HC Deb 11 December 1959 vol 615 cc1007-16

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Whitelaw.]

4.12 p.m.

Mr. Philip Goodhart (Beckenham)

I apologise to my hon. Friend for bringing him to the Dispatch Box so soon after his notable speech in the traffic debate last night, but this subject is at least closely related to yesterday's discussion. If I had taken part in yesterday's debate I would have commended my hon. Friend's desire to seek wide powers and would have asked him to be particularly severe in banning right-hand turns across traffic. If we cannot have roads that fit the traffic, at least we should make some effort to fit the traffic to the roads. To my mind this means financial concessions for small cars.

This debate, however, is on the specific point of pedestrian crossings. The two local authorities in my constituency both submitted requests for an additional pedestrian crossing many months ago. I am sure that by now my hon. Friend is well acquainted with the technical details of the cases, so I will not advance them at length this afternoon.

Once upon a time there was a pedestrian crossing in the Croydon road, at Penge. This is a wide main road through which traffic moves at considerable speed. When the zebra crossing scheme was introduced about eight years ago the council agreed to the removal of this crossing. In 1954, the council decided that it had been wrong, and asked that the crossing should be restored. Since 1954, and the putting in of that application, two pedestrians have been killed on the Croydon Road near the site of the proposed crossing. Since the application was made, I am officially informed that the volume of traffic using this road has doubled.

The point at which we wish to restore the crossing comes near the middle of a stretch of road on which traffic flows at speed for more than a mile without any check by lights, pedestrian crossings or major road intersections. The pedestrian has no protection and has to walk for several hundred yards to what is known as the Robin Hood lights. This is really not very satisfactory. In the last five years there have been 15 accidents involving pedestrians at these lights. In recent weeks, I have talked to local councils and their officials about this crossing, and I have myself canvassed extensively in this area during the recent General Election. I can assure the Minister that both public and private feeling on this matter runs very strong indeed, and that, if anything, there is even stronger local feeling that the request of the Beckenham Borough Council that there should be a pedestrian crossing in Elmers End should be met.

This is also a wide main road down which traffic moves at a fast rate. It is a long road, as I can testify from my personal experience, because during the General Election campaign my wife and I called at every house in that road, so I have particular reason to know the strength of public opinion. There is at present no protection for pedestrians in the whole length of this road. I am told that in the last three years no fewer than six pedestrians have been knocked down on the site of the proposed crossing.

What are the arguments against this proposed pedestrian crossing? One is provided by that mystic form of traffic census carried out by the Minister. It is, I think, conceded that there is a heavy flow of traffic and an intermittently heavy flow of pedestrians in both cases, but it is said that there are not enough pedestrians crossing the road during the day as a whole. In the last debate on pedestrian crossings, which was held during the week in which I first entered this House, I came across these astonishing words in HANSARD for 29th March, 1957, used by the then Minister. He said: … experience has shown that drivers do not respect a crossing the use of which by pedestrians drops or varies significantly."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March, 1957; Vol. 567, c. 1588.] It seems to me that the Minister meant that drivers approaching pedestrian crossings on which they see an elderly man trying to get across the road, say to themselves "Well, it is 12 o'clock, now, and this pedestrian crossing is not widely used at ten o'clock in the morning," and so they drive on. Drivers may behave like that in some other parts of the country, but I assure my hon. Friend that they do not behave like that in Beckenham and Penge, and the fact that there may or may not be a small number of pedestrians at ten o'clock in the morning will not affect the behaviour of drivers in the rush hours.

The second argument against these crossings is that they would interfere with the free flow of traffic and thus cause congestion. Here again, if these two crossings are allowed, there will be some slight check to the flow of traffic, which is indeed what we seek, but I cannot accept that this would cause major congestion.

As I have said, these are wide main roads without any checks for a mile or more on the flow of traffic. I suppose that if one formed up the Queen's Company of the Grenadier Guards and slow-marched them in single file across the proposed pedestrian crossings during the rush hour some congestion would be caused, but in normal conditions of pedestrian use in both these cases it is quite impossible to think that major congestion or even minor congestion would result.

But the principal argument is that motorists begin to ignore zebra crossings if there are too many of them. I agree that this is probably a factor of major importance in assessing the reactions of motorists, but there are other factors. Unfortunately, with pedestrian schemes everywhere in the world familiarity tends to breed contempt.

There is the question of enforcement. No doubt it is possible that with traffic wardens there can be greater control of pedestrian crossings and greater respect for them. Again, if penalties imposed were rather larger there might be greater respect. Last year the average fine for an offence under the regulations controlling pedestrian crossings was £1 14s. 9d. In these days that sort of fine is not really much of a deterrent.

To get back to the main problem of density, what matters is not the national figure but the local figure. If there are many pedestrians crossings in the area where I normally drive I may get so used to them that I pay scant respect to them, but if there are many pedestrian crossings in Cardiff, Leeds or Edinburgh this has no effect whatsoever on my respect for those crossings. It is the local figure along that is of importance.

It is slightly under one mile from the top of Queen's Gate to my home in Kensington. In driving to the House I counted the number of pedestrian crossings in that mile. There are no fewer than nine. In Penge, which is a heavily built-up area, there are seven miles of main classified roads. In the Penge area there are only six pedestrian crossings at the moment. In Beckenham, which is also for the most part a heavily built-up area, there are 24 miles of main classified roads and there are eleven pedestrian crossings. In other words, in Knightsbridge there are nine pedestrian zebra crossings to the mile, in Penge there are slightly less than one to the mile and in Beckenham slightly less than one to every two miles of major classified roads.

It may be that in some parts of the country there is a danger of having too many zebra crossings, but I submit that that certainly does not apply in my constituency. In recent weeks, a new atmosphere of optimism and energy has been coming from my hon. Friend's Ministry, and I hope that in the not too distant future this will mean that there will be a fresh look at all questions of protection for pedestrians. Meanwhile, until we can have that new look, I hope my hon. Friend will be able to grant us the two pedestrian crossings for which we now ask.

4.25 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to The Ministry of Transport (Mr. John Hay)

My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mr. Goodhart) exercised a little ingenuity in his opening remarks by talking about some of the things we were discussing last night. I noted what he said about the desirability of banning right-hand turns and if, before I get on to pedestrian crossings, figuratively speaking, I say a word, it may not be out of place. I will take note of what my hon. Friend has said because it is a stimulating idea which we will look into, and it may be that within the context of the measures to deal with traffic we may be able to do something about it.

Coming directly to pedestrian crossings, my hon. Friend has raised the situation in two local authority districts: in his constituency, in the Borough of Beckenham and in the Urban District of Penge. Before I discuss the situation which applies there and answer the requests made by my hon. Friend, I will say a word or two about the history and general policy of the Ministry on the subject of pedestrian crossings.

If one goes back to the original institution of these crossings, one finds that in those days when they were a novelty the traffic observed them pretty well. However, after a few years they multiplied rapidly all over the country until there was a substantial peak towards the end of the 1940s. By that time it was our experience that, because there were so many of them, drivers were beginning to fall into a dangerously poor observance of the rules. In consequence the Government of the day decided that a drastic reduction in the total number had to be made if the crossings were to retain any value as a safety measure for pedestrians. So in 1951 the total number of crossings was reduced by two-thirds, and thereafter we made every effort to secure full and proper observance of those that remained. It was at that time that the zebra striping on the roadway was introduced. Looking back, there is no double that from the time the zebra markings came in the motorists again began to respect the crossings, and today one can claim that pedestrians can rely upon them to come extent, though not entirely, as a valuable measure of road safety.

In looking at requests made by local authorities and others for new pedestrian crossings to be installed, we have to bear in mind two important factors to ensure that we do not return to the conditions which obtained before 1951, when there was a multiplicity of crossings and people did not observe them. Here I come to the point made by my hon. Friend referring to the remarks of my predecessor in this House in 1957. In the first place, we have to ensure that pedestrians make regular and substantial use throughout the day of any new crossing we instal. This is the first test, because if we are not sure about that the result is that the crossing does not command the attention and the observance of drivers to the extent which is essential if it is to prove an effective safety measure.

I realise that I am only repeating in slightly different language what my predecessor said in the debate to which reference has been made, but I can assure my hon. Friend that our technical staff, who have considerable experience and knowledge of these matters, are convinced that this is the case. Indeed, I have no doubt that, if I asked for it, they would supply me with a sheaf of technical, statistical information to support that view. If my hon. Frined wants it, I will get it for him.

The second factor to bear in mind is that there should be a sufficient volume of traffic on the road in question to create a real difficulty for people who want to cross the road on foot. It is obviously not desirable that traffic should be held up unless there is such a need. In fact, the motorist who realises that a waiting pedestrian can cross if he is prepared to wait on the kerb for a few more moments is less ready in practice to yield to the pedestrian the precedence that he expects.

The installation of a crossing—I must emphasise this—does not mean that the pedestrian has put before him an absolutely automatic safety measure. Our thinking and outlook upon this matter is based upon the point that unless one can ensure proper respect for crossings it may well be that they become more of a danger than a safeguard to pedestrians. This is particularly so in the case of young people and old people whose judgment may not be as keen as that of those of the middle age group.

I will now say a word about the question of density of pedestrian crossings, to which my hon. Friend referred. In our experience, comparison of one stretch of road in one part of the country with another stretch in another part is not very fruitful. The plain fact is that conditions all over the country vary so much that we have to consider the site in relation to the conditions which surround it. For example, the width of the carriageway is important. The presence or absence of central refuges or islands, the presence of shops or other attractions to the public at the side of the road, the volume and type of traffic which uses the road, the movement and the volume of pedestrian traffic, the position of 'bus stops and side turnings —all these things and others have to be taken into account.

When in 1951 this somewhat arbitrary reduction of two-thirds in the total number of pedestrian crossings was made throughout the country, the results and effects were somewhat uneven because it was found that some localities had more crossings than others had had pre-1951, and this was a situation perpetuated in the reduced numbers which were not necessarily related to the need in the district. For that reason, too, it is not particularly profitable to compare one district with another. Over the years since 1951 the position has become a little more balanced by variations, based entirely on need, in local authority pedestrian crossing schemes.

I now come to the two cases mentioned by my hon. Friend. Dealing first with Penge, the situation is that before the review in 1951 there were thirteen pedestrian crossings there, and after the review the number was reduced to seven. Since that date six uncontrolled crossings have been provided, and the total is now thirteen uncontrolled crossings in all. This is the same number as before the review, but six of the crossings are not at the same sites as those removed in 1951 and have been provided as a result of changes in traffic conditions. The urban district council has also submitted suggestions for pedestrian-operated push-button controlled crossings at a number of sites, and my hon. Friend will be glad to know that these are under consideration.

With regard to the junction of Croydon Road and Weighton Road, there was originally a crossing at this site, but it was one of those removed in 1951. En 1952 the council suggested that it should be re-established at a site to the north-east so that it crossed Croydon Road north-east of the junction with Tremaine Road. Our divisional road engineer did not consider that the traffic conditions justified a pedestrian crossing there, and he was supported in that view by the police. However, the council made a number of further applications for a pedestrian crossing in this area, in 1954, in 1955 and again in 1958, but the traffic census figures which we obtained in 1955 and 1959 were not sufficient, in our view, to justify a crossing. The flow of vehicles at mid- morning and in the early evening, at 4 p.m. and 5.30 p.m., showed only a very slight increase.

The result of our latest investigation into traffic conditions at this site was contained in a letter which my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. Nugent), then Joint Parliamentary Secretary, wrote to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham on 16th September last. In that letter he said that a school crossing patrol safeguarded children crossing the road on their way to and from school and that the number of adult pedestrians crossing the road averaged about three a minute, but that those pedestrians were not concentrated in any section of Croydon Road.

From our experience, we felt that they could not be induced to go out of their way to use a crossing. Although the vehicular traffic is sometimes rather fast moving in this area, there are frequent gaps between the vehicles and the traffic light signals at Anerley Road also break up the traffic. The police agree with our view that in these circumstances a pedestrian crossing would not be a satisfactory safety measure at this position.

The best solution might well be a widening of the road to allow the provision of central refuges. The position here is that the properties on the northwest side of Croydon Road are set well hack and our divisional road engineer has suggested that land could be acquired at this site to help to make a widening in the not too distant future. Anyhow, on the whole of this subject, my hon. Friend will be aware that the urban district council has asked to discuss conditions at this site with us and we will be seeing a deputation fairly soon in the New Year.

I now quickly come to the situation at Beckenham. Here again, the general position was that before the review in 1951, there were 31 pedestrians crossings in the borough. As a result of changes over the subsequent years, there are now eleven uncontrolled and five controlled crossings, a total of sixteen. As my hon. Friend knows better than I do, Elmers Road between Marlow Road and Ravenscroft Road is a small shopping area and Elmers End Road is part of the main Crystal Palace—West Wycombe Road.

We first received an application for a pedestrian crossing here in October, 1957, and it was reconsidered late in 1958. Here again, on the advice of our divisional road engineer we had to reject the application, because we observed that although there was a reasonable amount of pedestrian traffic across the road, there was no particular place where pedestrians crossed and there were frequent gaps in the traffic during which pedestrians could cross in safety. Here again, the police fully supported our view. Last June, we took a traffic census which showed an average of 656 vehicles and 126 pedestrians an hour crossing the road.

During the period November, 1956, to November, 1957, it is true, there were some accidents. There were two reported accidents involving pedestrians and between August, 1958, and February, 1959, there was another incident which involved a pedestrian. We do not have up-to-date details, but I think that no subsequent accident has taken place.

Mr. Goodhart

My figures are that there have been six accidents involving pedestrians.

Mr. Hay

I am much obliged. I have not received, as I had hoped, a full report of recent accident details.

My hon. Friend wrote to me about this case on 3rd November this year. I have called for a report from our divisional road engineer about it and the whole matter is to be considered as soon as I have that report. I will then reply to my hon. Friend. In considering it, I will take account of all that he has said this afternoon.

However, I want to leave my hon. Friend and the House with this point, which applies not only to Beckenham and Penge, but to every place in the country. We have to keep the number of pedestrian crossings which we allow to be installed within reasonable limits, for the two reasons which I mentioned earlier—first, that we have to be certain that when we put them down they will be used by the public, by which I mean by motorists in particular, for if there are too many they will not be observed; secondly, we have also to keep an eye on the general flow of traffic—a subject which we discussed yesterday. It is no use putting down all manner of obstructions, however desirable they may be, if the consequence is to impede, slow and congest traffic.

Those are the things which we have to keep in mind, but we certainly look at these matters as sympathtically as we can. We have, naturally, to be guided by the advice of our experts and technicians, but we try to do the best we can in the interests of road safety which, as the House knows, is so vitally important.

Question put and agreed.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty minutes to Five o'clock.