THE MOTOR TRAFFIC REPORT. T HE report of the Select Committee
appointed to inquire into fatal accidents due to motor traffic in London would have been much more valuable than it is if the members of the Committee had not allowed their bias against motor omnibuses to colour their recommendations. The selection of the Committee was from the outset a mistake. In view of the known conflict in London between the supporters of municipal tramways and the owners of motor omnibuses, it was of the utmost importance that an impartial Committee should be chosen. The Government Whips, however, who presumably are responsible for the selection of a Committee, seem to have gone out of their way to choose members who were committed by their antecedents to a pro-tramway view. Mr. Allen Baker, a Liberal, is an ex-member of the London County Council, who has been " prominently connected with tramway extensions" on the London County Council, and has acted as chairman of the Highways Committee ; Mr. Shirley Benn, Unionist, is also an ex-member of the London County Council, and was chairman of the Highways Committee in 1909-10; Mr. Daniel Boyle, Nationalist, was chairman of the Tramways Committee on the Manchester City Council from 1898 to 1906; Mr. Stephen Collins, Liberal, Mr. Goldsmith, Unionist, Mr. Walter Guinness, Unionist, the Earl of Kerry, Unionist, Lord Alexander Thynne, Unionist, are all members or ex-members of the London County Council. In addition, the Committee included Mr. Will Thorne, the well-known Socialist, who has been a member of the West Ham County Council. Thus nine members out of the fifteen composing the Committee were personally associated with the policy of municipalization. In saying this we are well aware that Unionist members of the London County Council frequently protest against municipalization, but in practice all the members of that body are necessarily affected by its municipalizing traditions, and though Unionist County Councillors frequently denounce munici- palization, in practice there is very little stay in the progress of that movement. It is only necessary to add that the balance of the Committee was largely made up of Liberals in order to secure the customary ministerial majority, and at the present time the Liberal Party is practically identified with the policy of municipalization.
Thus we have a tribunal which, though nominally impartial, is in effect pledged to a particular policy. It is not surprising that this tribunal should have reported so emphatically against motor omnibuses and in favour of tramways. If the report on this issue had been confined to the relative merits of the two forms of traction from the point of view of public safety, little could have been said against it. In many ways a tramcar is certainly less dangerous to the pedestrian than a motor omnibus, and it is well that this point should be brought out. The fatal flaw in the report of the Select Committee is the proposal that the London County Council, which is pecuniarily interested in the management of tramways, should be allowed to make by-laws affecting motor omnibuses which might seriously cripple these competitors of the tramway system. It is one of the most interesting developments of modern democratic ideas that a Radical Committee of the House of Commons should thus propose to make a litigant judge in his own case. It is no answer to say that the question of the regulation of street traffic is a municipal one and ought to be in the bands of a muni- cipal authority. That argument would hold good if the London County Council were a municipal authority and nothing else ; but that body has chosen to become the promoter of a particular form of traffic, and therefore cannot safely be trusted with the control of other forms of traffic. It is only necessary to take note of the speeches made by Progressive members of the London County Council to realize what would happen. These members have made not the slightest concealment of their desire to get control of the whole of the street traffic in London in order to protect their tramway property against the com- petition of the motor omnibuses. Though nominally Free Traders, the Progressives of the London County Council have not the least objection to applying protective principles for the benefit of a concern in which their amour propre is involved. Whatever else may happen to the other recom- mendations of Sir George Toulmin's Committee it is to be hoped—and, indeed,'it may be assumed—that this particular proposal will certainly not be adopted.
Many of the other proposals are in every way excellent. In particular, the Committee have done wisely in recom- mending the establishment of a new traffic authority for the whole of London. This recommendation was originally made in a somewhat different form by the Royal Commis- sion on London Traffic, but the proposal of the Royal Commission was only for an advisory board which should report to the existing authorities. The Select Committee quite rightly point out that this proposal does not go far enough. What is really needed is an amalgamation of the various powers now exercised by the Board of Trade, the Local Government Board, and the Home Office, and the Committee report in favour of the creation of a new traffic branch of the Board of Trade which would take over all the traffic powers of the above- mentioned authorities. Provided this new traffic branch is composed of capable men whose impartiality and knowledge are generally recognized, the proposal is an excellent one. Having made this suggestion, which is in reality the key of their report, the Committee unfortunately were led astray by their passion for municipalization to deprive their proposed new authority of most of the duties which ought properly to belong to it. It is this new authority which should have power to make by-laws for London traffic, not the London County Council or the other County Councils whose authority extends into the metropolitan area. Indeed, the very fact that there are no fewer than five County Councils having jurisdiction within the metropolis is alone sufficient to condemn the proposal of the Select Committee that the duty of making by-laws should rest with these bodies. The result would almost inevitably be a series of more or less conflicting regulations, while it is certain that the regulations will in many cases be designed less for the purpose of pro- tecting the public than of protecting tramway revenues., In curious contrast with this exaggerated respect for municipal authority as expressed through a County Council is the disregard which the Committee show for the authority of the borough councils. At present metro- politan borough councils have the right to veto tramway schemes, and that right has been frequently used to prevent the London County Council carrying tramways through streets to the detriment or annoyance of the inhabitants. It is not easy to see why this right should be abolished. It can, of course, in any particular case be over-ridden by the authority of a Committee of the House of Commons dealing with a Tramway Bill, and though it is conceivable that the right may sometimes have been abused in order to extract unduly favourable terms from the tramway authority for the benefit of a particular locality, this again is a matter which can be dealt with when a Tramway Bill comes before Parliament.
What Sir George Toulmin's Committee fail to under- stand is that in large districts of London there is the strongest possible feeling against tramways, and people who object to tramways have just as much right to give expression to their feeling as the enthusiasts of the County Council who would like to have tramways running down every main street in the metropolis. The fact of the matter is that tramways are fast becoming obsolete as a, means of urban conveyance. There were far-seeing engineers even twenty years ago who advocated the abandonment of tramways in favour of a road surface so smooth that the friction upon it would be practically no greater than the friction of tram-rails. We have now, however, nearly attained this ideal. An asphalt or wood- paved road offers very little more resistance to the india- rubber tyres of a motor omnibus than a tram-line does to the steel wheels of a tramcar. But there is an immense economy in the motor omnibus system as compared with the tramway system. In addition there is the great advantage that a new route for omnibuses can be estab- lished at a moment's notice or abandoned if it is not found to be profitable, whereas in the case of tramways a long delay must occur before a new line can be established, and if that line proves unprofitable it cannot be abandoned without a heavy loss of capital. On the other hand, account must be taken of the very important fact that tramways do directly contribute to the maintenance of the roads and motor omnibuses do not. The argument of the motor omnibus proprietors on this point is not quite con- clusive. They contend that tramways have an exclusive use of that portion of the roadway occupied by their track, and therefore ought to pay for it. The answer is, first, that the tramway track is, as a matter of fact, used by other vehicles during a large part of the day, although the tramway authorities have paid for it, and secondly, that motor omnibuses do impose a very heavy expenditure upon local authorities for the maintenance of a good road surface. It is therefore most desirable that some arrangement should be made by which motor omni- buses may directly contribute a reasonable sum for the upkeep of the roads which they use. In this connexion. we are glad to see that the Select Committee lay stress upon the weight of the motor omnibuses. Already a great improvement has been effected in this matter, the weight having been reduced from five to three and a half tons, but in the interests of public safety and of the life of the road surface it is very desirable that a further reduction should be made.
It is, further, a great mistake to imagine that motor omni- buses alone are responsible for the loss of life in London streets. The statistics issued by the Select Committee show that motor-cars and taxi-cabs are even greater offenders. On this point the Committee strongly recom- mend either a strengthening of the criminal law or of its administration. The witnesses from the Home Office were emphatic that in many cases drivers of motor-cars and other motor vehicles have been let off with a small fine when they ought to have been prosecuted for manslaughter and received a very severe sentence.
Previous page
