding traffic
offences enforced by a local council or body other than the
police. A first offence in those circumstances at a particular
location should result in a warning letter, rather than a fine. A
subsequent offence at the same location would attract a fine in
the normal manner. Over the past few years, we have seen a
significant increase in the number of traffic enforcement cameras
operated by local authorities. In London alone, nearly 3.2
million tickets were issued in 2022-23, extracting about £200
million from motorists. The number of councils approved by the
Government to operate enforcement in that way has increased
steadily. There are regular reports in the media of the earnings
of particular cameras. The most successful camera in Birmingham
apparently pulls in £10,000 a day from drivers who stray into bus
lanes.
A number of councils that have introduced enforcement cameras
have started with a grace period, during which erring drivers
have been issued with a warning letter for their first offence at
a particular location, recognising that a sudden change may not
be immediately appreciated by many. In Liverpool, the city of my
birth, when cameras were brought in at one particular location,
1,400 drivers were caught out within the first 24 hours. Happily,
they all received a warning letter first. That is a good and
civilised principle, and it maintains public support for the
enforcement system. It recognises that the vast majority of
drivers will have made a genuine error, will learn their lesson
and will not make the same mistake again.
This very British sense of giving people the benefit of the doubt
should continue, and this Bill would make it a permanent feature.
Anyone who commits a moving traffic offence—caught in the yellow
box, straying into a bus lane or turning left when they should
not—enforced by a local authority with a camera for the first
time at a particular location would only receive a warning
letter. Subsequent offences at the same location would attract a
fine in the normal manner.
Finally, the third element of my Bill says that any roadworks on
an A road should not be left unattended at any time. We know, as
Members of Parliament travelling around our constituencies and to
and from London, that the Government have struggled to control
and minimise disruptive roadworks. Anyone who drives in any major
city will say that unannounced roadworks with poor traffic
management and inconsiderate positioning are a source of huge
delay and aggravation—even more so when those works are seemingly
abandoned and lifeless, sometimes for days.
Even in the past few days Hyde Park Corner, one of the busiest
junctions in the capital, has been beset with works and temporary
traffic lights, with not a soul in sight after 5 pm. There is a
polite Government consultation out at the moment on increasing
fines and tinkering a bit with the current system. My right hon.
Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois)
introduced his ten-minute rule Bill, the Roadworks (Regulation)
Bill, last year with an imaginative and more radical set of
measures to address the same problem, and his “Can the Cones”
campaign hit the mark with many.
My proposal is simple. It would require contractors to ensure
that no roadworks on any A road can ever be left unattended.
Someone must always be on hand to deal with problems, speak to
the public, alert authorities to traffic issues and generally
manage the site. That obligation would also provide a powerful
incentive for the work to be completed quickly and the duty could
be satisfied by having at least one person always working on the
site—a very efficient use of resources and one that would show
the public that contractors are being as diligent as possible and
works are being completed as swiftly as possible. Above all,
motorists would know that their safe and smooth passage through
the works was being supervised at all times.
These three simple measures would improve all our lives, with
greater road safety, a greater sense of proportion and
civilisation in the enforcement of non-speeding traffic offences
and less aggravation for motorists going through abandoned
works.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That , , , , , , , , and present the Bill.
accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 19
April, and to be printed (Bill 152).
