---

Road Safety Bill [HL]

This is a different matter from the previous amendment. If my noble friend had not tabled the amendment, I should have done so, and I apologise for not having put my name to it. In the UK we are building more and more high quality and wide single carriageways where a dual carriageway is not justified. Often top speeds of 50 mph on those routes gives a reasonable average speed, but 40   mph does not. That creates a terrible temptation, often in frustration, to overtake a heavy goods vehicle. I do not believe that the main driver for the amendment should be to reduce congestion or increase productivity for heavy goods vehicles. The main driver for the amendment is pure safety. A head-on collision with an impact speed of more than 100 mph is not survivable. It is also totally unfair to the completely blameless driver coming the other way who has a head-on collision with a car attempting to overtake a heavy goods vehicle. A particular problem is that what may appear to be an ideal location to overtake a heavy goods vehicle, such as a junction because the road is widened out with even better visibility, is the worst possible place to overtake. I am really concerned that Ministers do not understand how refined modern heavy goods vehicles are. I urge the Minister or a colleague in the other place with responsibilities for these matters to take a ride in a heavy goods vehicle—perhaps off-road at MIRA or Millbrook—to see what a modern vehicle is like at 40   mph and 50 mph. My experience of driving heavy goods vehicles tells me that if the Minister maintains his current position, he will condemn many people to unnecessary death in a brutal head-on collision with high impact speeds.