ROAD TRAFFIC ACT, 1930.

HC Deb 18 December 1934 vol 296 cc1093-124

The following Motions stood upon the Order Paper: That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Provisional Regulations, dated the 7th November, 1934, made by the Minister of Transport under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and entitled the Traffic Signs (Pedestrian Crossings) (No. 2) Provisional Regulations, 1934, be annulled. That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Provisional Regulations, dated 30th October, 1934, made by the Minister of Transport under the London Traffic Act, 1924, and entitled the London Traffic (Pedestrian Crossing Places) (No. 2) Provisional Regulations, be annulled."—[Sir W. Brass.]

11 p.m.

Sir W. BRASS

I would like to ask, Mr. Speaker, whether it would be possible to take these two Motions together. Perhaps that would be for the convenience of the House, because the Motions deal with practically the same subject.

Mr. SPEAKER

In all questions of this sort I am very much in the hands of the House. If it is for the convenience of the House, and the House approves, I have no objection to the two Motions being taken together.

Sir W. BRASS

I beg to move: That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty praying that the Provisional Regulations, dated the 7th November, 1934, made by the Minister of Transport under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and entitled the Traffic Signs (Pedestrian Crossings) (No. 2) Provisional Regulations, 1934, be annulled. First of all, I want to say to my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport that I do not move this Motion in any hostile spirit whatsoever. It is extremely difficult to criticise the regulations made by any Ministry, and, so far as we are concerned in this House, the only way to do so is to put down a Motion in order to be able to bring the matter forward. I am not doing this in order to remove pedestrian crossings, because I think that anyone who was on the Committee which dealt with the Road Traffic Bill will realise that I was one of the pioneers of these crossings, and for the last five years I have pressed upon various Ministers of Transport the necessity for pedestrian crossings in various parts of the country. Consequently, as I have said, it is in no hostile spirit that I move this Motion.

I should like to congratulate the Minister on having altered the regulations which were made by his predecessor. The regulations which we are considering tonight have annulled the previous regulations made by the late Minister of Transport, which were so complicated and difficult to understand that drivers and pedestrians found it almost impossible to know what they had to do at these crossings. I should like to congratulate the Minister on having made the crossings simple crossings, turning them into pedestrian sanctuaries, which I have advocated for many years and for which I am glad to think the Minister has now seen fit to provide in his regulations. My hon. Friend will see, therefore, that I am very sympathetic with him in regard to what he has done. I have a few criticisms to make about the crossings and about the so-called beacons, or bubbles, or whatever they are called in the Press. I will take the earlier regulation, dated the 30th October, and go through it, not in detail, but in order that the public outside may realise what the regulation really means, because I think that neither pedestrians nor drivers really understand the exact meaning of the regulations which the Minister has seen fit to make.

I do not want to be too critical, but I think it is unnecessary, when the Minister of Transport brings forward these regulations, that he should bring them forward as an urgency measure. If hon. Members who have copies of these Provisional Rules and Orders will look at them, they will see that these regulations are brought forward on account of urgency. These crossings have been put down on the roads, and the so-called beacons have been put up, without the sanction of this House, as an emergency measure. The Minister has very kindly put up in the Tea Room the signs that he proposes to put up with regard to the speed limit, and, if he had done the same in this case, and had allowed us in this House to see what he proposed, I venture to suggest that these beacons would never have been adopted on the streets of London.

It would have been far better had the Minister given us an opportunity of seeing and discussing these regulations before he brought them into operation. It was really unnecessary to make it a question of urgency, because these crossings were discussed on the Bills of 1930 and 1934 and there was nothing particularly urgent as far as a fortnight or a week or 10 days was concerned. It would have been better if the regulations had been laid on the Table in the ordinary way and the House had had the 28 days allowed to discuss them before they came into operation instead of bringing them under the Act of 1893. The first regulation that I want to criticise is No 4, which says: The driver of every vehicle approaching a crossing shall, unless he can see that there is no foot passenger thereon, proceed at such a speed as to be able, if necessary, to stop before reaching such crossing. I think that is perfectly right. It is clear that the driver of a vehicle has to see someone on the crossing before he has to get into a position to be able to stop. There must be someone actually on the crossing itself. The next one makes it even clearer. No. 5 says: The driver of every vehicle at or approaching a crossing where traffic is not for the time being controlled by a police constable or by light signals, shall allow free and uninterrupted passage to any foot passenger who is on the carriage way at such crossing, and every such foot passenger shall have precedence over all vehicular traffic at such crossing. That means that, if a pedestrian is actually on the crossing at the time that a vehicle is approaching if—not on the path—the vehicle has to give way to the pedestrian. It does not mean, as far as I understand it, that the pedestrian can stand on the path and put his hand up and say, "Stop! I want to cross here." It means that, if there is anyone on the crossing, the vehicle must not run into him but must stop. The sixth regulation says that the driver of a vehicle approaching a crossing shall allow free and uninterrupted passage to every foot passenger who has started to cross at a crossing controlled by lights. Here I think the pedestrians have not realised what their position is, and I do not think the drivers have. What happens is that, if traffic is approaching a crossing controlled by lights and a pedestrian has started when the light has not turned red against the traffic going that way, the driver has to wait until the pedestrian has crossed before he is at liberty to continue across the crossing. That is clear, but unfortunately the public do not quite understand what the regulation means. That is why I am trying to explain it, and the Minister will tell me if I am right presently. Regulation No. 7 is one with which I certainly do not agree in part. It says that, No driver of any vehicle shall cause such vehicle or any part thereof to stop upon any crossing unless either—

1. (a) he is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control; or
2. (b) if it is necessary for him to stop in order to avoid accident."

I think that that is rather a silly regulation, because there are a large number of roads which come into a main road where there is a pedestrian crossing, and unless the driver of a vehicle is able able to proceed on to the crossing, he is unable to perceive the traffic coming on the main road. Consquently he is unable to proceed on to the main road because he is behind the crossing and cannot see the vehicles on the main road. That regulation ought to be altered. It is a regulation which prevents anybody from coming on to the crossing slowly in order to be able to see what traffic is going along the main road, that is, approaching the main road from a side road. That is all I have to say about the regulations dated 30th October.

I now take the further regulations dated 7th November, 1934, which deal not with actual crossings, but with the markings of the crossings and the posts and orange balls which we see in various parts of London. I want to ask the Minister how many of the local authorities in London have agreed to put up these orange balls on the top of sticks in their own areas, because if he looks at the Provisional Rules and Orders he will see that No. 2 says: Subject as hereinafter provided and subject to any directions which the Minister may give under Section 48 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, a highway authority may "— and this is the point— cause or permit to be placed on any road in their area for the purpose of indicating a crossing place wherever situated traffic signs which shall consist of "— and so on.

That is a purely permissive measure. The Minister has not power, apparently, to force the local authorities to put up his little decorations, which were described in the Paris Press the other day as decorations which were put up to celebrate the Royal wedding. These decorations are purely permissive as far as I can make out from these Provisional Rules and Regulations. If these things are so useful in preventing pedestrians from being run over, why are not we Members of Parliament protected by the little orange balls stuck on sticks in Westminster such as there are in Kensington and in other parts of London? I think the reason is that the Westminster Council are far too sensible, and realise that these decorations are really rather stupid and very unnecessary.

I want to deal with the crossings themselves. The principle of the crossings was borrowed from Paris. In Paris they have had pedestrian crossings for many years. They started in the Champs Elysées and have gradually spread. There they have no beacons, no sticks with yellow balls on top. They simply have studs across the roads. What has happened is that the perfectly good regulation which exists in Paris has been made almost futile in London by the Ministry of Transport. They have not put down the same number of studs in London as they do in Paris. In Paris they have studs at close intervals, which makes them very easily visible to anyone who is driving. I have done a lot of driving in Paris. There, too, the studs are dome-shaped and are easily visible at night, because the lights reflect on them, but our studs are square; they have four facets and are not nearly as visible as the round studs in the roads of Paris. Our studs are allowed to be placed at very wide intervals. The object of that, I understand, is to economise on the crossings. In order to be able to do that and to put what I consider to be idiotic things on the pavements, they have economised on the studs, with the result that the studded markings on the roads are not nearly numerous enough, and the studs on the roads are not visible because they are too far apart and they are not the right kind of studs that ought to be used.

I would ask the Minister why it is that a perfectly good system which has worked admirably in Paris, and which I have advocated in this House for five solid years, when it gets to the Ministry of Transport is turned into a fantastic scheme of beacons all over the place, with these orange balls in clusters round the town? It is very unnecessary, and I do ask the Minister to reconsider the whole of this beacon system. If my hon. Friend wants to go down to posterity as the beacon or bubble king, I would suggest to him that he might continue the beacons on to the main roads. There is some excuse for a beacon on a main road, where the traffic is travelling at a certain speed, to indicate a crossing, if it is lighted at night. The whole object of the beacon, I understand, is that it is more visible than the studs. I cannot understand why a beacon should be placed at a cross-road or at a place where a vehicle is obviously going to go at a slow speed. If the beacon is placed at the entrance of a main road: if two beacons are placed across it to indicate a crossing, it is perfectly useless, because a vehicle approaching a main road when it gets to the main road is going at such a speed that the driver can easily see the studs which are put down on the road. The only reason why anything should be put up above the road to be seen at a distance is to indicate to the driver of the vehicle which is travelling at some speed that there is a crossing there.

I would ask my hon. Friend to reconsider the whole position. We have to remember one thing, and that is that if the stud system of crossings is to be a success we must have it uniform all over the country. If we are going to have uniformity we cannot litter the whole country with these orange balls. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because I think they are silly and unnecessary. [HON. MEMBERS: "Rubbish."] They are also costly. They cost about 30s. each and I understand that already the Ministry has spent some £15,000.

Dr. O'DONOVAN

What is the cost of a funeral?

Sir W. BRASS

That is not a very pertinent point. I say that they are not only silly and stupid, but a veritable danger as well. They are not more visible than the studs at night. A pedestrian standing by one of them can of course see the beacon, and also thinks that the driver of an oncoming vehicle can see it as well. He cannot, but the result is that the pedestrian ventures on to the road thinking that the driver of the vehicle can see the beacon and an accident is the result.

These beacons, therefore, instead of increasing the safety of pedestrians, will definitely do exactly the reverse. The beacons are not more visible at night than the studs, but pedestrians think they are, and consequently they venture across the road and get knocked down. I hope the Minister in his reply will not ride off, as did the late Minister of Transport, by saying that 150 people are killed each week and that we must make every experiment we can—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] We do not want to make stupid experiments. I think these beacons are a veritable danger and I hope the Minister will not try to ride off on the plea that so many people are killed every week, that any experiment, however stupid and however costly, is justified. If he wants to make experiments let him make small experiments which are going to be useful and not litter London with "orange groves" and make us the laughing stock of the world. Such a reply will not satisfy the country. Only experiments which are worth making should be made, and they should not be too costly. If the Minister is going to perpetuate these beacons I hope that he will take down those which are unnecessary and use only those which are necessary.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. HERBERT WILLIAMS

I beg to second the Motion.

It is a little unfortunate that the Rules of the House are forcing us to discuss after eleven o'clock at night what is very definitely a life and death issue. I want to tell the Minister of Transport in public what I have already told him privately, that in attaching my name to this Motion it was not because I was anxious to hamper him in the slightest degree, but because some of us who took rather an active part in Committee in the summer on a certain Bill, and were the most earnest advocates of a system of pedestrian crossings, are just a little disappointed that the experiments so far pursued have not produced the results which we think could be produced, and are so vitally necessary. Frankly, I congratulate the Minister on his energy. He has been very energetic. He has been caricatured and attacked and criticised—he will not mind that—because he has tried his best to solve a problem of the greatest difficulty which must excite the anxiety of every one of us—this daily slaughter in our midst, this mass murder on the roads, if I may so call it, which every one of us wants to bring to an end. The Minister is quite frankly an experimentalist. He says that none of us can know what is the solution of this problem. He is trying very hard to find a solution, and I can assure him that we are willing to back him up in his efforts.

But, having said that, I am going to indulge in my criticism. I think he is a little too energetic; in other words that he has taken his decisions without considering sufficiently in advance precisely the right way to achieve his ends. The position at the moment is that neither the pedestrian nor the motorist knows quite where he is. There was a little episode outside this House only three weeks ago, when someone nearly destroyed me, which might have been an advantage in the opinion of some but not in the opinion of myself. I pulled him up quite deliberately. He explained to me that I did not understand the law. Having brought him to rest I summoned one of the policemen from the gates in order that he might explain things to him. Then he had a great appreciation of the law, partly because there was a policeman supporting me. But quite obviously that motorist was under a complete misapprehension as to what his obligations were, and I am going to suggest that that is the position of the great mass of motorists and pedes- trians. Therefore I think it is vitally important that the Minister should take steps to make the position much clearer.

Everyone who drives a car knows that if he is to drive successfully his reactions must be without conscious effort; they must be automatic. A tremendous mistake has been made in having two kinds of crossings, controlled either by lights or by a policeman. The driver obeys either the lights or the policeman. But studs have been put down where studs have no significance. The motorist or pedestrian sees the studs, and he naturally says, "Is this a place where I obey the studs or the lights or the policeman?" That is psychologically wrong. You want to get it into the minds of people that where they see the studs what they have to do is the same always. At present it is not the same always. If there are lights they ignore the studs and look at the policeman or the lights. If there are no lights the motorist and the pedestrian themselves act as the administrators of the law. What they ought to do ought to be obvious to them without thinking. If you present people with the same set of circumstances and they have to do one thing in one place and another thing in another place the chances are that they will make mistakes.

I see present a very distinguished member of the medical profession who, I know, is a learned psychologist. He looks about to burst into speech. I hope he will bear out my statement that the motorists' reactions must be automatic. Therefore, I would like to see every stud taken up at points where there is a policeman on duty or where there are lights. The ordinary motorist to-day cannot see these studs, and I think the point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover in that respect is perfectly sound. I am an advocate of economy but I hate the kind of economy which goes to the point of making such expenditure as is indulged in useless. At present the studs are not sufficiently numerous to be seen by the ordinary person driving a car. A short time ago I was in trouble with a policeman over this matter and he explained to me that I was totally unfit to drive a car, because I had failed to see either beacon or studs at a crossing-place. I asked him to get into the driving-seat of the car and to tell me what he could see from there. He did so and his reply was, "Nothing, Sir." The design of the car was all right but from the seat he could not see either the studs on the roadway or the beacons.

Dr. O'DONOVAN

Perhaps it was a case for an oculist?

Mr. WILLIAMS

No, the policeman had admirable sight, and my own sight is not too bad. The present system of beacons and studs is ineffective. The object of this Debate is not to criticise the Minister and I am certain that all those taking part in it wish to be helpful, but it is necessary to point out certain difficulties and anomalies. We have an anomaly here in the-City of Westminster where they have not adopted the system which; has been adopted in the rest of London. Members who are in the habit of approaching the House from Victoria Street know the crossing near St. Margaret's Church. Even when it is visible—and as a rule it is not after two or three days' rain—vehicles pass there at great speed and the drivers take not the slightest interest in the crossing. When I am crossing there on foot I make various signals and occasionally they have some effect but it is a very dangerous place, and the pedestrian who wants to get across really does not know what to do. It is no use telling the pedestrian that when he is in the middle of the road he has certain rights. If he has a right to cross the road, he ought to be instructed definitely as to the indication which he is to give to approaching traffic, so that the approaching traffic may give way to him. In other words, he ought to have no right or ought to exercise no rights without a definite signal to approaching traffic, given in sufficient time to allow the traffic to slow down for him—a shorter time being necessary when the roads are dry and a longer time when they are wet and greasy.

My own practice is to hold out my arm, as definitely as I can, and as a rule when I have done so for a little time the drivers of vehicles seem to realise that I have some rights and slow down for me. But that is not the law. In doing that, I am merely giving my own interpretation of what ought to be done and trying to force on the attention of the drivers the fact that I have certain rights and desire to exercise them. It is no use saying that the pedestrian in the middle of the road has certain rights. He may have rights, but he is not able to exercise them efficiently because the drivers of the vehicles do not know that he has those rights and the pedestrian who tries to exercise them may find himself in another Sphere. We ought to tell the pedestrian not merely what his rights are, but what his obligations are. Undoubtedly, he has a right to cross the road. He pays a certain amount towards the cost of its construction and maintenance, and, as a citizen, he is entitled to make use of it without being asked any funny questions about "Why does a hen cross the road" or other jokes of that character. But he must be told the proper way to exercise his rights.

The Minister will, no doubt, go down to history as the inventor of what my hon. and gallant Friend the Mover has described as oranges on sticks, but I am not going to criticise the hon. Gentleman, because he put up the beacons. He realised that the crossings alone were not a success, and the beacons represent another stage in the experiment. I suggest that that stage of the experiment has not succeeded up to now. Whether we should light the beacons, or, better still, whether we should light the studs by placing a light opposite the studs to shine on them, so that there will be no doubt they are there, I do not know, but in any event it is stupid to have the studs a foot apart, so that on any dirty day you can see nothing at all. The present system is not working well. There is no one in this House who does not want to assist the Minister in the perfectly splendid energy he has put forward, and the sole object of this Debate is not to criticise but to be helpful. I think the Debate will serve a very valuable purpose, and I hope the Minister will treat it in the spirit in which we have opened the discussion.

11.36 p.m.

Sir GIFFORD FOX

I have put my name with those of my two hon. Friends to this Prayer with the object of doing all I can to help to increase safety on the roads, and to-night I do not want to go in for criticism entirely, but I should like to make a few helpful suggestions. I think the Minister has been quite right in doing what he can to experiment with these crossings, but he has gone too quickly ahead. He has not tried first a small section of London and then seen what the mistakes were and whether the crossings or beacons had been placed in the right positions. Instead of that, he seems to have been urged to put up thousands of these beacons all over the centre of London, and I think I am right in saying that the general public think that the number of beacons at each crossing is excessive.

Yesterday I was passing near Finsbury Park at a place where two roads crossed each other, and there were eight of these beacons at the four crossings—two at each corner. They cost something like 30s. each, so that it cost about £12 to put them up. It was unnecessary to have more than four beacons, and I would suggest that it was not really necessary to have as many as four, because the public do not really want to be able to cross in every direction. They might be able to go over on the north side of the crossing and perhaps on the west, and they would be able to go where they wanted. When they came to the next place where two roads inter-crossed, they would again need only two crossings to be able to get to their destination.

These beacons have been put up with yellow glass tops, and I would like to ask whether they have been made of glass because of the possibility of their being lit in the future. I would like to suggest that in perhaps one of these black spots where a great deal of traffic goes through, on a road like the Chiswick Road, which is so difficult, the beacons should be lit up by night to see if it would reduce the number of accidents there as compared with other roads that are also known as black spots. There is no doubt that a motorist coming off an arterial road at night does not see these beacons if they are not lit up, and it seems to me that the pedestrian has a false sense of security. He knows that the beacons are there—he perhaps goes over the same crossing every night—and on a wet or misty night he steps off as usual and is knocked down before he knows where he is. If the beacons could be lit up or some other way could be devised to help the motorist to see them, I am sure it would be of great advantage to all concerned.

I would also suggest that the Minister should do everything he can to educate the motorist and the pedestrian as to exactly what all these crossings mean. At present there is great confusion in the minds of both the motorist and the pedestrian, and I am sure, speaking both as a motorist and as a pedestrian, that each wishes to co-operate with the other in trying to reduce the number of accidents on the roads. In many places the pedestrians cannot see the "stop and go" signals, and I suggest that at many of the busy crossings like Oxford Street there should be some small lights which the pedestrians can see. Motorists very often think the pedestrians can see what the signals are doing, but they were designed only for the motorist, and it often happens that a pedestrian, not seeing them, steps into the road, and thus automatically slows down the traffic. The Minister, when setting down crossings, either with beacons or "stop and go" signals, should pay particular attention to the great delay which is caused to traffic. There is an enormous increase in the delay at places like Hyde Park Corner and Cannon Street in the City owing to these crossings. As soon as the light goes to green pedestrians ought to be stopped from going across so that the traffic can proceed.

I think that in certain places further underground subways would be of great assistance. We know that pedestrians do not like going downstairs and up the other side, and it may be necessary in future to have some form of moving staircase to encourage people to use the underground passages and to get off the roads so that the traffic can be allowed to proceed. I ask the Minister to do what he can to educate the motorist and the pedestrian and to encourage them to co-operate and do what they can to help every person using the road.

11.43 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL

In listening to the criticism which has been levelled against the scheme of beacons, one is tempted to imagine how it has arisen. The answer is the allegation which has been made that the beacons are of no use and cannot be seen. They are really the most obvious and conspicuous and the most commented upon, as well as the most used implement which has been brought into the whole system of traffic guidance and control. When hon. Gentlemen get up in the House and say that these things are of no use and cannot be seen, it is ridiculous. [HON. MEMBERS: "They cannot be seen at night."] Nor can you see the studs, which we were told were preferable to the beacons. The studs are useless as traffic signs except as a complementary or consequential sign to indicate where a vehicle ought to stop. It is necessary to have a conspicuous sign to indicate to a driver that he is at a point where he may have to stop. These beacons are the most conspicuous things that have been invented.

It is most unfortunate from the point of view of traffic improvement that any opposition to the general principle of these regulations should have been raised. I would go so far with my hon. Friends as to agree with them that there is some ground for comment on the way in which they are being carried out by the local authorities. The trouble in all these things is that the Departments—the Ministry of Transport, no less than the Home Office and sometimes the Ministry of Health—cannot see a thing through to finality; they cannot ensure that ultimate uniformity which is necessary if the thing is to be adequate, for they are in the hands of the local authorities. We are gradually learning in this country to appreciate that the local authorities are the most inefficient and unreliable institutions in the country, especially in matters of traffic control. The lack of uniformity, the lack of initiative, the lack of any kind of real care for the very onerous charge which is laid upon them is the outstanding feature of municipal authorities to-day, and this is nowhere more fully illustrated than in this matter of traffic control and beacon lamps. In going across London one finds that one authority has two lamps at a corner, another has four. At some cross roads where there are only two intersecting roads there are 16 lamps. At others there are eight. In my opinion four are quite enough; there ought not to be more than one of these lamps at a kerbstone corner. Where there are 16 at cross roads they become ridiculous, and the ridicule which we have heard to-night is encouraged. Instead of objecting to the Minister going on with his scheme we ought to try to see what steps can now be taken to secure that uniformity which is so lacking in the carrying out of the Orders.

My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) was making some reference to Manchester when I came into the House. Why on earth should we not have these beacon lamps in Manchester? As a representative of 40,000 or 50,000 electors in that city I would ask why on earth Manchester has not had them long ago. The answer is, because the municipality does not conform to the general trend of opinion as indicated in the various Orders and Regulations issued by the Ministry of Transport. There is no organised scheme of refuges for pedestrians in Manchester, no orderly system of marking crossing places. It is true that here and there there are traffic lights, but they are erected on no general principle. They are put up at two or three crossings, and then at two or three more in another part of the city; some of them put at places where they are unnecessary, while other places where they ought to be installed are entirely neglected. Elsewhere one finds the same thing happening, especially with the lesser municipalities.

The local authorities are utterly useless as the custodians of this kind of regulation. We must have uniformity throughout the country and we can only secure that through a Department of State. Therefore, while I congratulate the Minister en passant on having appointed a road controller I should also like to see an officer appointed with definite powers to regulate and order these things throughout the highway system of the country, whether in cities, county boroughs, county areas or urban districts. Until we have uniformity, with adequate signposts on a system which the ordinary member of the public can understand and which an ordinary driver can be reasonably prosecuted for disobeying, we shall continue to have this trouble and these arguments about what ought to be done. I strongly deprecate any opposition to these regulations and ask the House to concentrate on improving this experiment and encouraging the Department to carry it to finality.

11.50 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

It strikes me as rather peculiar that those who have put down this Prayer should be so profuse in commending to the House the work that the Minister has done. I am not quite sure that the hurry in which this matter has been brought before the House is a good augury. If hon. Members want to commend the Minister on his energy and initiative, it is not well to come here and criticise what he is trying to do. I am not a motorist, but simply a pedestrian, and not a good one at that. We have to look at the interests of both sides. The hon. Members who are criticising the Minister are all motorists of some repute, though they are saying something about pedestrians. I am not very enamoured of too many of the beacons being placed in the streets, but at the same time I think they have served a useful purpose. I think, however, they can be overdone. I hope the Minister will keep on with the experiment in order to safeguard the interests of all concerned, and make it as safe as possible for those who have to travel the roads. I believe that is the general feeling of the House. The hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) did suggest that not sufficient care was being taken.

Sir W. BRASS

I did not suggest that sufficient care was not being taken, though I did criticise the regulations.

Mr. PARKINSON

While I believe that studs are difficult to see, I should like to make one suggestion, and that is that where possible a light should be in the kerbstone to show up the studs. That might help the motorist. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) declared that when sitting in his car, he could see neither the studs nor the beacons. Is that the fault of the Minister or because of the construction of the car? These very low-seated cars ought to be dealt with, for drivers in them cannot see pedestrians properly, and are becoming a danger. High-seating in cars, giving a good view, might reduce the number of accidents, though, of course, I am not speaking as a motorist. There are plenty of opportunities yet for better regulations. I hope the Minister will go on as he is doing, exercising all the energy he possesses, and always taking the expert information available in his Department and from other quarters. I am sure that if the hon. Members who put down this Prayer have any suggestions to make, he will be quite ready to hear them, and, if they are beneficial, adopt them. The hon. Member for South Croydon referred to this as a life and death issue, and that is what it is. It is up to everyone, rather than to criticise the Minister, to encourage him to find that solution to this dif- ficult problem which will reduce the death rate. The killing of 150 people every week and the injuring of thousands of others gives food for reflection, whether to pedestrian or motorist. Everyone should have the greatest desire to help the Minister in the difficult task before him. The Minister of Transport has no easy task, no easy burden of responsibility to carry. He has a great responsibility and a great Department. To criticise him for regulations that have only been issued a month or six weeks, and which are really a trial of something in which he believes, is wrong. We ought to do all we can to help him with his experiment and to give him the courage necessary in his Department. We should also always keep in mind that there are pedestrians on the road as well as motorists and that one section should not take advantage of the other; both should carry out the regulations in a manner that will sooner or later reduce the death-rate to a very low figure.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I think the hon. Member is under the impression that the difficulties of seeing the crossing were due to the low seating of the car, whereas the car I was in was not of that character. No vehicle, with the best visibility, could have seen either the beacon or the pedestrians.

Mr. PARKINSON

I certainly thought that the difficulty was due to the low Heating of the car. I should like to know the make of car from which one could wee neither beacon nor studs.

11.57 p.m.

Mr. WILMOT

Most of the points that arise seem to have been answered. Those hon. Members who put the Motions of the Paper did so, I am sure, with the intention of trying to effect an improvement in the scheme of which every hon. Members approves. That is my position, and I am sure that the public as a whole approve of pedestrian crossings. The only reason why I venture to make any criticism is that I believe a good idea is being spoiled, and once the idea is spoiled in the public mind there will be difficulty in getting back to the position where the idea is regarded as necessary and to obedience to the regulations. My second point is that which I tried to put to the Minister the other day, when he seemed rather cross with me about it. If there be a situation in which motorists and pedestrians both believe they have the right of way, that is the most dangerous set of circumstances that could possibly be. There had much better be no crossings at all. Owing to two main reasons, that situation is being created in a hundred places within a mile of this House. There is, for example, Kenning-ton Road, which is reached from Westminster Bridge, and which has an avenue of plane trees on each side. It is a road down which I go every day on foot, a fair stretch. Beacons are so placed that the one on the left-hand side is immediately behind a plane tree. Pedestrians on the path can see the beacon perfectly, but the vision of the motorist on the road is obscured by a tree, which is in a direct; line between himself and the beacon. I cannot refer to this matter at length because I am a witness in the courts, as a passenger, in a very serious case of accident at this point, and I am perfectly certain that the position I have described was a contributory cause of the accident. Both parties believed that they had the right of way.

There is another point to be considered. The eye and consciousness of the motorist are only capable of dealing with a certain amount, and the value of any set of signs is spoiled if they are erected, not only where they are necessary, but also where they are entirely unnecessary. In the Westminster Bridge Road there are three or four small side turnings in which there is practically no traffic, and the width of which would be less than that between these two front benches, but where there is a beacon on either side. It is ridiculous to erect a beacon in a little side street like that. In confuses the driver, who has to look for the beacons which control the main street along which he is driving.

Reference has already been made to the fact that these beacons are not visible at night; but, worse than that, some are visible and some are not, and anyone going any distance down one of these main roads will find that where a beacon is properly placed the street lamp illuminates it very well, but where it is improperly placed it is entirely invisible. Anyone driving there is in the worst possible situation, because, while he can see every third or fourth beacon, anyone who crosses where a beacon happens to be in the dark is putting himself into a death-trap.

The whole idea of these signs on the kerb is bad. No doubt hon. Member's saw a statement in a recent article by a distinguished optician which seemed to me to have great point, to the effect that if possible the indication should be on the driver's line of vision. Anyone who has driven a car through a densely populated part of London will agree as to the difficulty of watching the trams on one side, the traffic in front, and the many diversions that occur in a crowded road. Many of us must have driven for miles along the Chiswick road or elsewhere without ever being conscious that there was a beacon there at all; and, if that be so, the pedestrian crossing-place is a snare, for it will lead people to believe that they are safe when in fact they are not.

I do not think that these regulations should be made unless the Minister acquires some power to direct or control the placing of these signs and to secure uniformity throughout the country. If you come into London through the Borough of Woolwich, you find that in that borough the local authority have lighted the beacons, but the practice is not uniform. I have noticed that I kept coming into and out of places where the beacons were yellow, and that in some cases these yellow globes were illuminated while in others they were unilluminated. There again you have the utmost confusion, and anyone is entitled to believe that where there is not a lighted beacon there is not one at all. The question of studs has already been dealt with.

The other day in Brighton I saw the most efficient and visible system of pedestrian crossings that I have seen anywhere in Europe. It was simplicity itself. The local authority had had painted across the road, or laid down in some kind of cement, a white band six or eight feet wide. The effect of that solid white band across the road was that an approaching driver immediately got a reflection, right across the road, of all the light that was available. In one place the local authority had placed a spot light slung across the road immediately above the crossing. It seems to me that if that had been of an intermittent character one would have got the perfect system. It was on the line of vision and it illuminated the actual place that was the safety zone. It caused a perpetual brilliant patch to appear in the motorist's line of vision. It was simple, it needed no side glance of the eye to see it and it must in the nature of the thing be uniform. I hope the Minister will take these suggestions in the spirit in which they are offered, not as captious criticism but with the recognition that this excellent idea will be utterly ruined unless the safety that it provides is safety and not the illusion of safety.

12.6 a.m.

Mr. HOLDSWORTH

I want to take this opportunity of offering sincere congratulations to the Minister on the initiative that he has shown in tackling this job. I think a good deal of this criticism is uncalled for at present because I believe the experiment has not been tried long enough to prove anything one way or another. I hope in his reply the hon. Gentleman will give the figures of what happened before there were crossings, what happened when there were simply crossings and no beacons and what has happened since the beacons were erected. I want to emphasise the point that there should be lights at night in the beacons. I believe that would add tremendously to their usefulness. One point that has been lost sight of is that we have not to look at this solely from the motorists' point of view. I believe the beacons serve, particularly for old people, as a guide to where the crossings are. They are not merely of utility to motorists but to pedestrians, and particularly to old people. The suggestion of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) that the pedestrian should have power to signal a driver when he wants to cross the road is a foolish one. What would happen if there were two pedestrians at the same time at a crossing? It would be far more efficient to lay down that there should be some uniformity as to what the motorist has to do at a controlled crossing and an uncontrolled crossing. I do not wish to discuss the regulations, because they ought to have a real opportunity of being tested first. There has been some foolish criticism of the Minister, particularly in the newspapers. I admire his refusal to be tied down to old- fashioned notions as to how things should be done, and I congratulate him on the speed with which he has moved in the matter and the real initiative that he has shown.

12.10 a.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE BRABAZON

I should have had a somewhat severe word to say about the Opposition speeches on this question if it had not been for a most excellent contribution from the Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot). It really was a most helpful speech, and, coming from a London Member, it carried a good deal of weight. He did what I should not have dared to do in that he acquitted the principal Mover of this Prayer of any intention of trying to secure the withdrawal of this actual regulation. It is clear to everyone that, when we have a great experiment introduced in London, we have every right to talk about it in this House and to make as good suggestions as we can. My hon. Friend the Minister of Transport is not the only man in the world with traffic experience and brains in his head. Surely we can have a discussion about a subject of this sort without being accused by a Member of the Opposition of trying to stop some useful contribution to the traffic problem of London.

I was amazed to hear my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Hulme Division of Manchester (Sir J. Nall), sitting on the old Irish Benches and probably absorbing some of the old Irish speeches, first go for the Mover of the Prayer and then deliver one of the most severe attacks ever heard in this House. That is rather the attitude of all of us to-night. We want to have a good talk about these regulations, although on the whole we are in favour of them. I have no apologies to make about the debate on this subject. I should like, owing to the way the Minister of Transport has treated us in the Road Act, to keep him up three times a week until five o'clock in the morning. That is my feeling apart from my very great personal affection for him, but from the point of view of the way he deals with the House of Commons on these motor questions, he is a very bad character.

We have started this experiment. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) is in favour of it. The only point he criticises apparently is that he does not like the beacons. Frankly, I think that the beacon is an improvement upon the Paris system. He does not. We can differ on that. In the day time it is a definite improvement. But we have to remember that in Paris this thing has been going on for four years and that it is only now that it is working smoothly and that the people understand the system. Here it is quite a new experiment, and we have to think out not only how to discipline, but how to educate the people. I do not think that the system works as well as it should, because no one pays any attention to it at all. I remember loyally, when I am motoring, to stop when I see a man or woman anywhere near an orange grove. I stop and they stop and nothing happens. When I start they also start, and after a time this sort of thing is not very encouraging. The regulations say that really nobody has the right to proceed while foot passengers are on the road. The difficulty is to start. You see people waiting at the "orange" wanting to start, and they have not the moral courage to start. That is not the criticism of my hon. and gallant Friend, for he deplores the idea of signals. When traffic is flowing quickly, you want the moral courage to stop. If you put up your hand we should all understand as motorists, and we should stop. The difficulty now is that we do not know when to stop. That is the trouble to-day.

I want to say to the Minister of Transport that whenever there are regulations and there is anything to be done, it is always the motorist who has to do it. Cannot we have some regulations for the pedestrians. For instance, at places where there are green and red lights most pedestrians think that they have the right of way when we have the green light. It is most maddening in London traffic. You wait nearly five minutes before you get your light, and then there is nothing but pedestrians crossing, and you lose your opportunity of crossing. So far, I think the things have been well done, and I support the Minister, but I would ask him to introduce at an early date some regulations for the pedestrian as well as for the motorist.

12.16 a.m.

Dr. O'DONOVAN

We have been criticising experiments made by the Minister, and I think it is important that we should recognise that we can learn by comparative experiments, using the experience of other Departments of State. The motoring industry is a new industry, and this is an old industrial country, and, in the oldest Secretariat of State, the Home Office, there is a large department looking after industrial accidents. I have been astonished to-night that we have not had any references to the great care that is taken to ensure security and safety on the railways, as against the comparative lack of similar precautions on the roads. We know that in industry there are innumerable regulations, both in factories, workshops and in mines, imposed by the Home Office, and as the years pass and accidents get fewer through experience, the regulations and the officials multiply. I have never heard in the House any continuous criticism of the close and efficient supervision by the Home Office over the general industrial life of the country. If there were as much criticism in the newspapers over the deaths on the road as there has been recently over a dreadful mine explosion, the Minister of Transport would be issuing regulations of such severity that instead of receiving half-hearted commendation to-night he would be the most feared Minister by motorists, and pedestrians now in peril would have some greater chance of drawing their old age pensions.

The way in which the discussion on the Prayer was opened filled me with real horror. Surely, we are not discussing a light matter in the atmosphere of a carnival. It is a matter which calls for our daily attention in the coroners' courts. I was told flatly, because I made an intervention, that I had no experience of driving. I accept that fact, but I have had experience of death, and a man with my experience of death is entitled to offer some contribution to the Debate without preventive criticism. The deaths are so frequent and the problem is so urgent. It is urgent enough to keep us up in the middle of the night and urgent enough to justify the Minister in not waiting for the helpful criticism of those who five times in five minutes throw at him the gibes of idiocy or stupidity. The regulations are not fantastic. The poor will not thank the hon. and gallant Mem- ber who criticised the Minister in terms of idiocy. The poor will not thank him, when they sit in the coroner's court, for describing the beacons as little decorations. They are a serious attempt to stop a grave continuous slaughter, and they should not be discussed flippantly in this House. Because I do not drive a motor car that is no reason why I should die. The beacons were not put up to celebrate the Royal wedding. No one imagines that they were. Flippant parallels are not required in the chamber of death.

We are told that the beacons cannot be seen at night. If orange beacons cannot be seen, how can the black-coated pedestrian be seen? If pedestrians and beacons as is now said are invisible on the roads at night, then, in obedience to the sacred command, "Thou shalt not kill," the motorist has no right to be on the road at night. Those hon. Members who have stressed the invisibility of the beacons have overstated their case and that sort of criticism seems to me to be hardly worthy of the Minister's attention.

It is said that the local authorities are not vigilant. That is only too true, if we look at the history of the records of riders passed by juries in the coroners' courts. Juries in coroners' courts, unlike juries in criminal courts, give their verdicts not only according to the evidence but according to the best of their local skill and knowledge. To do that they are sworn and they bring forth riders criticising the lighting, the camber of the roads, the regulation of traffic and so on. Generally speaking, unless these riders amount up considerably concerning one solitary spot, local authorities in the past have paid little heed to the verdicts. I would like to pay a tribute to the extraordinary care taken by the London coroners who investigate road fatalities. They call every available witness, get maps of the roads and case is compared with case. If only the great London newspapers reported as the local newspapers do the fatalities at the cross roads, the Minister would have more power to his elbow. The motor industry is a big industry and when deaths occur and are subject to public investigation, it is extraordinary to notice how the dice are loaded. There is present the representative of the insurance company, skilled in the analysis of these cases and fully armed with every point of defence. The transport industry is organised from top to bottom and its workers are as well defended as anyone would wish. The pedestrian is incoherent, often illiterate and dreadfully upset when he comes to give evidence about the death of a relation. It is marvellous to me that the verdicts of the juries are so often reliable. To night throughout the Debate we have heard much about the motorists and the delays to which they are subjected, but we have heard little enough about the pedestrian. We have heard how the motorist is delayed at most crossings.

Sir W. BRASS

Will the hon. Member tell me who said that?

Dr. O'DONOVAN

If the hon. Member is suggesting that I was not attending to the Debate he is slightly offensive. I will not be spoken to in quite so schoolmasterly a manner. If the motorist does object to being delayed, so does the pedestrian. We are told that the pedestrians do not like using the underground crossings. That is probably true, but one must remember that the motorist is in charge of a powerful and deadly machine. The pedestrian is in charge only of his own bone and skin. The dice is so heavily loaded against the pedestrian that the motorist may be asked to put up with a little delay. I hope the Minister will go from strength to strength and will be assisted in every possible direction by the skill and experience of motorists' organisations. But one knows that those who drive cars are not always conscientious or psychological traffic automata. You will never get safe automatic driving, and an overriding intelligence is necessary the whole time, for even when the driver is intelligent, the pedestrian may often be young, ill or stupid. If the driver is unintelligent you must expect on the roads an exact parallel to the dreadful accidents which so often occur in industry. We must look to the Minister and his officials to provide regulations so that human frailty can be guarded against on the roads as it is in industrial life.

12.24 a.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha)

I do not have to justify either pedestrian crossings or the beacons which indicate them. Experience will improve them, and the impression made upon the casualty list of pedestrians will either justify them or condemn them. Both I and the House of Commons will be content to abide by the verdict. If anyone could speak with finality on these matters and suggest a means of appreciably reducing the toll of the roads there would be no need for Acts of Parliament or Debates. Someone would carry out those remedies without delay. During the last few months we have made some progress. At any rate, the necessity for pedestrian crossings is now universally admitted. But it was not always so. I remember that in the initial stages of our project the whole idea was challenged, but one found some cause for determination in proceeding, by consideration of the fact that in the 223,000 casualties in the year, 83,000 pedestrians were involved. It is now admitted, I am glad to say, that there ought to be pedestrian crossings, and the only question to be solved, and, indeed, the question raised in the Debate this morning, is how are we to mark these crossings in such a way that they may be readily visible both to the motorist and the pedestrian? I started on the assumption that we might benefit by the experience of Paris. Accordingly, I asked the local authorities—for I had no power at first to do more than request them—to lay down steel studs upon the Paris model. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) says that our studs are not the same as the Paris studs.

Sir W. BRASS

They are too far apart.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I think the hon. and gallant Member made both those criticisms. I ask him to believe that from the moment when we embarked on this undertaking we put ourselves in touch with the engineer of the city of Paris, who has been in constant communication with us. There is an incessant exchange of views. He tries to learn from what we do, and we try to learn from what he does. The studs in Paris are not all exactly the same, any more than they are in London. Both here and there a latitude is left in which we may learn which kind of stud if preferable to another. I left the same latitude to the local authorities here within a reasonable principle of uniformity. Some local authorities desired to use rubber, some desired to use copper, some aluminium, and some brass. I could not see any particular objection to that, and I am sure the House will agree with me in allowing experience to determine what is the best kind of stud. I am compelled by Statute to consult with a large number of people upon these subjects, and I have consulted a large number of people. Competent as all the people with whom I have discussed this particular matter are, none of them is more competent than my own officials, who have had long experience. They have made a close study of the matter. They are out day by day, and night by night, trying to improve the system of pedestrian crossings.

Hon. Members would be surprised if they knew the diversity of the experiments which we have indulged in. We have tried steel studs of different shapes, sizes and colours. We have done everything to meet reasonable criticism. How does it come about that we have the beacons in addition to the studs, an advantage no other city in the world has, as was pointed out by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon)? When I first met the local authorities in the early stages of this experiment some of their representatives impressed upon me that the steel studs were not sufficiently visible to motorists and pedestrians alike. I did not wish to leave any ground on which drivers could say that they could not see the crossings, and so my officials went out day by day, and night by night, and they eventually discovered this sign which is both efficient and economical. The hon. Member for East Fulham (Mr. Wilmot) says that the beacons are not in a direct line with the vision of the motorists. The sign is one primarily for the pedestrians. If we are to get the pedestrians to use these crossings they must see that there is such a system in operation, so that they may make for the crossing and not impede the traffic. It may be that the motorist has an advantage. He may see them; if not always, he can on most occasions see them.

According to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Clitheroe, it is not necessary for the motorist to look for them, because he can see the studs. My hon. Friend would take away the beacons so I assume he holds that the motorist is able to see the studs. If there be any improvement which the hon. Member can suggest in the studs, and he will tell me his suggestion, I will have it closely reviewed and examined. The hon. Member for East Fulham said that the beacons should be illuminated. I have already said to the House that if any local authority wishes to make such a request to me I shall receive it with sympathy. There is not one local authority which has asked me to illumine the beacons. The whole idea is that these beacons shall catch the light of a lamp. If there are any wrongly placed, that can be remedied. We shall learn if we have placed these beacons wrongly. It will take us time to achieve success in this matter.

Another survey is proceeding in order to review the positions of these crossings, and whatever mistakes may have been made can be rectified. It would be surprising if you could establish 10,000 crossings without placing some of them wrongly, or perhaps multiplying unnecessarily at some places the number of the beacons. We are trying to save life. We have proceeded with greater speed than some Members may desire. I was surprised that the hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe (Sir W. Brass) and the hon. Member for Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) said that I had acted with too great speed—in too big a hurry.

Sir W. BRASS

That was in connection with the beacons and not with the crossings.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

It was that I had acted with too much precipitancy, or speed. I would rather have that charge than the charge that I had done nothing. May I assure the House that I am only making an experiment. I am not a dictator. I cannot impose my ideas on the local authorities. My hon. Friend asked how many had co-operated. The request was made to thirty-two local authorities and thirty-one have cooperated.

Sir W. BRASS

Was that the beacons?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

Yes, one of them declined. I only make this observation: if every local authority declined to co-operate there would be no experiment at all. It was only reasonable that local authorities should co-operate. What have been the results up to the present moment? I only have complete figures up to the end of last quarter, and I give them to the House. Forty-three fewer persons were killed in the quarter ending 30th September this year than last year, and of those 43 fewer persons killed 42 were pedestrians, so that there has been a reduction of 42 in the deaths of pedestrians in London in the comparable quarters. With regard to other accidents, there has been a reduction of 584 in the corresponding quarters in the number of injuries to pedestrians, although accidents to other classes of persons have increased in the same period. I think that is a fairly good indication.

HON. MEMBERS

What is the other section?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

The first figure was deaths, and the second figure of 584 was injuries to pedestrians in this quarter as compared with the corresponding quarter last year. Although injuries as a whole have increased the number of injuries to pedestrians has declined. I think that is a fairly good indication that the experiment promises well. If anyone can tell me of any better method I shall be only too glad to know of it. I do not claim finality for this or any other reform. The hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey said during the Debates on the Traffic Act that every method dealing with public safety must for several years be experimental in character. All I have done is what I conceived to be the wishes of the House. The House insisted on a system of pedestrian crossings. The hon. and gallant Member for Clitheroe said he was sceptical of the speed with which the experiment would be carried out. He has a favourite word—"litter." He said you ought not to put these crossings down; you ought to "litter" London with them. Speaking on the Road Traffic Bill on 10th April, he said: I would impress on the Minister that the essential thing in connection with this problem is the number of pedestrian paths which he is going to establish.

Sir W. BRASS

That is said, not of beacons.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

I would litter London with them, and not only London, but the built-up areas in the provinces."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April, 1934; col. 224. Vol. 288.] I said "litter" was a favourite word with the hon. and gallant Member. He ought to be pleased I have "littered" London with pedestrian crossings. If he complains that I have added some further indications in the shape of beacons, and if he can demonstrate to me that the beacons are doing any injury, I shall only be too glad to take them down. If he can demonstrate that they should be illumined, and the local authorities agree, they shall be illumined. Everything will be done which experience shows will be of public advantage. I have no reason to complain of this Debate. I appreciate the compliments paid to me although they were generally the prelude to some stringent criticisms. I do not in the least object to the raising of this question by my hon. Friends whether they choose to do it in public or in private, for I hold my office for the sole purpose of trying to save life.

Mr. E. WILLIAMS

Before the Minister sits down, can we have an assurance from him that he has lifted the ban from local authorities in order that they can proceed with their road schemes and so save life and limb?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

My hon. Friend puts a question which has nothing to do with the pedestrian regulations which we are debating, but I am willing to answer his question. No doubt he has seen that in several instances the ban has already been lifted, and, if he will watch events in the next few days and months, he will see that great progress is being made.

12.42 a.m.

Lord APSLEY

I do not want to delay the House, but the Minister has asked for suggestions, and I want to make one or two. The whole problem to my mind is that in streets where the traffic is light the studs are visible, but in streets where there is heavy traffic and brightly illuminated shops they are not visible. The same thing applies to beacons which are visible on roads where the traffic is sparse and at places where the headlights show them up, but the moment you get heavy traffic and congestion of advertisement signs, of which there are increasing numbers, the beacons are lost. Moreover, in some places the beacons are like groves of orange trees to the motorists and are a considerable cause of difficulty. I would like to make a suggestion that in those roads where there is heavy traffic the beacons should not be on the pavement but should be in the middle of the road, and that there should be a pedestrian crossing only where there is an island with a lamp, I think that this lamp should be provided with a reflector which would catch the headlights of the cars and, if the local authorities agreed, a neon light could be added. I would also suggest that the pedestrian crossings should be in herring-bone formation so that the pedestrian is always facing the traffic. Half the accidents that occur to pedestrians have been due either to crossing over straight or, crossing, as they frequently do, at an angle, so that the traffic gets them from behind where they never see it. I think that even in small roads the beacon should be placed in the middle of the road.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. G. R. STRAUSS

I hesitate to criticise the Minister of Transport for I appreciate that he is doing a very great thing in London, but, as he is aware, I have a certain duty in connection with London roads. I have followed his experiments very closely, and I want to put forward one criticism, more in the way of a suggestion than in any derogatory sense. It is that in carrying out this and the other experiments which he is undertaking he should not rush them in quite the same way that he has done in the past. I am convinced that the difficulties which have arisen and which have gone near to bringing this experiment into contempt, which I deplore, are due to the unnecessary haste in which the experiment has been carried out by the Ministry. I take, as an example, the major complaint which has been put before us this evening, that the beacons have been placed sometimes in large groups together, and sometimes at odd places without any proper control or uniformity, which has been extremely puzzling to motorists and pedestrians. That really is not the fault of the local authorities, but of the Minister. The Minister in the desire to get on with the experiment gave them more or less a free hand. That need not have been done and the Minister could have seen that the beacons and the crossings were put down at the proper places in which case a lot of confusion would have been avoided.

I hope that the Minister, in his desire to hurry experiments of this kind, will go rather more carefully, for by the way he has acted he has unfortunately succeeded in alienating the sympathies of those who are just as anxious as he is to see safety on the roads. It is very unfortunate that it has happened, and I do ask him to believe that those who criticise the details of his scheme are not hostile to his general experiments, and are extremely anxious to save life in London, but they do reserve the right to put forward destructive and constructive criticism, and they do expect and hope that they will receive sympathy from the Minister in future and that he will not regard them just as a nuisance. I hold that this experiment is of great importance, and I believe that it will be successful in time and save many lives, but, just because of its importance and because of the many lives it is likely to save, I do not want any mistakes made that will spoil it. I am very anxious that in the further stages of this and the other experiments that the Minister is going to carry out he will not rush so fast at the various details as to endanger the principle itself, so that these experiments to save life may be successful and may not die an early death.

Sir W. BRASS

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock, upon Tuesday evening, Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twelve Minutes before One o'Clock.