HC Deb 05 March 1964 vol 690 cc1688-98

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

11.59 p.m.

Mr. William Whitlock (Nottingham, North)

At this witching hour we turn from the consideration of matters of great importance, involving the expenditure of over £500 million, to something of not nearly so universal interest, but which is of some interest and importance to my constituents.

I wish to talk about the dangers of a place on the northern outskirts of the Hucknall Urban District Council area, where there is a junction between the B.6011, Wighay Road, and the A.611, Annesley Road. Near this junction there has been a number of accidents in recent years, some of them fatal. Strong feeling has been expressed in the area of the need for some action to reduce the dangers at this place. To the north of the junction there is a straight stretch of the road in open country known to some of the residents in the area as the "race track". Cars travel at speed along the road from the direction of Mansfield and encounter at the danger spot the combination of the bend, the junction and the beginning of the built-up area.

On 31st July, 1963, I asked the Minister of Transport why he had refused permission for a "Halt" sign to be put at the junction at the end of Wighay Road. Nottinghamshire County Council asked for permission for this sign to be erected at this spot. The county police wanted it and the city coroner, following a fatal accident at this spot, recommended that a "Halt" sign be put there. Responsible people who know this spot and know the dangers of the area asked that the sign should be there, but the man from Whitehall said, "No, you cannot have this sign".

In his reply to my Question on 31st July, the Parliamentary Secretary said that "Halt" signs must be limited to intersections where visibility is exceptionally bad and that the visibility at this spot did not justify having a "Halt" sign. The police, the local authority and the city coroner were all well aware of the extent of the visibility from the end of Wighay Road along the Annesley Road in both directions. Nevertheless, with all their knowledge of the area they felt that a sign was justified, but the rule of thumb was applied by the Ministry and the request was turned down.

In my supplementary question, I suggested that warning signs should be placed farther north on the A.611 on the Annesley Road so that drivers might reduce speed before reaching the danger spot. The Parliamentary Secretary appeared to agree in his reply to the supplementary question. Shortly after this interchange in the House, I had a discussion on this danger spot with officials of the Nottinghamshire County Council and as a result a scheme was put forward for road widening and eliminating the dangerous bend is Annesley Road.

A request for siting the 30 m.p.h. limit sign farther to the north had been made by the county council in 1962 and had been rejected by the Ministry. Following my visit to the county hall, the request for extension of the speed limit sign was renewed. I say at once that the provision of the roundabout at the junction would appear to be an ideal solution to the problems at this spot, but although there are plans for an eventual ring road to come out near this point, and for a roundabout to be built where the ring road comes out, the provision of a ring road would appear to be a long way down the Ministry's list of priorities and may not be made for several years ahead. In any case, expenditure on a roundabout now could prove abortive since it is by no means certain that the ring road will come out at this precise spot. Road improvement here is not only necessary now, but it could fit in with the eventual plans for a ring road.

I am pleased that the improvement programme proposed by Hucknall Urban District Council and Nottinghamshire County Council is to rank for Ministry grant. A little bird has whispered in my ear that following the announcement that I proposed to raise this matter tonight the Department became prepared to be even more generous than it originally intended. I hope that that rumour is sound.

So much for the improvement scheme, which in no way invalidates the need for the extension of the 30 m.p.h. limit sign. The present 30 m.p.h. sign is located inside the Hucknall Urban District Council area at a point where it is hidden by he bend from drivers who speed down the straight from Mansfield. It should Ix placed further back to the north so that speeds may be reduced before this danger spot is reached. However, the Ministry has turned that suggestion down on two occasions and, once again, the man from Whitehall has presumed to know best.

The Ministry's letter rejecting this application made it clear that 30 m.p.h. signs should be erected only in built-up areas. It seems nonsense to say that there cannot be an extension of the speed limit sign beyond a built-up area when it is obvious that the danger spot is at the beginning of the built-up area and that speeds must be reduced before traffic reaches that spot.

The Ministry's approach to this matter seems to be in line with a circular which was sent out by the Ministry in December, 1961, in which local authorities were asked to ascertain where speed limits were justified, to raise speed limits in some cases and to abolish them in others, but generally to take steps … to put speed limits on a basis which will command the respect of motorists and make the limit; more easily capable of enforcement. I hope that the Home Secretary does not seek to apply that kind of peculiar logic to his efforts to combat crime; that he will not say that, since the crime figures show that the law commands less respect among thieves, therefore we should relax the laws on larceny.

Apart from the implications of the circular to which I referred, the hon. Gentleman may argue that once the road improvement scheme is carried out there will be no need for an extension of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. But if he argues that I will disagree with him because it seems that the extension is still necessary to ensure that drivers are warned that they must reduce their speed before entering the built-up area. If the extension is not agreed there is a danger that what is known as the "race track"—the straight piece of road down which cars come at great speeds—will be extended further into the Hucknall area and that we will still have an area of potential danger.

I hope that the interest shown by the Ministry in this matter in the last few days is an indication that the hon. Gentleman is prepared to concede some of the points that I have made.

12.8 a.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. T. G. D. Galbraith)

I have listened with great interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) and though it is a late hour it has been well worth waiting for. I confess that I understand and sympathise with the fears he has cogently and persuasively expressed about safety conditions at the junction north of Hucknall. All hon. Members are concerned to reduce the number of road accidents and this is a subject with which we at the Ministry of Transport have great sympathy. Indeed, it is something we are trying to achieve all the time.

There are really three aspects of the problem at this junction north of Huck-nail. First, there is the point which the hon. Member raised in a Parliamentary Question some time ago about a "Halt" sign to replace the "Slow" sign, to which he has again referred this evening. Secondly, there is the question of whether or not the speed limit should be extended further along the road. And there is the condition of the road itself. All three aspects have to be considered in order to get the problem into a proper perspective.

The hon. Member very properly made a Effie fun at our expense about the refusal to allow the erection of a "Halt" sign, although it is usually his own party that claims that the gentlemen from Whitehall know best, but in view of his remarks, it may help if I were to explain why this decision cannot be left to the locality.

I can assure the House that our policy of centralising these decisions has only been evolved as a result of bitter experience. As I expect the hon. Gentleman knows, up to 1937 local highway authorities were free to provide "Halt" signs anywhere they wanted to, and the result was such a proliferation of these signs that much of their value as a safety measure was lost through overuse. For this reason, it was decided in 1937 that "Halt" signs should be erected only where the Minister of Transport approved, and it was necessary to do this to preserve the safety value of these signs. If they became too common their value would be reduced.

Our policy is that "Halt" signs should be restricted to junctions where visibility along the major road is so bad that it is imperative for drivers on the minor road to stop at the junction in every single case before they proceed out on to the major road. What is the visibility range at the junction north of Hucknall? As the hon. Gentleman will know, the visibility along Annesley Road from a point 25 ft. from the junction is already 240 ft. in the northerly direction, and 700 ft. to the south.

That leads me to the aspect of the condition of the road itself. The visibility figures that I have just given refer to the present condition of the road but, as the hon. Gentleman apparently knows, the intention is to improve Annesley Road by widening it to 33 ft. When this work is completed, the visibility will be increased from 240 ft. to 1,200 ft. in the northerly direction, and from 700 ft. to 1,000 ft. towards the south. This great extension of visibility in both directions means that the criterion which justifies the erection of a "Halt" sign does not even begin to apply in this case.

Another advantage of the road widening scheme is that it will not only greatly improve visibility for drivers coming out of Wighay Road, but also for those going in either direction along Annesley Road itself; and the visibility will be increased for those drivers by more than three times its present distance This is a very substantial improvement, as I am sure the hon. Member recognises.

The widening of Annesley Road itself will be for a distance of 850 ft.—

Mr. Whitlock

The hon. Gentleman said that the "Halt" sign asked for was to replace the speed limit sign. That is not so.

Mr. Galbraith

The hon. Member may have misunderstood me, but if that was what I said it was a slip of the tongue. I understood that the object was to replace the "Slow" sign at Wighay Road at the junction into Annesley Road. If I gave the impression that I was talking about the speed limit sign I must apologise. Does that satisfy the hon. Member?

Mr. Whitlock

The people who recommended that this "Halt" sign should be put there were well aware of the dangers of proliferating traffic signs of all kinds. They are not irresponsible people. They felt that there should be a "Halt" sign there. I agree that a "Halt" sign will not be necessary if the improvement scheme is carried out, but we want now in addition to the improvement scheme an extension of the 30 m.p.h. limit.

Mr. Galbraith

That is one aspect with which I propose to deal. I should like to tell the hon. Member about the details of the work which will be done on Annesley Road.

The widening of the road will be for a distance of 850 ft. The hedge alongside will be moved hack on Annesley Road and also on the northern side of Wighay Road at the junction. This work of improvement will start in April and should not take very long to complete. I do not know exactly what it was that the little bird whispered to the hon. Member, but I am willing to tell him that the cost of the scheme will be £9,500 on which the grant will be £7,125. I hope that the hon. Member will feel that his little bird whispered in the right, cheerful tone.

Bearing in mind the very heavy pressure which we receive from all quarters for the expenditure of our limited road improvement funds, I hope that the hon. Member will recognise that in facilitating this road improvement we are doing something really worth while to help him in his accident problem, and that we are doing it in the right way, by eliminating the cause of danger at its source by straightening out the road and improving visibility on it.

I have examined very carefully the accident record to which the hon. Member referred. I find that over the last five years there have been five accidents involving personal injury at this junction. I agree that these are five too many, but, at the same time, we must recognise that an accident rate of one a year over five years is not high. This perhaps is not surprising, because the volume of traffic using the A.611 is only two-thirds of the average for Class I roads in the country as whole, and B.6011, as he hon. Member will know, is only lightly trafficked. Of the five accidents which have taken place in the last five years, the first two involved vehicles making a right turn from Annesley Road to Wighay Road, one of them being in a fog. As the hon. Member knows, right-hand turns are always fraught with danger, but I am sure that the widening of Annesley Road and the removal of the bend will do a great deal to diminish this hazard in the future, because visibility will be so much better.

The three other accidents have all involved vehicles coming out of Wighay Road and turning to the north. One of these was in bad visibility and was a case plainly calling for increased care by the driver emerging from the minor into the major road. When the new mandatory "Give Way" signs at the mouth of minor roads are introduced, as the result of the recommendations of the Worboys Committee, they should increase the care taken by drivers on minor roads such as the B.6011. This together with the increased visibility along the major road, and with the setting back of the hedge, will I hope result in the accident record at this junction for the next five years being even lower than it has been in the last five years.

I turn now to the suggestion which the hon. Member invited me to deal with in his intervention that the existing 30 m.p.h. speed limit should be extended northward along Annesley Road beyond the junction. Although I do not think the hon. Member mentioned it just now, it was in his Parliamentary Question, I know that another matter in which the local highway authority is interested is that a new speed limit should be imposed or Wighay Road.

When this request was put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport by the hon. Gentleman on 18th December my right hon. Friend replied that this extension of the speed limit could not be agreed because the roads for which they were requested were not in a built-up area. I must stick to this decision, but I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not be too disappointed when he hears the reasons. This is not another instance, as he seems to suspect, of the gentlemen in Whitehall knowing best. If it were a purely local matter, it would be all right to leave it to local decision, but drivers from all over the country will be affected, so the decision must be taken in the light of criteria that are generally applied throughout the whole country and are not particular to each different area or district.

It might help if I explained the basic philsophy which guides us in this difficult matter of deciding about speed limits. The 30 m.p.h. speed limit is really only appropriate for fully built-up areas—that is. areas where pedestrians and cyclists are numerous, or where junctions and the consequent crossing and turning movements are frequent, or where bus stops and parked cars cause interruptions to the traffic flow and obstruct the field of view. In such circumstances as these, drivers recognise the need for a 30 m.p.h. limit and comply with this restriction.

This is a very important matter because there is no point in having a speed limit in conditions which the ordinary driver does not find sensible. It is no good having a speed limit unless to the ordinary driver it seems sensible, because then he tends not to observe the speed limit. This not only brings the whole system into disrepute, but it is also exceedingly dangerous because pedestrians think they can rely upon a slow speed when, in fact, the ordinary motorist does not regard the road as fulfilling the conditions which justify a limit, and he does not drive slowly. This is the worst possible set of circumstances to have if one wishes to avoid accidents, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates.

The conditions appropriate to a 30 m.p.h speed limit obviously do not exist on the length of Annesley Road on which the county council recently sought the Minister's consent to an extension of the 30 m.p.h. speed limit. It is not built-up at all and the sole justification offered for the limit was the junction with Wighay Road and the fact that the council was also applying for consent to the same speed limit on Wig-hay Road. But Wighay Road does not justify a 30 m.p.h. speed limit either, because there are only a few houses on one side of the road, so the application, for these reasons, had to be rejected by my right hon. Friend on these two roads.

However, I do not want to appear altogether too negative to the hon. Gentleman in my approach to this problem. I have, therefore, asked the divisional road engineer to consider whether a 40 m.p.h. speed limit would not be better suited along the Annesley Road where it is built up only on one side, and whether a 40 m.p.h. speed limit could not also be accepted for Wighay Road. If this is done I do not think that it would be unreasonable for the speed limit to cover the junction as well, which I understand from what the hon. Gentleman has said is something which the highway authority is very anxious to achieve. Before we can come to any decision on this, it will be necessary for a traffic count to be taken and the divisional road engineer will also have to discuss the suggestion with the local highway authority.

Earlier, I mentioned the new "Give Way" sign, but I would not like the hon. Gentleman to think that the highway authority is dependent on the introduction of Worboys signs for any further safety action it may consider necessary. At the moment there is a whole range of other warning signs which are available for use at junctions and which it is open to the highway authority to use without reference to my right hon. Friend's Department if it considers that additional signs are necessary in the interests of further road safety.

I should like to give a few examples of additional warning signs which could be used at this junction if the highway authority thought fit. First, the word "Slow" could be written on the carriageway of the minor road at some distance in advance of the roadside "Slow" sign. If necessary, it could even be written twice, as is already done, as the hon. Gentleman will know, in the case of the south bound lane on Annesley Road north of the junction. A second possibility is that the junction warning sign on the minor road could be doubled in size. Thirdly, the longitudinal hazard lines on the minor road could he lengthened, and the broken white line across its mouth could be somewhat thickened. On Annesley Road the existing longitudinal line down the centre both north and south of the junction could be replaced by hazard lines, and north of the junction these could be marked in reflectorised material.

I mention all these as possibilities to show that there is considerable scope left to the local highway authority, but, of course, it will be for the highway authority to determine whether any of these additional signs are or are not justified. I merely wanted to make clear the scope which does exist.

In conclusion, I hope that what I have said has shown the hon. Gentleman how carefully the whole of the circumstances at this junction have been examined, and though this reply of mine is obviously not all he wanted, I hope that he will appreciate the reasons which make it impossible for me to agree to a "Halt" sign—I think that he does appreciate them—or to have a speed limit of the kind he proposed. Nevertheless, he will see that in three respects the matter is not as black as might be supposed. First, the road improvements will substantially reduce the danger at this junction; secondly, the D.R.E.'s inquiries may produce an acceptable solution to the speed limit problem; and, thirdly, there is scope at present for the local highway authority to use additional warning signs if it wishes. I have clone my best to help the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that in the light of what I have said he and his constituents may feel reassured.

Mr. Whitlock

I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the very detailed manner in which he has dealt with this matter, but may I ask him whether I understood him to say that the part of Annesley Road in Hucknall District Council area, now covered by the 30 m.p.h. sign, is to be covered by a 40 m.p.h. sign? If it is, I shall be rather unhappy at out that.

Mr. Galbraith

The hon. Gentleman will. I fear, have to be rather unhappy, and this is a rather bad way to start the weekend. That was the suggestion. It cannot be appropriate to turn that part of Annesley Road where there are buildings on one side into a 30 m.p.h. limit. It is also the suggestion that the 40 m.p.h. limit should extend slightly beyond the junctior.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Twelve o'clock.