HC Deb 01 August 1963 vol 682 cc783-92

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

10.4 p.m.

Miss Margaret Herbison (Lanarkshire, North)

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to raise a matter of very great concern to at least a thousand families at Moodiesburn in my constituency. This is a council estate which borders the A.80. The road at this point is a dual carriageway which has been built for speed. It is the road between Glasgow and Stirling.

Since January, 1960, just after the people had come into the estate to live, there have been two fatal accidents on the road beside the estate. A woman of 50 and an old person of 73 lost their lives trying to cross this busy road. There have been three very serious accidents to pedestrians. One involved a child of 3, another a child of 11 and the third was to the school-crossing patrolman. This man, who was doing his duty in trying to guide the children safely across the road, was knocked down and very seriously injured.

From the police reports, in addition to these two fatal accidents and three very serious accidents, I find that there have been five accidents classed as slight. Three of these happened to children—aged 8, 9 and 11 respectively—and two involved 28-year-old women. All of these were accidents to pedestrians trying to find their way across this very busy thoroughfare.

I want to give only three examples from the police reports of accidents where pedestrians were not involved. I have a whole list from which to choose. The first is the case of an east-bound motor car which mounted the central reservation and collided with a lamp standard. The second involved a westbound motor car which mounted the central reservation and collided with a lamp standard. It is a good thing that it was a lamp standard in each case and not someone trying to cross the road, standing on the reservation while waiting for the other carriageway to be clear. The third involved an east-bound lorry which collided with a stationary car facing east. The car then collided with a stationary bus facing east.

I take these three examples from among the many accidents to vehicles that have taken place there. I think that the Under-Secretary of State must be aware of how the parents in this area are feeling about what they think is the general disregard for safety shown by the Secretary of State.

I wrote to the Secretary of State on 28th January last. On 20th February I put a Question to him about this road. His answer was wholly unsatisfactory. On the 9th May I had a reply from him to my letter. This reply seems completely complacent to me and I assure the Under-Secretary of State that it is totally unacceptable both to my constituents and to me.

I have not time tonight to deal with all the contents of that letter, so I will only deal with some of them. The third paragraph says: With the two streams of traffic divided by a central reservation there are plenty of gaps in the traffic for pedestrians to use for crossing without being appreciably delayed, although the accident record shows that they do not always do so in safety. That is very true. The accident record does indeed show that my constituents cannot cross this road in safety.

Mention is made in the letter of the reservation. What the Secretary of State is saying to me is that, when there is a gap on one carriageway, people can cross to the central reservation, where they may wait in safety until there is a gap in the traffic on the other carrriage-way. But I have quoted examples—I could have quoted more—to show that, although this road is restricted to a 30 m.p.h. speed limit, vehicles do not hold to that speed. They go at a much greater speed. If any pedestrian had been standing on the central reservation which the Secretary of State regards as so important to safety, there might have been a serious or fatal accident.

The right hon. Gentleman went on to say of the proposals being made by his Department instead of a bridge or a tunnel: The basis of the present proposals is therefore to fence off as much of the central reservation as possible and concentrate the pedestrian traffic. In particular, we think we can stop people crossing directly opposite the 'bus stops where they are liable to do so without looking. Money is to be spent concentrating pedestrians at the very spot where a bridge or tunnel could be built—I prefer a bridge. The letter went on: We are prepared to put in a pedestrian crossing but the police may feel that, even with advance warning signs, the crossing will not be seen easily by drivers. That is exactly what the police think. I have a letter from the assistant chief constable of the Lanarkshire Constabulary in which he describes a meeting between Ministry officials and members and officials of the county council and says: During the discussion, the police viewpoint which was expressed, was that while it was accepted that the terrain at this junction presented certain difficulties in regard to the erection of a pedestrian over bridge or under-pass, it was doubted whether the provision of a pedestrian crossing would make for any reduction in the number of accidents. It was in fact pointed out that the provision of such a crossing might well lead to an increase in the number of accidents, especially nose to tail collisions between motor vehicles, on a road where the 30 miles per hour speed limit is flouted regularly, despite police action with the radar speedometer and detections with stop watches. In other words, the Lanarkshire Constabulary is doing everything in its power to keep vehicles within the limit and yet the assistant chief constable points out how impossible it is and how strongly he feels that a pedestrian crossing where the Secretary of State hopes to concentrate pedestrian traffic would lead to more accidents. The Secretary of State went on: I said this was the present position and, of course, it may change. I understand that the Council are going to build more houses, served by the same approach road, and no doubt the traffic will steadily increase. We have 1,000 houses in the council scheme and the local authority proposes to build another 250.

The Secretary of State must know how busy that road is with all the heavy traffic between Glasgow and Stirling, and all the traffic going north, but he goes on to say: So the time may come when there are enough people crossing and sufficient delay to ensure that a bridge (or underpass) is really used. I have never read anything quite so complacent.

The last paragraph of the letter shows quite clearly that the Secretary of State is refusing to sanction the building of a bridge in this area, and the reasons given in the earlier paragraphs are mere subterfuges to save the Government the expense involved in constructing this bridge. I say that because if the Secretary of State can envisage the necessity for this bridge if another 250 houses are built, he must realise that at the moment a bridge is essential at this spot.

This bridge is essential to save the lives of the really young. We cannot put old heads on young shoulders. It is essential to save the lives of the really old who have to cross this road. Finally, it is essential to ensure the peace of mind among the parents who live in the houses bordering on this spot.

If this bridge were constructed, it would do all the things that I have suggested it would do. As the Secretary of State has said that steps are to be taken to concentrate the pedestrian traffic into one area, surely this is the ideal place at which to build a bridge? Whatever happens in the future, the problem of the service roads will still be there, but if about 25 per cent, more buildings are constructed, the Government will consider building a bridge at this point. This shows that this is not a question of service roads, or openings on the central reservation, and the only conclusion to which I can come is that for financial reasons the Government have decided against the building of a bridge.

I had a long fight to get a bridge at Salsburgh on the A.8. That bridge has saved many lives, and the compelling reasons which necessitated the construction of a bridge at Salsburgh exist at Moodiesburn. We want the bridge. The people of Moodiesburn want it, and they cannot understand why, if the A.8 was dangerous at Salsburgh, and it was considered necessary to construct a bridge to ease the problem there, the Government will not agree to construct a bridge at Moodiesburn. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not merely read a brief, but will take note of what I have been trying to say and will get the Secretary of State to alter his decision not to construct this bridge which is so necessary.

10.19 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Gilmour Leburn)

Let me say straight away that I entirely agree with the hon. Lady the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Miss Herbison) that there is a road safety problem at Moodiesburn. The accident figures, some of which the hon. Lady quoted, give real cause for concern, and perhaps I might shortly put these accident figures on the record. The hon. Lady has mentioned some of them, but there are others which I should like to mention.

With regard to the two motor vehicle accidents on the central reservation, might I mention that one was at 3.0 a.m. and the other was at 1.45 a.m., and the accident in which a bus was involved, happened on ice.

Over the four years and five months from January, 1959, to the end of May, 1963, there were 10 personal injury accidents on the length of trunk road at Moodiesburn which is within the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. This stretch of road is about one-third of a mile long.

On purely statistical grounds, this accident record, which represents a rate of about three per million vehicle miles, is not above average for a section of road subject to a speed limit. What causes particular concern, and the hon. Lady brought this out very clearly, is that seven of these accidents involved nine pedestrians. Two pedestrians have been killed, three seriously injured and four slightly injured. The average of two pedestrian casualties a year on a stretch of road like this is extremely worrying, and this of course is why the hon. Lady has raised the matter.

Where I find it difficult to agree with her is over the solution which she suggests to the problem. The problem is a difficult one and the solution to it is difficult, too. I shall try to explain why. First I must deal in some detail with the geography of the site, because this is the essence of the problem.

The Glasgow-Stirling Road, through Moodiesburn, was reconstructed as a dual carriage way and opened to traffic at the end of 1958. There are pavements on both sides and a central reservation divides the carriageway. Moodiesburn itself is a village centred on the crossroads with Avenuehead Road on one side and Stoneyetts Road on the other, both running into the A.80.

There are about one dozen houses on the south side and two on the north side which have direct access to the trunk road, but Stoneyetts Read on the north side also provides access to a large council housing estate, to which the hon. Lady made reference, on which there are about 1,000 houses, some of them as close as 60 yards from the trunk road. People from this estate travel in both directions to work and are served by four bus stop draw-ins, two on each side of the main road.

Because of the Avenuehead Road junction and the houses on both sides with access to the trunk roads, there are several breaks in the central reservation, and there is a lay-by serving one group of cottages in addition to the bus draw-ins. Lastly, the road dips slightly towards the junction on both sides and a small burn is piped diagonally under the road in this dip.

A count of traffic taken on 7th March, 1963, showed that the trunk road carried about 7,500 vehicles in a 12-hour day which is 300 vehicles an hour on each carriageway. Over the same period of 12 hours, 612 pedestrians of whom 174 were children crossed the road in the neighbourhood of the main junction. The county council maintains a school-crossing patrol at this point, but of that number a third of the children and more than a third of the adults cross the road more than 50 yards away from the junction.

The problem is this. Most of the pedestrians who cross the trunk road come into it from Avenuehead Road or Stoneyetts Road. They do not, however, all cross at the junction but spread out according to where they are going. Clearly, the best way to make the crossing safe would be to segregate the pedestrians from the motor cars and we have carefully considered this. The level and the burn do not make it easy to have an underpass, so it really comes back to the question of a pedestrian bridge. If such a bridge prevented two pedestrian accidents a year, which is the number on average experienced over the last four years, it would undoubtedly be worth while, but my difficulty, quite honestly, is that I am by no means convinced that a pedestrian bridge at Moodiesburn would be effective in stopping accidents.

Experience based on studies made by the Road Research Laboratories show that if people are to use a bridge it must be the quickest way across the road. If a bridge takes the same time as crossing on the level, 80 per cent. will use it. If it is quicker to cross on the road very few people will use a bridge unless they are prevented from crossing on the level.

At Moodiesburn there is only an average of five cars a minute on each carriageway, or eight at the peak hour, so the gaps in which pedestrians can cross safely are frequent. They will not find it quicker to cross a bridge when they are catching a bus, and they certainly will not find it easier if they are wheeling a pram. Therefore, the only way to make sure that a bridge would be used would be to fence off the pavements from the road for some distance on either side of the crossroads where the bridge would be.

Unfortunately, on this site we cannot do this thoroughly because of the bus stops and the lay-by at the cottages. We cannot achieve the same thing by fencing the central reservation because of the gaps for traffic coming out of and going into the two side roads of Avenuehead Road and Stoneyetts Road. People would therefore be able to cross on the level if they went a few yards along the road, and I am afraid that this is exactly what they would do.

This is basically the difference between the hon. Lady and myself. She comes right out for a bridge. My best judgment is that as things are at present it would not be used, at least to the extent of preventing accidents, and therefore the expense could not be justified. What we are proposing, therefore, is to try to concentrate the pedestrian traffic so far as we can and to protect it by a pedestrian crossing at the most suitable point.

Miss Herbison

Has the Minister taken into account the advice of the chief constable for Lanarkshire? Will he be sure to deal with the question why, in the future, we might have a bridge, when all the things that he is telling us now will still obtain?

Mr. Leburn

The chief constable has not yet given his recommendations to my right hon. Friend. Neither has the county council.

Our proposal is to close two minor gaps in the central reservation and fence a considerable length of it—although we cannot fence up the two main gaps. Additionally, we propose fencing three corners at the junction. This would undoubtedly make conditions safer for pedestrians than they are at present.

The hon. Lady has quoted from my right hon. Friend's letter to her. He informed her then that the time may well come when the number of people crossing, or the delay for pedestrians owing to the increase in traffic, is such that a bridge really would be used. In other words, if there is so much traffic that the delay in getting across encouraged people to use a bridge, we could justify it, and I believe that it then might be worth while. My right hon. Friend has invited the views of the county council and the police on these proposals, and when we receive them we will consider them carefully. If they put forward modifications or suggestions for dealing with this matter in a different way I shall be very happy to consider them, as will my right hon. Friend.

I am not aware of the views put forward to the hon. Lady—at least to the extent that I could not take them into account, because at the time of the meeting to which she has referred, which I believe was on 6th May, the police did not have our detailed plans in front of them.

The hon. Lady raised the question of the parallel of the bridge at Salsburgh. What this bridge does is to illustrate what I have been trying to indicate about Moodiesburn. I agree that the bridge at Salsburgh has gone a long way towards curing the problem that exercised the local people, the local authorities, the hon. Lady and my right hon. Friend's Department. But the conditions at Salsburgh were almost ideal for a bridge. The trunk road is well below the level of housing development and there are no houses near the bridge with direct access to the road. It was possible therefore to design a bridge, even with sloping approaches, which offered a method of crossing the road as quick as going over the level of the roadway itself. And so, by the use of fencing, people were given no alternative but to cross the road by the bridge; and yet this did not inflict any hardship on them. The result is a successful bridge, but it does give point to the established fact that pedestrian bridges or underpasses must be as convenient as direct crossings if use is to be made of them; otherwise, in order to force people to use bridges or underpasses, fences must be erected, and this is not always possible. It was possible at Salsburgh. It is not possible at Moodiesburn.

Miss Herbison

So we are never to get a bridge.

Mr. Leburn

At places where there is a pedestrian problem the solution must be devised having regard to the special circumstances of the site. There is no cut and dried solution which can be applied to every site but the best has to be chosen for any particular site under consideration.

I want to assure the hon. Lady that we have not been complacent about this. I myself went to Moodiesburn some two months ago. I went again to Moodiesburn on Saturday, and I watched the traffic there for no less than two hours, and I tried to find a solution to this problem. It is an extremely difficult problem. I am sorry, I still cannot go with her and say that I formed the impression that a bridge would be the solution, because I really cannot see that the bridge would in practice be used. I cannot see these young people for whom she is so much concerned in fact using a bridge when it is so easy to get across the road in its present condition. Traffic of five vehicles a minute, or eight a minute at peak hours, allows fair opportunity to pedestrians to get across, and I really do not think that a bridge, certainly at this time, would be the solution. But, as I have said, we will consider these matters as they come from the county council and the police, and I shall be very happy, when these have been considered, to get in touch with the hon. Lady again.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock