Road Signs (Hansard, 10 July 1984)

§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Clwyd, North-West)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for coming here tonight to deal with the Adjournment debate. I want to make it plain that I have no criticism of her. She is doing a splendid job.

I hope to influence the somewhat rigid attitudes of my hon. Friend's Department to this matter. I do rot want obtrusive hoardings that obliterate or disfigure the countryside in a way that is all too common in the United States or in Italy. Nor do I suggest that road signposting should be farmed out to commercial enterprise by tender.

British signposting is not especially good. on minor roads it is erratic and it is often badly maintained and has no common standard. In towns it is usually quite inadequate for the visitor who wants to find a hotel, restaurant or a garage. It does not follow a logical system on motorways, although that is almost universal on the Continent. Signposting to motorways is inexcusably inadequate. In some towns, one can drive along a trunk road within half a mile of a motorway, yet there is no visible sign pointing the way to it. So there is really no cause to be smug.

Better signposting would cost money — net large sums, but still public money. It is one of my themes that if a limited amount of commercial advertising was allowed under very strict conditions on, say, motorway bridges and at the exits to sliproads, it might yield as much as £1 million a year in tax to the Exchequer. That is not a huge sum, but it is money that could go towards the provision of better, clearer road signs.

Of course, the objection will be that such advertising would distract the driver's attention and so constitute a hazard. That possibility is ludicrously exaggerated. Motorists who visit Wales have to contend with bilingual road signs. I am all in favour of such road signs, and there is no evidence whatever that they have caused any accidents to date. Yet the poor bewildered English motorist who thought that he was on the way to Swansea, and who finds instead that he is heading for Abertawe, is more likely to become confused thereby than if he is told by an advertisement on a bridge or sliproad warning board that if he leaves at exit 32, he will find a Shell petrol station open until 10 pm, real ale at the Dog and Duck, and a bed at the Swan. Indeed, such information might prevent him from trying to eke out his nearly empty petrol tank by driving at 20 miles per hour to the next service station 40 miles further on.

In any case, boredom is a greater danger to motorway driving than the occasional poster. Once again, the French have found it worthwhile to awaken the alertness and attention of drivers along very boring stretches of motorway with large brown boards giving information about attractions visible from the road. We make one exception to the total prohibition on advertising on motorways, and that is the notices that are found on some motorways giving the wavelength of the local VHF BBC station. It would be hard to think of a sillier exception to make. It means that the motorist is encouraged to take his eye off the road, retune his set, and then collide with the car in front.

1011 I have been speaking of motorways, but the two points that I want to make most clearly concern signposting in towns and on bypasses on trunk roads. First, British towns are much less well signposted than most continental ones, although improvements are taking place. Once again, we can learn from the French in providing clear signposts to the hotels and restaurants, and large street maps in the main squares. Those maps are just the sort of thing that could be sponsored by local businesses, which could use the reverse side as advertising space. That is already beginning to happen in some places in this country, but all too often the local authorities are obstructive. I should like the Department of Transport to give its blessing to that sort of development and thus give a lead in favour of such useful combined signposting and advertising displays.

My second point, which I should like to stress in particular, concerns bypasses on trunk roads. A new bypass brings much-needed relief to towns or villages, but it may also mean the death of many local enterprises that have hitherto been dependent on passing traffic, unless they can bring their continued existence to the notice of the motorist who would otherwise speed by unaware. I have found the Department and its ventriloquist dolls in the Welsh Office quite preposterously obstructive every time it is suggested that at the point where the new bypass diverges, the businesses, and particularly the tourist businesses, in the town or village, should be allowed to advertise their services. Quite frankly, such an attitude is absurd.

I have fought many battles over this, and I have usually won in the end. But why should I have to fight so hard for what is obviously sensible and fair, and constitutes no danger to traffic?

In my constituency, the village of Bodelwyddan is soon to be bypassed—and not a day too soon. There have been appalling accidents with children trying to cross a very fast main road. When the bypass comes, some businesses in the village will face catastrophe unless they can remind the speeding motorist of the pleasant attractions available in the village. What will happen when the expressway takes traffic clear of Colwyn Bay? Of course there will be an end to the quasi-perpetual traffic jams, but it will also mean disaster for many local businesses unless some advertising of what the town has to offer is allowed at the Colwyn Bay exit signs from the expressway.

I do not expect my hon. Friend to be able to give me complete satisfaction on all these points tonight. However, I hope that she and her Department will consider what I have said, will not be too stubborn to learn from foreign experience, and will be prepared to reconsider some of the taboos that have hitherto governed their policy.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)

I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, North-West (Sir A. Meyer) for raising this subject, albeit at a rather late hour. It is an opportunity for both him and me to explain our position in greater detail, certainly in more detail than is ever possible at Question Time, as he will know. We are not as far apart as it may seem to him. It may be helpful if I 1012 say a few words about the legal position on traffic signs and advertisements to start with, and then go on to pick up the points that he made.

My hon. Friend will understand that the legal definition of traffic signs as defined in the Road Traffic Regulations Act 1967 is an object or device…for conveying, to traffic on roads…warnings, information, requirements, restrictions, or prohibitions…specified by regulations…or authorised by the appropriate Minister". Under this Act, only highway authorities or police may cause or permit the erection of traffic signs. Our current traffic signs are prescribed in the Traffic Signs Regulations 1981, as amended.

We had a further amendment, of which my hon. Friend will be aware, on the amendment regulations of 1982 which prescribed the new Tudor rose signs for tourist attractions. I can show him the sign, which has a white background with a blue edge and arrow, and a red rose. That is a recent and welcome change.

As to the legal position of signs, all signs are legally advertisements, and are therefore covered by the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1984. Our traffic signs are a special class of advertisement, because they are employed wholly for the control, guidance or safety of traffic. Because of that, they enjoy deemed planning consent, meaning that we do not have to ask for planning consent for every traffic sign.

The commercial advertisements, to which my hon. Friend was alluding, would require express planning consent from a local planning authority. That planning authority usually acts only in the interests of amenity or public safety. My hon. Friend wishes to encourage the use of amenities, and the dissemination of the information to the travelling public that such amenities exist. He will find, in what I have to say later, that this is something that we are trying, by a number of means, to achieve.

The general policy, of which my hon. Friend was understandably critical, stems from two committees, which sat 20 years ago—the Worboys committee and the Anderson committee— and which reported on the subject of motorways. I am not rigid and immovable about making changes. The two key Worboys principles are valid. The first was that: signs should be conspicuous so that they will attract attention of drivers at a sufficient distance and should easily be recognisable as traffic signs at that distance. There is no difference between my hon. Friend and I on that point.

The second principle was that traffic signs: should contain only essential information, and their significance should be clear at a glance so that the driver's attention is not distracted from the task of driving. Those are the principles that cause highway authorities generally not to allow advertisements, because they are rightly concerned about the unnecessary attraction being too much for a motorist to absorb. Too many signs breed contempt, as one can see from certain signposts. I have been taking a particular interest in this matter over the past six months and noting what goes on. Sometimes, I agree with my hon. Friend, the signposting leaves a great deal to be desired. There are many extra obstructions. About 3,000 injury accidents a year involve collision with essential traffic signs. We would, therefore, be concerned if there were even more signs rather than a more modern form of an existing sign. There is also the potential obscuration of traffic signs. Sometimes one sees 1013 advertisements outside the highway land, and it is obvious that they are not traffic signs and, therefore, do not impede.

My hon. Friend is after better signposting to indicate the facilities near by roads. In that respect I can help him by stating what happens when villages get by-passed. While I cannot write into the Official Report exactly what a sign is, it will now be our practice to put signs on new bypasses stating the name of a town and the link road to that town. If, as in the case of Faringdon in Oxfordshire, it is a historic market town, we shall say so. We shall also state the local services that are available.

These signs will be white print on a brown background and show at the bottom a petrol pump, toilet facilities, a crossed knife and fork and cup to denote eating facilities, an information indicator and a notice that beds are available. We would be wrong if we allowed these signs to advertise the Dog and Duck or the names of individual establishments. I cannot follow my hon. Friend down that path.

Once a motorist goes off the main road, we can draw him into a layby in which will be sited information boards, which will describe not only the tourist facilities in the area but other advertising, if there is no objection from the landholder. We are trying to move from the situation where no indication of facilities is available to one where there is information but information that does not conflict with the need for safety on motorways.

My hon. Friend may say that I am being too tame and that I should be doing far more. Several experiments are at present taking place, and we are moving in a broader way than he has perhaps understood. It is important to remember that changing from the system of signing that has existed for the last 30 years to the newer signing is a costly business. I cannot undertake suddenly to change all the signs, full scale, but it can be done bit by bit. We want to achieve a conformity with signing, so that people realise that the blue signs are motorway signs and that the yellow and green are the primary route signs. Not only should we have a consistent logo but a colour scheme that clearly indicates what we are signing and where.

My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that our tourism signposting policy is beginning to change. In 1981 we had a report from a joint working party, which was established by the English Tourist Board and which comprised the Department of Transport, the Association of County Councils, the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the Department of the Environment, the Association of District Authorities, the English Tourist Board and the British Tourist Authority. The recommendations in the report have been accepted by all the bodies that were represented by the working party. I shall write to my hon. Friend and go into greater detail than is possible in the debate. I think that he will find the greater detail interesting.

The working party recommended that traffic signs should not be erected for advertising purposes. I understand that there was uniformity of view on that issue. It recommended also a new sign for tourist attractions, which is the one that I described earlier, which carries the red rose. Following consultation, schemes and signs have been established for services on all-purpose roads which have been bypassed. The signs are the brown and white ones that I have described, which will bear the name of the town and what it offers, both pictorially and in words.

1014 The Department has been seeking new tourism singposting initiatives. We have the information board experiment in Devon and Cornwall, which includes trunk roads. The experiment embraces the possibility of information boards in laybys. The boards carry advertisements from local traders, which are acceptable if they relate to the use of the road. In other words, my hon. Friend's Shell garage can be nominated by means of a board in a layby.

Motorists are being encouraged to break from driving and to obtain detailed information safely after parking in a layby. I do not want to see numerous individual signs that I would term illegal roadside tatter. Judging from my hon. Friend's earlier remarks about not wanting the landscape obliterated or disfigured, as has happened in some countries, he will be with me on that score.

We have consulted nationally on extending the experimental scheme that has been introduced in Devon and Cornwall, which are prime holiday areas. There is an encouraging response from all those who would like to participate but there is obviously some concern about finance. We shall achieve an improvement bit by bit.

There are also the Kent and Nottinghamshire experimental schemes, where we are following the practice that the French have introduced, but in our own way. We are designating a place of historic interest, a vineyard or something of that nature by means of white lettering and a white diagram on a brown board. We have agreed that the item on the sign must have some traffic importance. If that were not so, the system could become misleading. The first signs will be seen in east Kent next month. The signs will appear in Nottinghamshire in a few months' time, possibly the beginning of 1985.

We are seeking to awaken the motorist to the fact that tourist information is available at motorway service areas by placing the "I" sign for information on motorways at appropriate junctions and when a motorway service area is approaching. We are seeking also to open up more areas to the motorist in a way that does not detract from road safety. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that that is a beneficial approach.

I understand that the French scheme is intended to humanise French motorways. Unfortunately, the large signs, sometimes with slightly obtrusive symbols, are not as meaningful as the signs that we are trying to introduce. There is a committee in France which makes decisions on interesting features. It has a number of disputes on that score. There are restrictions on the number of signs and there are no signs on appoaches to interchanges. It may seem to the passing British motorist on holiday that the French have quite a good idea, but there are real problems with their scheme. We are seeking to give the information that the motorist needs in a way that he can digest quickly and where it can be of assistancce to him, with signs to premises that have been bypassed by new roads.

My hon. Friend made some other comments about signposting in towns, and motorway signposting. The signs to our motorways are distinctive. They show the number in a blue panel, although I have noted some of the older signs have not yet been fully replaced. The point at which the signing begins is dependent on the traffic need. There is improvement to be made on this issue in future. There is a logic in our destination signing on motorways which is linked to an agreed list of primary destinations. We choose the destinations carefully to reflect the navigational needs of the motorist, and the number of 1015 destinations to be shown is strictly limited to the amount that the motorist can absorb. There may be room for other things to be shown. I do not have a closed mind on this, but we need to go carefully in putting more detailed information on high-speed motorways. If we do not, I can foresee problems occurring where cars transfer from one lane to another, having suddenly seen something of interest at the last moment. I am sure that my hon. Friend will join me in agreeing that we do not wish to see any more accidents; indeed, we wish to see fewer.

As to my hon. Friend's other comments, I hope that he will accept that we are not turning our minds against new experiments. We shall be cautious because we are dealing with road safety. We are involved in experimentation, and I am glad that he is beginning to notice some of this already in his travels round the country. He spoke of specific difficulties that he had experienced in the Principality. That does not come directly under my guidance, as he knows, but, if I can help him on this matter, I will seek to do so.

We are seeking not to cut off the premises in bypass villages from the trade that they might have enjoyed previously, although they also had a great deal of interruption and interference because of the continuous traffic. We shall do all that we can to make sure that the 1016 facility is known to the motorist within the limits of safety, but I have to use a greater degree of caution than my hon. Friend was perhaps suggesting.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has been experimenting successfully with symbolic signs, and we are considering the changes that that has effected. His research has revealed that there has been some confusion on the availability of services. I therefore repeat that information boards on laybys are a much better idea than trying to cram too much on to a sign that would have to be read at speed. I do not wish to encourage unnecessary manoeuvring on and off motorways at junctions. We shall continue to try to give as much information at motorway service areas as possible.

Given our Kent and Nottingham experiments and the local information board that we are trying out in Devon and Cornwall, which we shall undoubtedly be extending to other roads, and the fact that we are prepared to allow local hostelries to advertise, where appropriate, I hope that we shall be going some way to meet the real need that my hon. Friend was describing, and to which we have no objection to giving some publicity within the bounds of safety. I am sure that we can work together to bring about some improvement on signing.