§ Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Durant.]
1.30 am§ Mr. Roy Galley (Halifax)This Adjournment debate was sought because of increasing concern about driving conditions and standards on the M1 motorway. Recent accidents on the Ml, some in adverse weather conditions, have reinforced that concern. The problems to which I shall refer are undoubtedly experienced on other motorways throughout the country, but my familiarity and love-hate relationship with that road, having travelled up and down it between London and Yorkshire most weeks since June 1983, lead me to be specific about the M1.
Since I initially sought this Adjournment debate, the Select Committee on Transport has published its report on road safety. It covers in much more detail many issues of motorway safety and other related matters. I hope that at a later stage the House will have an opportunity to debate them in greater detail.
Observation during the last 18 months of travelling up and down the M1 suggests that traffic volume has increased and that driving standards have deteriorated. Coming southwards from Yorkshire, the difficulties become acute after the M69, the M6 and the M45 merge into the M1. At peak times—that phrase now seems to encompass most of the week except late at night and on Saturday afternoons—the stretch of the M1 from the Leicestershire-Northamptonshire border at least to the intersection with the M10 is, frankly, hell on earth.
There is an enormous volume of traffic driving too fast, very often filling all three lanes. We are plagued by drivers who fail to adjust their driving speed and style to changing conditions, be it of weather or traffic volume. Too much traffic stays in the middle and fast lanes, even when there is room in the nearside lane. People, perhaps understandably, refuse to move over into the slow lane or the middle lane for fear of being boxed in. They are tending now to treat the middle lane as a normal progress lane rather than as an overtaking lane. This contributes to sudden traffic build-up and little room for manoeuvre if a dangerous situation arises. It leads to the even worse sin of drivers overtaking on the nearside, which is becoming an even more prevalent practice. Another major problem is that drivers move too rapidly from lane to lane, very often without indication. This can be particularly horrific if, as is sometimes the case, an enormous lorry is involved.
Great efforts have been made in recent years to cope with the problems of the M1 and other motorways. While traffic virtually doubled on motorways between 1973 and 1983, a further 1,000 kilometres of motorway have been constructed. That has not quite doubled the amount of motorway but it has gone some way towards doing so. The number of fatal and serious accidents on motorways per 100 million vehicle kilometres has been reduced and, overall, accident rates on motorways compare well with those on other types of road.
Accidents on the M1 specifically have been reduced since 1979. Yet the accident rates for Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire—the two areas with which I am most concerned—have not fallen so significantly. They have varied considerably, but they are still bad. As my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware, the key factor about a motorway accident is that it is much more horrific than a 1077 trunk road accident because of the domino effect. However, it must be said that motorway accidents occur less frequently than trunk road accidents.
I know that my hon. Friend has taken considerable steps to improve the M1, and I fully acknowledge the achievements of recent years. However, I fear that we shall have to run much harder to avoid a serious build-up of future problems. I should like to make some suggestions for future policy. Improvements to adjacent roads and motorways, such as the A1, have been made and I understand that further steps are planned. For example, the extension to the M40 is under consideration, and I urge that that is undertaken at the earliest opportunity. It may siphon off some traffic from the M1, but I doubt whether it will be sufficient. Although the southern sections of the M1 have only recently been extended to three lanes, we should start giving serious consideration now to widening them to four lanes as soon as possible. We should also consider the development of other alternative routes. Considerable progress is also being made in lighting stretches of the M1. However, I urge that a further impetus be given to that programme. My hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) will seek to comment on that point.
Television advertising campaigns can be very effective in reinforcing road safety messages and in influencing driver behaviour. I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to undertake such a campaign relating to the specific dangers that I have outlined. Such campaigns have been successful in the past when mounted by the Department and aimed at motor cyclists and cyclists. The police do a marvellous job on the motorway, but more policemen would be welcome. It is remarkable what a sobering effect of the fact that a police car is parked by the side of the motorway has on us.
In adverse conditions advisory speed limits are often ignored. There is surely a good case for making them mandatory, although for that to be effective, the authorities should not be over-cautious and start the restriction too distant from the point of danger. In order to make that effective, means also need to be found for a quicker feedback of information about changing conditions on the motorway.
I come to a relatively minor point that is nevertheless worthy of consideration. Strictly speaking, it is illegal to use hazard warning lights while the vehicle is moving. Nevertheless it is enormously helpful to slowing traffic in difficult situations if such a warning is given. While the police are unlikely to prosecute if people commit such a technical offence, it seems sensible to remove the illegality and to encourage the practice.
There is also the hoary old chestnut about sections of the motorway being cordoned off when little work is going on. One appreciates that cones may well be living entities in their own right, and that they need fresh air in order to breath and breed, so we need to keep them out in the fresh air for fairly long periods. However, there have been great improvements in the past two or three years in taking them back to the cone house at night, or as frequently as possible. But as recently as last Friday, I found a stretch near the Rothersthorpe service station where the motorway was coned off for more than two miles with no sign 1078 whatever of any activity. If there has been activity earlier in the day, it would seem sensible to remove the cones at peak times, even if they have to be returned later.
There is another area in which we are improving a little. I refer to giving more advance notice at the 800-yard rather than at the 600-yard mark of when lanes are to be taken out of action.
I plead with the Minister not to raise the motorway speed limit for cars. For many vehicles, 80 mph on motorways is the de facto speed limit. With improving vehicle performance, an official 80 mph limit would mean a de facto limit of 90 moh. Indeed, raising the speed limit for lorries has had some adverse effects on road safety, although one apreciates the arguments which led the Department to agree to that increase.
I urge the Minister to give serious consideration to a noticeably deteriorating situation, to the need for a television advertsing campaign and to the need — I appreciate that it must be a long-term task—to extend that motorway to four lanes along its southern section at the earliest opportunity.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean)I understand that the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels) has the agreement of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) and the Minister to intervene.
§ Mr. BruinvelsI am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) for allowing me to take part in this important debate and, as he hinted that I might, to raise the question of lighting up the entire length of the Ml, a motorway that I use every weekend and sometimes more often.
I must at the outset declare an interest in that I am the joint chairman—with the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. Robertson)—of the British parliamentary lighting group. Together, in May 1984 we wrote a book entitled, "Light up the Roads", a copy of which is in the Minister's possession and in which we advocated lighting up all the motorways of Britain.
Since being elected in June 1983, I have sought to make motorways, including the M1, safer. At present, we have 1,100 miles of motorway unlit, and only 68 miles of the M1 are currently lit. On 12 December 1984, the Minister told me in a parliamentary answer in column 526 that it would cost £9 million to light up the M1 and £81 million to light up the rest of the motorway system, with maintenance for the whole system costing £9 million a year.
I highlighted the facts in a letter to The Times on 24 December last, but the problems has not gone away. We have had a rough time with the weather recently, with fog and mist, rain and heavy snow. The Minister said on 21 November 1983 that motorway lighting could be expected to reduce the night time accident rate. That is an important point, bearing in mind that each night time fatality is now costing the nation £205,460.
Lives could, therefore, be saved by bringing light to the motorways. In recent years, an average of 206 people a year have died on the motorways. On the M1 in particular there are regular contraflows and lane closures. It is vital that such areas, and junctions, are properly illuminated. As my hon. Friend said, cones get in the way, and at night they may not be seen clearly.
1079 When the M25 junction is functioning at the M1, lighting will be necessary. The road will be narrow at that point and lights will be required. Lights there and throughout the motorway system are necessary to keep motorists fully aware of all road conditions.
I am pleased to learn, following lobbying, that the M1 is to be lit between Newport Pagnell service station and junction 16. This news was well received in the Daily Telegraph and motoring journals, and the move has been encouraging for those campaigning for more lights on motorways. In a parliamentary answer, my hon. Friend the Minister told me:
I am keeping under review the need to provide additional lighting on the remaining unlit stretches of the M1.—[Official Report 12 December 1984; Vol 69, c. 52.] Not surprisingly, that has given me great hope. It is good news, and I hope that we shall receive some more news—if not tonight, then in the not-too-far-distant future.Lighting can reduce accidents by 60 per cent., as has been proved. As recently as Tuesday this week, a man from Leicester was killed on the M1. So there is still a problem.
The first report of the Transport Select Committee said:
we recommend the gradual installation of overhead lighting on existing motorways.I am especially encouraged to know that the Transport Select Committee is in favour of lighting the motorways. The Committee recommended also that all new motorways should have overhead lights. That is marvellous. We should encourage moves to light the rest of the M1. The Department of Transport made a submission stating:If … there is a serious night accident problem which cannot be solved by other measures then lighting should be considered.The evidence that the accident rate during the hours of darkness is worse than the rate in daylight cannot be disputed. Is not the time right and is it not worth spending the money now to make the M1 a safer place on which to drive?
§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mrs. Lynda Chalker)I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mr. Galley) on securing this debate. I know that the subject is of great importance to him. Many of us travel up and down the M1 and some other motorways with great regularity. This is a useful opportunity for me to hear hon. Members' views on the M1.
The M1 has had to carry much more and much heavier traffic than was expected when work started on it in the early 1950s under my predecessor the former Member for Wallasey, the late Ernest Marples. This has required successive Administrations to monitor the M1's capacity. Work has been necessary to deal with wear and tear. Roads, like houses, need to be maintained, renovated and extended. It is no good thinking that we shall find some wonder product which means that we shall never have to resurface or repair.
Steps have been taken to increase the capacity of the length of the M1 between junctions 5 and 8 in Hertfordshire, which was the first part of the motorway to be opened in 1959. Under a scheme completed in November 1983 — between these two junctions — the motorway was widened to at least three lanes in each direction. Some surplus land enabled us to provide four lanes northbound between the site of the new M1-M25 1080 junctions, now under construction north of M1 junction 6, and junction 7. Some new overbridges were built of sufficient width to accommodate a fourth lane if this became warranted in the future.
We are seeking to deal in the short term with some capacity problems at junctions. At junction 9 in Hertfordshire and junctions 12 and 13 in Bedfordshire northbound traffic has at times queued back on to the motorway in peak hours. A new roundabout junction is now in operation at junction 13 and, to ease traffic flows from the motorway, we shall be installing peak hour traffic signals at junction 12 this year. At junction 9 we are investigating the use of peak hour signals. Hertfordshire county council is also carrying out junction improvements to ease traffic flows from the motorway on to local roads.
My hon. Friend has suggested that the southern end of the M1 should be wider. While I have sympathy with the difficulties he and other hon. Members encounter, I have to say to him that here, as in relation to the rest of our motorway and trunk road system, we must use our limited resources carefully and build to the standard justified by the traffic volumes. I want to make it quite clear that we do not provide a particular standard of motorway or trunk road just because the route has a particular status.
Public funds for that work are not unlimited. It is important that we get the best value for money. If we were to build four-lane carriageways in places where they cannot be justified in terms of the traffic likely to use them other much-needed schemes would be postponed or forgone. As I have said on many occasions, I am not prepared to do that, but I shall do all that is necessary to try to make our roads safer.
Having said that, I am aware that traffic volumes on some of the southern sections of the M1 are beginning to build up, and we are monitoring that matter carefully. This is particularly true between junctions 7, the M10, and junction 10, Luton South. We hope that the M40 will be able to provide some relief.
There are several good reasons for completing the M40. It will bring relief to the M1 and the choice of an alternative route. There will be operational benefits from that choice during periods of maintenance or other disruptions to traffic, and I am sure that many people will seek to use the alternative route on their way to the north-west.
At the M40 public inquiry, my Department predicted that the M40 will, in normal conditions, attract between 13,000 and 16,000 vehicles per day from the M1 from the date of its opening. Even modest estimates suggest that these figures would rise to a range of 16,000 to 20,000 vehicles per day by the M40's design year of 2004.
My right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for the Environment and Transport announced their decision on 14 December last to accept the recommendation of the inspector, who held the public inquiry into the proposals, that the new M40 motorway extension should be built.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax will agree that the relief we are seeking to provide by building the M40 will play a significant part in tackling the problems of congestion on the M1 which he has discussed today. The House should, however, be aware that since my right hon. Friends' decision there has been an application to the High Court seeking to have the made scheme quashed. It remains the Government's underlying policy to complete the M40 motorway.
1081 In the corridor to the east of the M1 , the A1 already provides a high standard dual carriageway alternative. With the completion of the scheme currently in progress at Hatfield in early 1987, the A1 will be of motorway standard all the way from its junction with M25 at South Mimms to the Bedfordshire border, and may offer a more attractive alternative than the A1 does at present for certain journeys. That too should help with the traffic on M1.
I agree with what my hon. Friends have said about driver behaviour. I am worried about the deteriorating standards of motorway driving. Most motorway accidents are caused by a minority of drivers who fail to react sensibly to changing road, traffic and weather conditions. However, we must not lose sight of the fact that, in terms of accidents, motorway travel is much safer than travel on other main roads. The accident rate for the M1 is not out of line with the average rate for motorways nationally, but I understand the anxiety about accidents in Northamptonshire and Bedfordshire which my hon. Friend mentioned.
Although the overall performance on motorways is the best of any roads, I accept that any accident is one too many. Offering advice and guidance is straightforward, but it is less easy to persuade road users to act on it responsibly. Our existing media coverage by press, radio and TV fillers is designed to do just that. We are currently running a campaign on motorway lane discipline and 23 million leaflets are being sent out by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre at Swansea with vehicle tax renewal reminders over the 12-month period from May 1984 to April 1985.
My hon. Friend mentioned that he felt that we should have a full scale national publicity campaign on motorway driving. It would be very expensive and not necessarily cost effective. It is vital that we continue to direct our efforts towards road user groups known to be most vulnerable to traffic accidents. Our current campaigns on child pedestrian safety, cyclist safety and against driving after drinking are most important. I am afraid that generalised messages such as "Drive carefully" regrettably tend to be less effective. I assure the House that the Department will continue to co-operate with local initiatives to encourage safe driving. Much good work has been done in that respect, and it continues to be done, mainly by the police. I am sure that my hon. Friend will be glad to know that the police are considering a nationwide motorway safety campaign this year. One of the main points that we keep on trying to press home is that it is only by keeping an adequate distance behind the vehicle in front, sufficient to stop under all weather conditions, that one can be sure of not going into the back of another vehicle when an unexpected hazard arises.
Motorists who are concerned to remain safe on our roads would be well advised to take an advanced driving course and the Institute of Advanced Motorists or ROSPA advanced test, and to keep those qualifications up to date.
My hon. Friend spoke about the motorway speed limit. The raising of the 70 mph limit to 80 mph on motorways was rejected last year because of the likelihood of increased casualties. However, the possibility has been raised again by the Select Committee's report, which we are considering, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport will look carefully at what it says.
1082 My hon. Friend the Member for Halifax also said that he hoped we would consider making mandatory the temporary speed limit signs on motorways, which are currently advisory. I have already said in answer to questions in the House that we are considering that matter at present.
I should like to refer to lighting the M1, which is of such concern to both my hon. Friends, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Bruinvels), who has been unrelenting in his pressure on behalf of safety through lighting on motorways. I think that he knows that we already constantly monitor accident rates on our motorways, and if a serious night-time problem develops on a particular length of road, lighting is automatically considered. A study is made, taking account of the possible accident savings, and capital running costs. I should remind my hon. Friend that I am reviewing road lighting policy following the serious multiple accident on the M25 in December, and in view of the recommendations of the House of Commons Committee on Road Safety in its recent report.
As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax in answer to his question on 14 December, 68 miles of the M1 is lit out of a total length up to junction 43 of 194 miles. A further 16 miles of lighting is to be installed between the Newport Pagnell service area and junction 16, and we hope to complete that work by the end of 1986. The decision to light that stretch was taken in view of the night accident problem. It will fill a gap between stretches already lit and mean that the motorway will be lit from its start to junction 17, which is the junction with the M45, at junctions 19 and 21, and from junctions 24 to 26. The possibility of further lighting will be studied, but we can do the lighting only bit by bit because of the maintenance and cone problem to which my hon. Friend referred.
I have given the go-ahead recently for the installation of closer-spaced matrix signalling at 1 km intervals on 50 miles of the M1 in Bedfordshire and Northamptonshire. We are getting on with that, and I hope that a start can be made on installation early next year. We shall monitor what happens. We hope that that will help to reduce the number of accidents, and we shall be able to evaluate the techniques that we are using for potential future use on other inter-urban motorways.
I should like to refer to reconstruction and maintenance. I was grateful for what my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax said about the improvements. Because of changing the crossovers and various other technical matters where we have to have contraflow systems, travelling has improved. But drivers still drive far too close together, and still ignore the speed advice signs.
I know how annoying it can be sometimes when, having been held up, one sees a length of cones, and apparently no work going on inside the cones. We do not leave cones out to get the sunshine or the moonlight. They are there only when necessary — sometimes for the drying out of the road surface, which, according to the time of year, can take varying times. That is sometimes annoying to the travelling motorist who has been delayed.
This has been a useful and helpful debate. I have taken careful note of what has been said. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friends—at least partially—and the House that the Government hae an active concern for the needs of travellers on the M1 , and will take their needs fully into account when developing the future strategy for the motorways and, indeed, for greater safety upon them.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at Two o'clock.