PELICAN CROSSINGS

HC Deb 28 July 1977 vol 936 cc1399-410

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

2.50 p.m.

Mr. Tony Durant (Reading, North)

May I begin by thanking you, Mr. Speaker, for enabling me to raise this matter on the Adjournment on Thursday, although I am speaking on Friday? I am sorry that hon. Members have now decided to leave the Chamber, because I am raising a vital issue.

I have been concerned about pelican crossings since 1974. In the centre of Reading there is a pelican crossing in an important street, Friar Street. Local newspaper sellers drew my attention to the dangers of this crossing.

It was at that stage that I began to take an interest in this subject. At that time it was felt that there was something wrong with the timing of the crossing. I got in touch with the council, which replied to the effect that it had investigated the timing and felt that it was cor- rect, as laid down by regulation. In its letter the council said: This crossing has now been checked and found to be operating correctly. The total pedestrian crossing time is 17 seconds, which is considered to be adequate, and consists of seven seconds "green man" and 10 seconds "flashing green man". I then investigated this crossing. I spent a Saturday morning crossing it backwards and forwards with old ladies, prams and the rest. I became convinced that there was still a dangerous element to the crossing.

This led me to write to the Department of the Environment, to the hon. Member for Dudley, East (Dr. Gilbert) who was then responsible for these matters. On 20th July 1976 I received a letter from the hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks), the Under-Secretary, who said: We too receive complaints that pedestrian crossing time is inadequate; but we often find that this comes from a misunderstanding of how the crossing signals work rather than because the timings themselves are inadequate. The total pedestrian phase is in two parts, the steady green man followed by the flashing green man, in both of which pedestrians on the crossing have precedence over vehicles. Although no one should start to cross during the flashing phase, it is itself long enough for anyone walking at a moderate pace to cross safely and pedestrians who are already on the crossing should be able to complete it without undue haste. People who for one reason or another move especially slowly should make a point of starting at the beginning of the steady green man phase in order to get the maximum crossing time. Once again I was not entirely convinced and I spent a considerable time studying the matter. Then, regrettably, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), at another pelican crossing, two children were knocked down. One required 17 stitches as a result of a head injury while the other is in Battle Hospital with a broken hip. My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South has asked me to apologise for his inability to be here and to say that he supports me.

That gives the background and the reasons why I have been pressing this matter. The type of pedestrian crossing known as a pelican crossing is gradually being introduced at some of the busiest road junctions and crossing points in the country. I understand that there are now about 2,000 such crossings. Their introduction has been rapid, yet many motorists and pedestrians remain ignorant of the meaning of the flashing green and amber signals with which they are confronted.

The Department of the Environment stresses that it is … essential for pedestrian safey and confidence that drivers should recognise that pedestrians have priority during the flashing phase and give way to them patiently: this is primarily a matter for police enforcement". How can drivers be expected to know that pedestrians have priority when there is no indication of this?

The Department of the Environment calls for an intensive publicity campaign. The sort of campaign needed would have to be intensive indeed and such a campaign is not likely to be 100 per cent. effective. Many drivers will continue to remain ignorant of the correct procedure.

The Department also mentions police enforcement. Quite frankly, I believe that the police have quite enough to do without hanging around pelican crossings waiting for motorists to break the law. I would not expect them to do this. Advertising can be expensive, but it is something that may have to be done.

What I believe to be confusing everyone is the timing. I shall give the present sequence. If the road is six metres wide, the green man comes on steady for four seconds. If the road is 15 metres wide, the figure is seven seconds steady. The green man flashes for six seconds when the road is six metres wide and for 14 seconds when the road is 15 metres wide. Then the green man stops flashing and the red light goes on.

For motorists, when the green man is on, the green light facing them changes to red and they must stop. When the green man begins to flash the motorist gets a yellow flashing signal. It is then that he is supposed to decide whether it is safe to cross, bearing in mind what pedestrians are using the crossing.

The hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Corbett) asked a Question on 7th April concerning old people and pelican crossings. The answer was: The assumption is that crossings can be made at a walking speed of 1.2 metres per second or better. This is 4.3 km. per hour, or about 2.7 miles per hour. The Minister continued:

This has been found to be within the average capability of the over 65 age group. The fixed green and subsequent flashing green periods are timed to allow safe crossings to be made at this speed even allowing for an initial delay in starting."—[Official Report, 7th April 1977; Vol. 929, c. 649.] I come now to the defects of the system. Many old people and children will be hesitant about beginning to cross. They will still check whether it is safe to do so. Thus the "initial delay" becomes inevitable.

The Greater London Council has sent to me research that it has done on pelican crossings in its area. The experiment was carried out in conjunction with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. The report says: The delays experienced by pedestrians were in excess of those measured at Zebra-crossings with comparable traffic flows. In other words, people were not sure and they held back. The figures showed this. The report continued: Analysis of the data showed that delays were longer for the elderly (defined as 60 years or over) than for other adults and that those who crossed during the correct phase had longer delays than those who did not observe the signals. We are, therefore, talking about young children and the old.

Regrettably, this survey did not study those under the age of 15. The investigation also showed that pedestrians and motorists could be moving at the same time even though theoretically the motorist should give way. The report says: Although the majority of pedestrians at four of the five sites began their crossing when the steady green signal was showing, observance in general was far from perfect. Non-observance was mostly in the form of crossing against a red signal. This is people jumping the lights. There is not much that we can do about that. It is behaving stupidly. The report continues: only relatively small numbers of pedestrians arrived or started to cross when the lashing green signal was showing, which indicates that many pedestrians know not to start crossing during this signal. At every site it was found that the elderly were more observant of the signals than were other adults. What the report is saying there is that, despite the fact that the elderly were more cautious, they were also more slow and more vulnerable. This is an interesting point which has emerged.

The colour green is naturally associated with "go". The flashing green light may be associated with crossing in the minds of children. A child comes up to a crossing, presses the button and the green comes on. He talks to a friend for a moment. After the seven-second interval, the light starts flashing, and he darts across. Indeed, I believe that that is how accidents happen to children.

The Highway Code is very misleading about this. In advice to pedestrians it says: At some of the crossings with the green man symbol, the green man will flash for a short time before changing to the red man, i.e. wait' signal. Do not start to cross if the green man is already flashing. That instruction seems simple enough, but in fact it is confusing. The instruction to the motorist is: A flashing amber signal will follow the red stop signal at some pedestrian crossings. When the amber light is flashing, give way to any pedestrians on the crossing but otherwise you can proceed. Once again, people hold back and then take off. But while they are holding back, the motorist may say "He is not moving, so I shall go", and that is how, again, accidents can happen. It is a confusing situation.

Among the changes suggested by the Department of the Environment is that possible improvements in the red light signal for motorists might coincide with part of the flashing green signal for pedestrians, so that pedestrians might have longer to cross in safety while further pedestrians are dissuaded from starting to cross. But the flashing amber still coincides with part of the flashing green period so that indecision is not dispelled. No clear-cut course of action is recommended as to how to act at the crossing.

My conclusion is that the pelican crossing creates indecision in the minds of both the pedestrian and the motorist and that a return to a clearer system is necessary. The pedestrian or the motorist when at a busy junction needs definite instructions. Two weeks ago I was in Frankfurt, Germany. I walked around the streets because I was then trying to get this debate. I observed the traffic flows and the way the signals operate there. They are much more positive. If the signal is green, one goes; if it is red, one does not. The motorist simply goes off if one is crossing when one should not. He does not hesitate. The whole thing is much more disciplined. Everyone knows what he is supposed to do.

As I was saying, the pedestrian or the motorist when at a busy junction needs definite instructions—"wait" or "cross" for pedestrians, and the conventional redamber-green sequence for motorists, which would thus standardise all traffic lights. The motorist is used to such a sequence. I should like to see the flasing green light abolished altogether. I should also like to see that horrid whistle go. On a busy road it is apt to fill me with some panic. It is rather like having a referee's whistle blow as a signal for take-off. I understand that it may be of help to blind people, but otherwise I cannot see its significance. I do not see that all in all it is a very good idea.

First, therefore, I call for no more installatio0ns of pelican crossings until we get more evidence as to whether they are a success. I believe that it is a dangerous system, leading to accidents—I have quoted the instances of two children in Reading who are in hospital. Secondly, we should do away with the phase of a flashing green light, because people associate with green a signal that one may go and with red that one must stop. When it is flashing, it is green still, and children tend to dart across the road in the expectation of being able to make it. It is dangerous.

I urge the Government to consider the matter and decide to install no more pelican crossings until they know the evidence, and then consider doing away with the flashing, green man.

3.4 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam)

I am grateful for the interest taken by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant) in a matter as important as this, and I am glad that at long last, at the end of a rather tiring night and half day, we have an opportunity to debate it.

As was evident from the hon. Gentleman's speech, this is a rather complicated matter for debate in the House in the usual way. I have said on other occasions, in connection with debates about roads, that it would be helpful if there were above Mr. Speaker's Chair a place where one could mount a map or plan with lights which one could flash to illustrate the matters under discussion. However, we do not have that, and I shall struggle to do my best—I must say that the hon. Gentleman did admirably—in trying to explain the problems which this complicated procedure poses.

The hon. Gentleman instanced several different kinds of problem which, in his view, could occur on a pelican crossing. He mentioned in particular some research done by the GLC in conjunction with the Transport and Road Research Laboratory. My understanding of that research is slightly different from his. I understand that there is some hesitancy —roughly two seconds—when a pedestrian starts to cross when the steady green light goes on, but despite that the overall time is sufficient for a person to cross satisfactorily.

The hon. Gentleman may be interested to know—he did not give this figure, but it is known to the GLC and is the product of TRRL evidence—that only one person in 1,600 in its extensive and elaborate tests failed to complete crossing the pelican crossing in the normal time allowed. Obviously, various crossing lengths and conditions were examined and allowed for, and that was the outcome.

Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there is a tendency to hesitate, the evidence so far is that that is fully taken into account in the timings allowed. Nevertheless, the fact that there is hesitancy will be taken into consideration when further experiments are undertaken. In experiments which are being conducted by the GLC, for example, it may well be one of the points taken into account.

I come now to the motorist who is facing the red light at the crossing. The hon. Gentleman feels that he may tend to go when the amber light flashes, because, if he knows his instructions, the instruction is that he should wait and that the pedestrian has priority, but the instructions also permit him to cross when the amber light flashes when there is no pedestrian on the crossing.

I accept that this also may happen. No system is foolproof. However, I think it possible that we could overcome that problem by extending the length of time for the red sequence so that it overlapped the flashing green sequence which the pedestrian faces. Thus, instead of the amber beginning to flash for the motorist and the green beginning to flash for the pedestrian at one and the same time, for, say, two seconds or so the pedestrian would face the green flashing light and the motorist would continue to see the steady red light, which would then go on to amber flashing. In that way, there would be a small hiatus which would hold up the motorist and there would not be the tendency—if there be such a tendency, which we do not really think there is—for the motorist to move ahead when someone was still on the crossing.

Mr. Durant

As the instructions in the "Highway Code" stand at the moment, on the flashing amber the motorist must look to see whether it is clear. If there is a pedestrian at the side of the road, he may hesitate for the time to which the Minister referred, and the motorist may feel that he can go because the pedestrian is holding back for that two or three seconds. But the pedestrian may then decide to go. The Minister said that there was an allowance of two or three seconds. I am not sure that that is good enough, though certainly it is a help.

Mr. Horam

We think that it is a help. If the pedestrian goes when the light is flashing green, clearly that is contrary to all the instructions contained in the "Highway Code". However, people may not read the instructions or may not understand them. None the less, we have to make some provision. That is the provision, and the more and the sooner that it is understood, the better. On the whole, we think that the change I have described would be of some help in meeting what may be the problem of the simultaneous interaction of these two lights.

The third matter which the hon. Gentleman raised concerned the effect on the pedestrian of the changeover from the steady green to the flashing green light. It may cause him to speed up. It may even make him apprehensive in some way. We think that, if there is a problem here, it may be possible to meet it by lengthening the steady section of the total time.

Whether we do this as a proportion of the total, by altering the relationship between the flashing green and the steady green, or we add a bit to the total length of time, which would also deal with the problem of hesitancy at the starting of crossing, is a matter which we can look into and which will in fact be looked into by the GLC experiments which may take place if we get the necessary regulations through the House to allow them to take place.

As for the research, as I have said, we think that it shows fairly comprehensively that there is no real problem. The figure which I quoted earlier of one person in 1,600 failing to complete the crossing in the time allowed—an experiment involving all ages of people and all types of crossing—is pretty impressive. So I reiterate that our evidence is that the system works quite well. But, if there are any problems about the change-over from the green to the flashing green or from the flashing amber to green, we can deal with them in the course of the experiments which we hope to see conducted by the GLC, which has maintained a considerable interest in this problem because, obviously, it has a great many pelican crossings.

I explained that the details of pelican crossings are controlled by regulations of the House. Even the period of time which is flashing green, and so on, is contained in regulations. Therefore, it would be necessary to put a motion in front of the House before they could be changed, and we shall have to seek to do that. That would also give an opportunity for a further debate on the important matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.

These are the three ways in which we hope to meet the problem by small adjustments to the situation. But we shall see from the further experiments which we hope will take place whether that is necessary.

There is a further problem which also hampers the situation in the hon. Gentleman's constituency, and it concerns the crossing at Friary Road which first alerted him to the problems which can be associated with pelicans. It is a crossing with a central island. Despite the fact that it is, therefore, different from the ordinary road with no central island, it is treated as one from the point of view of a pelican crossing and the change from one phase to another. I understand that it is the view of the local authority that this is unsatisfactory and that it intends to alter the situation there by narrowing the road and by treating it differently. I understand that it also has the finance available to do that at a fairly early stage, probably in this financial year. It looks as if it is a problem which is being sensibly controlled.

The pelican system as a whole has an excellent record of safety. I should like to place that on record. There is impressive evidence that it works satisfactorily. It was brought in in order to improve the position concerning the ordinary zebra system and to be more helpful to both pedestrian and motorist. It is fully under Government control. We have to approve every crossing. This is not a satisfactory position for everyone, and during the early hours this morning we were debating the extent to which there should be Government control over these relatively small but important safety matters.

It is not true that they have come in very quickly. They have been around since 1969, and the research work started six years before that. There are now 2,500 of them throughout the country, and the number is continuing to grow. I think that they are an excellent part of our general approach to the problem of safety. They have proved themselves.

If there are problems affecting even a tiny minority of people, we shall certainly look into them. I think that the proposals that are being mounted in this respect in co-operation with the Greater London Council will meet directly the sort of point that the hon. Gentleman raised.

The whistle is, of course, for blind people, and the point has been made to me in the House that it has been helpful to them. We shall continue to use it. If we were to abolish completely the flashing green section, that would be against the experience of local authorities. The Association of Metropolitan Authorities has said quite clearly to us in a recent letter that it did not wish this to happen and that it was quite satisfied that there should be a flashing green section. The association made one or two observations to the hon. Gentleman's comment about the timing. I do not know what is the GLC's position on that, but it is unlikely that it would want to have the flashing green section abolished entirely. There is general support for the principle. It is a matter of small adjustments at the margin, if these are proved to be necessary.

Finally, it is a very fair point to say that there may be some misunderstanding about the whole system. Some people may be worried about it and regard it as hideously complicated. We shall be pleased to do anything that we can in the way of putting out leaflets, showing films, and so on. We have even invoked "Dad's Army" to show people how to cross one. These are quite small items in relation to the total effort that will be required to make everyone understand these things. It will probably be a very long time before they are accepted as a permanent part of our road scene with clear advantages in terms of road safety.

I think that we should persist with the general principle, recognising that on the whole it has worked very well. I am sure that it has saved many lives. I was sorry to hear about the instance that the hon. Gentleman quoted in the constituency of his hon. Friend the Member for Reading, South (Dr. Vaughan), where two children were knocked down. That is very rare, and possibly they were not using the crossing correctly.

If we persist, I think we can expect to see the system becoming even better understood than it is at the moment. Nevertheless, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his interest in this matter. I shall certainly continue to keep a close watch on what happens in this sort of area, because the Government have a responsibility in addition to that of the local authorities.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes past Three o'clock on Friday afternoon, till Wednesday 26th October, pursuant to the Resolution of the House this day.