HL Deb 19 December 1934 vol 95 cc579-90

THE EARL OF KINNOULL rose to draw the attention of His Majesty's Government to the present anomalous position of pedestrian crossings, and to ask what regulations, if any, are to be introduced with regard to pedestrians; and to move for Papers. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in view of the fact that there was considerable discussion last night in another place in regard to the matter of pedestrian crossings, I do not intend to take up more than a few moments of your Lordships' time. Unfortunately the OFFICIAL REPORT this morning did not give the speech of the Minister of Transport, and therefore, except from what I have been able to gather from Press reports, I have not been able to read that speech or to know exactly what the Minister said. I must, therefore, ask your Lordships' pardon if in my remarks I cover any ground that the Minister has already been over.

I think an anomalous position has arisen with regard to these crossings. As I understand it—I may be wrong—if a pedestrian is crossing between the studs and he unnecessarily loiters, he can be what is commonly called "pinched"and fined 40s. by a magistrate. On the other hand, if he should be a few yards outside the crossing then, I understand—again, I may be wrong—that he is liable to no fine. That seems to me rather an anomalous position. I should have thought it would have been far better to fine people who do not use the crossings than to fine those who do use them. The next point I want to mention is that the average pedestrian takes very little notice of these crossings. People crossing the road wander about at all sorts of angles. I am not saying that that is very reprehensible when there is little traffic, but in a busy street it is very annoying. While I drive a car myself, I am also a pedestrian and have to cross the road like anyone else; but when one is driving it is annoying to have pedestrians running across the road at all angles when, within a few yards, there is a crossing of which as a motorist I take some notice.

You may also have another very irritating experience when you are driving along a thoroughfare like Oxford Street. If at one of the side roads the light is green you naturally accelerate in order to get over the crossing without delaying other people and also because you are probably in a hurry yourself. Pedestrians, however, take no notice of the lights at all. Exactly the same thing happens when you are held up by a policeman. At the last moment, just as the policeman waves you on, a pedestrian makes a dart for it and you have to stamp on your foot brake in order not to knock him down. Things like these cause very bad feeling between motorists and pedestrians. The motorist gets annoyed and thinks that the pedestrian can jolly well get out of the way of the car and, if not, it serves him right for being knocked down, while the pedestrian has the feeling that the motorist ought to stop for him. I think the Government ought to make quite clear what the regulations really mean.

There may have been cases of pedestrians being fined for loitering on a crossing, but I have not seen any case reported. There is this further point that where, for instance, there are subterranean crossings or perfectly good "Belisha crossings" pedestrians take no notice of them at all. I have many times seen pedestrians cross the road within three or four yards of a crossing. Motorists are equally to blame because often they take no notice of the crossings. The other day I was passing the entrance to this House on my way to Transport House when a couple of people, who, no doubt, had been looking over the Houses of Parliament, started across the "Belisha crossing." I pulled up and waited for them to cross, but to my intense astonishment a motor van came up on my near side and these people had to jump very hurriedly back to the pavement in order to avoid being knocked down. That is the sort of thing that is going on. Most motorists will not pull up, and pedestrians are equally to blame because they take no notice of the crossings.

Another point I want to make is that these crossings are frequently placed in awkward positions. Very often the crossing is placed just in front of an omnibus stop. If a pedestrian wishes to cross when an omnibus is stationary there he has to walk in front of the bonnet of the omnibus. The pedestrian cannot see what traffic there is behind the omnibus and drivers coming up behind the omnibus cannot see if a pedestrian is crossing in front. I noticed an instance of that this morning. A man twice began to cross and twice had to jump back to avoid being knocked down. I think the Ministry of Transport in fixing the position of these crossings should have more regard to that point.

There are also other cases of crossings being badly placed. Practically outside where I live at Regent's Park, you have an island refuge in the middle of the road. It is not exactly outside the main entrance to the Underground Station but it is within five or six yards of the entrance. The "Belisha crossing" has been placed no further away from the refuge than the steps of the Throne are from where I am standing now. Would it not have been very much better to have put the crossing where there is this refuge in the roadway? The average pedestrian would far rather cross the road where there is a refuge on which he can stand for a moment, if necessary, than cross at a point five or ten yards away where there is no refuge. Naturally a pedestrian standing in the middle of the road is more nervous of being knocked down than if he is standing on a refuge which no vehicle is likely to run into. I would like to ask the noble Earl who will reply whether the Ministry can consider these two points.

Another example which I might give of a badly placed crossing is to be found at the top of Great Portland Street where the road divides. The crossing has been placed at a point where pedestrians cannot see traffic coming round the corner and motorists cannot see pedestrians. If the "Belisha crossing" were put a few yards down the road both would be able to see each other. Another matter with which I want to deal is the question of the way in which the crossings are marked. I have always thought that the painted lines which were used at first were much better than the steel studs that are now being put down. You could see the painted lines whereas the studs, especially on a wet day, are very difficult to see. They are set at a considerable distance apart and if you cannot see the "Belisha beacon," which is sometimes hidden by an omnibus, it is very difficult to note that there is a crossing. In some places the white line which used to be put down in the middle of the road has been replaced by a strip of metal. You can see that and it also has the advantage of being more flush with the road surface than the stud. I can understand there is difficulty in renewing the painted lines, but I think something ought to be done in the matter because motorists cannot see the studs on a wet day or at night.

There have been complaints also—I noticed an article in a local newspaper published in Bromley—that because the studs are above the level of the road they have caused motor cars to skid. I cannot say that I have suffered in that way—my own car, fortunately, does not skid much—but people have complained of that and I would respectfully draw the attention of the noble Earl to that point. But to my mind the question comes down to night driving, because in the day-time people know more or less where these crossings are, but at night it is difficult to see them. On wet nights, when you can see only a very short distance by the aid of the windscreen wiper for the driver, I am quite certain that it is very easy to run over a pedestrian simply because you do not see him at all and you do not know where the crossing is. I understand from the Press to-day that the Minister is considering lighting these beacons. I think that would be a very excellent thing; or if he does not light them could he at any rate see that at these crossings there is sufficient light to enable people to see? I know myself what the difficulty of the motorist is. It is all right in Piccadilly or in Regent Street or at any place where you can see well, but if you get into some of these dark side roads, or roads next to parks—for instance, next to Battersea Park, where there are a lot of "Belisha beacons"—you really cannot see a thing if it is dark.

The street lighting is very bad there. If you switch on your headlights you are very apt to get a driver coming towards you switching his on also, in which case neither of you can see anything at all. If you keep them off you cannot see any pedestrian who is dressed in dark clothes unless he is immediately in front of you. I would suggest lighting the beacons, but really more important still is good lighting at the crossing places. I would also suggest that it is easier for the motorist to see when the light is in the centre of the road, as it is in many places, because with a light on the left-hand side, if it is a wet night and you have only one windscreen wiper, you have the dazzle of the drops on your wind- screen to obstruct your view and it is really very difficult to see at all. I hope that the Minister may consider some suggestion which would deal with that matter.

I have nothing further to say except that I hope that the reply which we shall hear from the noble Earl will rather clarify these regulations and tell us what is the actual position of a pedestrian—whether he should wait for the policeman's hand or the traffic lights and let traffic go through, or what is the real position—because I think that no motorists and very few pedestrians to whom I have talked really understand what they should do. Each bows to the other if they are polite, and each crosses in front of the other if they are not polite. I think it would be of benefit to the public generally, to know exactly what the Minister does mean by his regulations. I beg to move.

THE PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH)

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the fairness with which he has dealt with this matter. I think everybody is now agreed that pedestrian crossings of some kind are necessary. Parliament confirmed it in the Road Traffic Act of this year; and as I see it, the only issue which now remains is in regard to the construction of these crossings. Upon this particular point experiments are being made by those who are dealing with this matter, and clearly it is only experience that can show us in time what type of crossing is the best suited for the particular purpose which is in view. The acid test in the last resort must clearly be as to whether these crossings will have the effect of lessening the number of accidents upon the roads It is of course much too early to attempt to draw any kind of conclusion from the experiments which have up to now been made, but I have some figures here which I think may be of interest to your Lordships, and which, even if, as I say, one is not justified in drawing any conclusions from them, are at any rate encouraging.

During the quarter ended September 30, 1933, an average of 4.1 persons were killed every day in the Metropolitan Police District. In the corresponding quarter of this year the number was reduced to 3.7, but the point of particular interest is that out of the reduction of 43 persons, 42 were pedestrians. In the case of injuries, though the daily average has gone up in the September quarter of this year as compared with the September quarter of last year, the number of pedestrians injured has been actually reduced by 584. I think those are interesting figures, though, as I say, it would be extremely rash to attempt to draw any conclusions from them.

Shortly the case for the yellow beacon can be put in this way. The most careful examinations, tests and investigations have been carried out recently with regard to these crossings, and those who have been conducting the examinations have definitely, and I think everybody will agree rightly, come to the conclusion that the studs which are now being used by themselves under certain conditions are not sufficiently visible, and indeed are very often not visible at all until the vehicle in question is very close upon them. It was therefore clear that something further was necessary in order to draw the attention of motorists to these crossings. The only satisfactory way of marking these crossings, having regard to the limitations of cost, was found to be the placing of these beacons at the various crossing places. It is absolutely necessary for the crossing to be indicated both to motorist and to pedestrian, and no other form of carriageway marking overcomes the difficulties of visibility so well. A good deal of attention has been drawn to these beacons and people have attempted to pour ridicule on them, but I would like to remind the House that these beacons are not entirely new. They have been used in connection with various signs in the Metropolitan area for some considerable time past. I think it was as long ago as 1926 that they were used to mark alternative routes running parallel to Oxford Street, and they have also been used in connection with the indications of one-way streets.

But I do not wish to pursue that matter for the moment, and I should like now if I may to refer to the various points which the noble Earl raised. The first point to which he referred was the anomaly, as he put it, of people being liable to fines for loitering between crossings, whereas they are not liable to fines if they loiter on the carriageway outside these crossings. I really do not think that there is anything very anomalous in this if you examine the actual position which obtains. The regulations say that: No foot passenger shall remain upon any crossing longer than is necessary for the purpose of passing from one side of the road to the other with reasonable dispatch. Drivers of vehicles approaching a crossing are required to proceed at such a speed as to be able, if necessary, to stop before reaching the crossing unless they can see that there is no foot passenger on the crossing. Drivers are also required to allow free and uninterrupted passage to any foot passenger who is on a crossing at any point where traffic is not for the time being controlled by a police officer or by light signal, and to give precedence to pedestrians on the crossing.

In view of the great responsibility and onus which is placed upon the drivers of motor vehicles, it would be possible for a pedestrian to hold up the traffic unnecessarily by loitering on a crossing where there is no control, unless it were made an offence for him to do so. As a matter of fact I believe that in certain parts of the Metropolis it was found that children, discovering the power they wielded so far as these crossings were concerned, proceeded to walk on to them and remain there dancing a jig and holding up the traffic. I understand that they could be dealt with by being charged with obstruction, but this is perhaps a rather unwieldy way of dealing with the situation, and it was thought, therefore, that regulations of this kind would be more appropriate. The pedestrians outside these crossings are not given any special protection by regulation. It is perfectly true that the Minister has power, which was given to him under the Road Traffic Act of this year, to make regulations governing the actions of pedestrians in the vicinity of crossings, and it may eventually be found necessary for him to make use of this power and to pass regulations, but the Minister does feel that this should be avoided unless experience definitely shows that it is necessary.

Then the noble Earl referred to the fact that pedestrians take little notice, if any, of the lights and policeman's signals in crowded crossings, such as an Oxford Street crossing. I do not know whether that is true or not. My experience, on the other hand, tells me that on the whole they do pay as much attention as they can to the traffic signals and to the police constables who are controlling various crossings, but there undoubtedly is a difficulty in regard to a number of crossings, which, if your Lordships will allow me, I will try very shortly to explain. There are certain crossings controlled by traffic lights where there is what is known as an "all red" period, and in that case the pedestrian is able to make use of these crossings with 100 per cent. security. I mean it stops the traffic completely, and he has a considerable time in which he can cross the road. There are other crossings where, owing to traffic reasons, this is not possible, and it is necessary, that is to say for traffic reasons, to allow vehicles to filter through, and in that particular case the position of the pedestrian is undoubtedly a very difficult one. Quite frankly, we have not been able to find the correct solution of this difficulty up to now, but the matter is being very closely examined and it is hoped that in a comparatively short time we shall be able to find some kind of method by which it will be possible to give more assistance to the pedestrians, and a better lead to pedestrians, than it is possible to do at present, as to when they should cross the road at these particular points.

I pass to another matter. There are the dual points that the noble Earl made—namely, the refusal of motorists to slow up where there are crossings used by pedestrians, and the refusal of pedestrians, on the other hand, to use these crossings and other means that are given to them, such as subways, to get to the other side of the road. This question really is almost entirely a matter of education, and it is bound to take some time until all motorists will conform properly to the regulations as they are laid down. I think, on the whole, both motorists and pedestrians have taken very well to the new regulations, but without a doubt there are a limited number of motorists who do not conform to regulations in the right spirit, and still a certain number of pedestrians who make reckless use of the roads. As I think was stated recently in another place, more active measures are to be taken by way of prosecution to secure a compliance with these regulations. So far as pedestrians are concerned, once again that is really a matter of education. I think in time pedestrians will find that they are quite definitely safer upon the crossings than they are upon the rest of the carriageway, and will no doubt use these crossings to an increasing extent. In that connection I may quote these figures. Out of 35 people killed last week in the Metropolitan District 20 were pedestrians, and not a single one of these was killed at a pedestrian crossing. Therefore it is perfectly clear that these crossings do afford security to the pedestrians, and as that truth is realised by the pedestrians so will they use these crossings to an increasing extent.

The noble Earl made some complaint of the positions in which these crossings had been placed, and, I am quite prepared to admit, probably not without some justification. It must be realised, however, that it has been an enormous undertaking to put down these crossings in a comparatively short space of time, and in spite of the enormous amount of care and attention given to individual problems, I do not think it is a matter of surprise that there should be one or two cases where the ideal position has not been found. The consideration of omnibus stops, which the noble Earl particularly mentioned, in relation to pedestrian crossings, is being actively pursued, but some time must elapse before final adjustments can be made, and I want to assure the House that the Minister is always very ready to investigate any representation that may be made to him that a particular crossing place is badly sited, or that any omnibus stop in its vicinity needs alteration.

Then the noble Earl referred to the question of the steel studs, and intimated that he thought it possible that the old white-line crossing might be more suitable than the steel-stud crossing. I am afraid that on this point I disagree with him. Not only is there the question of cost to be taken into account—and in this connection I would like to inform your Lordships that in busy streets it would cost something between £30 and £40 a year to keep these painted line crossings in such a condition as to be of any effect or value, whereas you can institute one of these steel-stud crossings, together with the beacon, for something under £10, and that, of course, is permanent—but, apart from that, I think it is generally accepted now that these painted crossings really are liable to disappear altogether in wet weather, and so long as the weather remains wet it is practically impossible to repaint them. We have been in very close contact with Paris on this particular question of studs. Those who have studied this question have expressed certain doubts as to whether we have discovered the best type of stud, and as to whether we have made use of it in the proper way, but as the result of these representations a consignment of studs has been ordered direct from Paris. They are now on their way, and although they are very little different from the studs we use here, it is intended to experiment with them and see whether any better method can be found.

The noble Earl also dealt with the question of lighting the beacons. This is a question which concerns the general lighting of the highways and a good many of our London streets are not at present adequately lighted. But the beacons are designed primarily to attract the notice of drivers, and they should do, I think, without any doubt where the street lighting is adequate. Where it is not adequate, and where the local authority is unable to improve it, the Minister again has indicated his willingness to approve of illuminated beacons which are situated in places where there is not sufficient light to make them reasonably visible at night. It might interest your Lordships to know that up till now no local authority has made an application for this purpose. I think I have dealt with the main points which the noble Earl raised. I would like, in conclusion, to refer to his complaint that the regulations were not clear in the minds of the public. There has been a great deal of publicity, through the Press and by broadcast addresses, to bring home to all classes of road users as simply as possible the effect of the regulations with regard to these pedestrian crossings. Further reiteration will, no doubt, be necessary, and the revised edition of the Highway Code for which, as your Lordships know, we secure a very large circulation indeed, will contain clear instructions on the subject. We hope and believe that, as a result of experience, we shall in due course find the best method of dealing with this difficult problem.

THE EARL OF KINNOULL

My Lords, I must thank the noble Earl for his very full reply. I was pleased to hear some of the things he said. It is perfectly true that the education of both motorist and pedestrian is the only real solution of this question. The studs at present are not very visible, as the noble Earl agrees, and the object of the beacons was to ensure that people should know where these crossings are. But the main trouble to-day is that, in the case of a road where there is a lot of traffic, you cannot see the beacon. If they were placed in the middle of the road, say at the corners of a refuge, that, I think, would be better. I should like the noble Earl, when he confers with the honourable gentleman the Minister of Transport, to bear that in mind. His figures are exceedingly interesting and definitely show that these crossings are doing something to bring down the terrible death rate on the road. I was also particularly pleased to hear that in places where the lighting is not very good the Minister is considering the illumination of the beacons. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.