HL Deb 17 March 1949 vol 161 cc494-506

4.31 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR rose to call attention to the increasing number of lengths of road rural areas which are being subjected to the 30 miles per hour speed limit; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in 1934 your Lordships passed the Road Traffic Act which imposed a speed limit of 30 miles per hour in built-up areas. That Act states in Section 1:

"For the purposes of this Act a length of road shall be deemed to be a road in a built up area— (a) if a system of street lighting furnished by means of lamps placed not more than two hundred yards apart is provided thereon. I would ask your Lordships to note the words "street lighting," because the point I wish to make this afternoon is that these lights are now being placed, not in what one can call streets but, in many cases, in lengths of rural roads. I have no quarrel with the 1934 Act, or with the definition of what is deemed to be a built-up area, but a lot has happened since 1934. What has been happening since then, and to an ever-increasing extent since the war, is that many lengths of road, in areas which could not conceivably be described as built-up, are being restricted to a limit of 30 miles per hour simply by the operation of a completely automatic procedure under which, directly street lamps are erected on the road at the proper intervals, a speed limit is thereby imposed. Without any authority being consulted, the signs are erected. So long as they are erected in streets or in built-up or urban areas, I have no complaint. But it is increasingly noticeable that these lights, and consequently these speed limit signs, are being erected in what can be described only as open country, where there may be a few houses here and there.

I am sure all your Lordships will be able to call to mind lengths of road such as those to which I refer. I have with me a list of some of the roads which have been restricted during the last three years. It is not a complete list—it is taken, I am informed, more or less at random—but it includes over fifty lengths of road, totalling a considerable mileage, which have been restricted to a speed limit during those three years. I have in mind particularly one of the roads on this list. It has a length of over 2,000 yards and, from my knowledge of it, may be described as open country, with only a house here and there. I think—though I am not certain—that it is in the district of a rural district council. I have in mind other lengths of road, as I know we all have, where restrictions are imposed which obviously should not be imposed under the spirit of the 1934 Act, even if they are there under the letter of that Act.

To me there seems to be no logic or reason for this position; but I suppose I shall be told that the fact that there is no logic in it is an asset, rather than a liability! It is this automatic procedure of which I wish to complain this afternoon. I would like to mention another road, by way of example. On the road to Brighton (A.23) there is a place called Sayers Common. In 1947 the lighting authority—which is the parish council in this case—decided to put up lights on this road, and they did so. The road authority—that is, the Minister—did not want the road to be restricted, and the county council did not want the road to be restricted. Nevertheless, the road was automatically restricted as soon as the lights were put up, and it remained restricted for over eight months. The restrictions were then removed, and it has not been restricted since. The point is that for eight months a restriction was imposed which nobody except the parish council wanted—and that on a trunk road. The fact that the restriction was eventually removed, surely, shows that it was wrong in the first place; but it was allowed to slow down the traffic on a very important road for over eight months. That is an example of what is going on, and no doubt many similar cases could be quoted.

I do not believe that when Parliament passed the 1934 Act it was ever intended that the speed limit should apply to such roads as these. I should make it clear, perhaps, that I am not quarrelling for this purpose with the principle that roads in built-up areas should be subject to a speed limit—although there is a case against any speed limit. The case against any speed limit rests, I think, mostly upon the fact that it is extremely difficult to enforce. Having in mind only these rural roads, I suggest to your Lordships that it is a bad thing, and contrary to public policy, that these rural roads should be restricted, if for no other reason than that it is difficult, if not impossible, to enforce these speed limits.

I suggest with confidence that any law which cannot be enforced ought not to be on the Statute Book. It is a bad thing for the country that we should have laws which are not enforced, particularly where they create a criminal offence. It is a notorious fact to-day, I think, that this particular law is not being properly enforced. If that be so, it is most unwise to create additional areas in which, equally, it will not be enforced. It is merely setting a temptation to motorists to break the law. In my respectful opinion, that is always wrong. I feel that this is an unhealthy tendency.

I do not want to detain the House by quoting many more exam pies. It is a short point, but one which I feel is of importance and substance. What I have in mind is to try to obtain from His Majesty's Government some indication of future policy with regard to these lengths of road. The little evil to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention is increasing daily. Each time one goes out in the country in a car one never knows where one is going to see a new speed limit sign. They suddenly appear. It may be that roads will be further restricted to an increasing extent. I have no objection whatever to the lighting of rural roads. If it makes any difference to the safety of the roads, makes them safer rather than less safe; and I certainly do not want to say a word against the lighting of these roads. If it be the wish of the local authority that they should be illuminated, let it be so; but I do protest against the automatic restriction which the lighting of the road implies. I would like the noble Lord who is to reply to give me an indication of the Government's policy; to say just when this procedure is to be ended and how it is to be done, and to give some assurance to motorists that some steps will be taken. I beg to move for Papers.

4.41 p.m.

EARL HOWE

My Lords, I am very glad that the noble Lord has put down this Motion, and I wish to support it. I would draw your Lordships' attention to Paragraph 22 of the recommendations of the Alness Committee, who I think are by far the most able Committee who have ever inquired into road accidents and road questions generally in this country. Paragraph 22 says. The Committee consider that, although the speed limit should in many cases be retained, restricted areas should be reduced in number or extent. It is not possible adequately to enforce the speed limit on the roads and streets which are at present restricted and which in cumulo amount to nearly a third of the total mileage in Great Britain. The degree of danger caused by speed varies with the driver and the car. The man who is driving dangerously at 30 m.p.h. in heavy traffic is a greater menace to other road users than the man who is driving well on a clear road at a greater speed. … In some parts of industrial England to-day motorists travel over long stretches of road, all of which are restricted The driver is, as a result, inclined to become sleepy and less alert, and he is apt to watch his speedometer rather than the road. Unnecessary restricted areas therefore become a sense of irritation and danger. Moreover, the driver is given a false impression, viz.: that he has always the right to travel at 30 m.p.h. The point is that if you want a law observed, it should meet with more or less general consent. I am able to state this afternoon that the motoring organisations as a whole support the principle of the 30 miles per hour speed limit where it is really necessary, but they do plead—as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, has pleaded so eloquently this afternoon—that the 30 miles per hour speed limit should not be imposed in areas where it is clearly unnecessary.

I will give the House only two instances of the type of road I mean. Those of your Lordships who play golf may know Mitcham Golf Course. The road from Mitcham to Croydon goes across Mitcham Common, with the golf course on one side and open common on the other. There is absolutely nothing, except one cross road in the middle of the Common, and the view of that is not obstructed in any way; one can see whether there is a car coming on the main road or on the subsidiary road. A stretch of about two miles of that road is a restricted road, and that is exactly where the police go out in their police cars to catch the driver who is momentarily exceeding the speed limit. Noble Lords say, "Hear, hear," but would it not be much more sensible—

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: We are all with you.

EARL HOWE

Would it not be more reasonable to de-restrict that road, and to drop more heavily upon the driver who exceeds the limit in a part of the country or town whether the limit is really required? I will give another instance for the benefit of Scottish members. Noble Lords from Scotland will know the road from Edinburgh to Queensferry. That road, as far as Cramond Bridge, is a restricted road and is about 40 ft. or 50 ft. wide. It is true that on one side there is a row of houses—a very had case of ribbon development—but on the other side there is a wall and it is quite impossible for people to dart across the road. Again, that is a road upon which a driver would not expect a speed limit. If he happens to be momentarily distracted as he passes the sign, there is nothing at all in the character of the road to let him know that he is in a restricted area. That is where the police are extraordinarily active in that part of the world. I believe there is one member of your Lordships' House—it is not I—whom the police have tried hard to catch on that stretch of road. Whether they have been successful or not I do not know, but the whole thing is really rather absurd.

Could this question be examined—perhaps it is already being examined—with the idea of de-restricting a road where the need for the speed limit is not obvious, and where it can be done without causing conditions of danger? None of us wants to increase danger on the road—not a single member of your Lordships' House would support that—but in order to make the speed limit more effective and to ensure that it is observed where it ought to be, we do ask that it shall be taken off the roads where it is nothing but a nuisance and provocation to people. I therefore beg to support the noble Lord's Motion.

4.47 p.m.

LORD LLEWELLIN

My Lords, I do not want to detain the House for long, but if my recollection serves me aright—and I was in another place at the time of the passing of the Act to which we are referring—the fact that a road had lights upon it was only a general guide as to whether that road had the 30 miles per hour restriction placed upon it. It was within the power of the Ministry of Transport, upon application from a local authority, either to restrict a piece of road which had not these lights on it, or to de-restrict a piece of road which had lights on it. This question of lights was merely a rough guide which, of course, in 90 per cent. of the cases, was a very proper guide as to what should be a restricted area. We are now dealing with the 10 per cent. of roads where there are lights, where there are no houses or danger spots and where, in consequence, the road should not be restricted. It is probably well known to more members of your Lordships' House than to my noble friend who has just sat down, that the police find it easier to get some return for their labours if they confine their activities to one of those stretches of roads which ought not to be restricted at all, and upon which the motorist who does not watch for his lamp post quite so carefully as he should is liable to exceed the speed limit.

What I would suggest to the noble Lord who is to reply is that, with this kind of road, the imposition of a speed limit might be reviewed. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, raised the question of the Brighton road going over a common. What I presume happened there was that eight months elapsed between the time that representations were made by the local council, who did not want the road restricted, and the time that the Ministry of Transport agreed that it should not be a restricted road. I would suggest that that kind of procedure can well be hastened. Where it is known that lights are to be put up on a completely open piece of road, the action of the local authorities should be started before the lights are actually placed in position. Then from the word "Go" a road which nobody wants as a restricted road would not have a restriction put on it, which has only to be taken off when eventually the application has "gone through the mill," from the local authority to the Government Department and back again. It seems in this particular case to have taken that rather long period of eight months. Cannot this procedure be hastened? Cannot the Minister look into some of these things, and in particular into the case where a piece of road is restricted which ought not to be restricted? If that were done, the motorist could keep the law—which is what we all want—and the police could divert their activities to these parts of the road which ought to have a 30 miles per hour limit.

4.50 p.m.

LORD MORRISON

My Lords, it is somewhat unfortunate that, in a House which contains a good many noble Lords with expert knowledge of motoring, this debate should have to be very brief, and to a certain extent superficial, because a number of members of the House desire to get on to another subject. I should like to say at the outset, particularly with regard to the statement of the noble Lord, Lord Llewellin, that I will see the views expressed are brought to the notice of the Government Department concerned. Furthermore, I would suggest that any noble Lord who may have further glaring examples which ought to be looked into, and who cares to do so, should send details direct to me. I will certainly see that they are examined.

EARL HOWE

May I ask whether, if the motor organisations send the noble Lord examples of the sort of stretches of road which are in question, he will ask the Minister of Transport to review the whole question?

LORD MORRISON

Yes, certainly. As a matter of fact, some motoring organisations—I do not know whether they include the one in which the noble Earl., Lord Howe, is interested—are particularly vigilant in these matters, and frequently bring to the Minister's notice roads which are restricted as a result of lighting and which, in their opinion, ought to be de-restricted. Only recently, they have submitted a list of thirty such lengths of road to the Minister, and this list is receiving his attention. The noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, said it would be wrong for us to pass laws which cannot be enforced, and I fully agree with that, as we all do. Unfortunately, this law was passed in 1934, and that is going rather a long way back. The difficulty in 1934, as some of us remember, was that the definition of what was a built-up area for the purposes of the Act, was a very difficult one to make. It was exhaustively examined, on a non-Party basis. It became clear that it would be an impracticable task to examine every road in the country, and that some general criterion would have to be adopted with a provision for exceptions in individual cases.

The roads and areas which could be regarded as built-up have, as a rule, street lighting, and it was accordingly decided that all roads having a proper system of street lighting should prima facie be regarded as a built-up area and subject to the speed limit. That was the criterion which was embodied in Section 1 of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which imposes a thirty miles per hour speed limit on roads in a built-up area which, for this purpose, are defined as "roads furnished with a system of street lighting by means of lamps placed not more than 200 yards apart." In order to meet cases where the road, although lit, was not in a built-up area, and other cases, where although in a built-up area the road was not lit, the Act provided for the making of orders which deem a road to be in a built-up area (and therefore subject to the 30 mile per hour speed limit) although not lit; or, conversely deem a road provided with street lighting not to be a built-up area (and therefore to free it from the speed limit).

Except in the case of trunk roads, and roads within the London Traffic Area (where orders are made by the Minister), such orders are made by the appropriate local authority, subject to the Minister's consent. The Minister also has power to de-restrict any lighted road, subject to a local inquiry if necessary, if the local authority refuse to do so. This criterion of street lighting has, on the whole, worked well and has achieved the objects for which it was devised. Before deciding upon it, Parliament examined the numerous alternatives, and experience has not disclosed anything better. Whatever criterion is adopted, there are bound to be some borderline eases upon which opinions will differ, and if any noble Lord here has anything better as a criterion to suggest, I have no doubt the Government will be prepared to consider it. The criterion has the advantages that it is simple, and readily understood; the lamp posts provide a useful and universally recognised indication of the speed limit; it is administratively impossible to impose a speed limit by the method of examining each road individually; and the powers to deem a road with street lighting not to be in a built-up area are adequate to cover cases where street lighting would impose an unnecessary speed limit.

It is true also that street lighting is often provided on roads in rural areas, where building is scattered and sparse, and it is in this type of case that differences in view most often arise. It is also true that in rural areas the lighting authority is often a parish council, who do not always have regard to the needs of traffic when a speed limit is imposed by the street lighting they have provided; and accordingly they do not always press the appropriate local authority to make an order de-restricting such roads when the speed limit is not required. Since the war, however, there have been stringent restrictions on the provision of new street lighting, and, as a rule, if it is at all substantial, it cannot be carried out without a licence from the Minister. The Minister does not issue such licence unless the lighting is necessary for traffic safety or for police purposes. This means that most new street lighting has been put up in genuinely built-up areas, where a speed limit is justified. The Minister's divisional road engineers are careful to see that trunk roads are not unnecessarily restricted by the erection of street lighting.

In general, local authorities have co-operated well in the de-restriction of lighted roads where a speed limit is not justified. During the past ten months about thirty orders have been made de-restricting roads with street lighting, and altogether there are more than 1,000 miles of lighted roads that have had the speed limit removed from them by order. The machinery for seeing that the speed limit is rightly applied for its purpose is therefore active. There are bound to be cases, however, where there is a genuine difference of view between local authorities and those who wish to see the roads as free as possible. In disputed cases the Minister has to hold the balance as fairly as he can.

In order to secure as much uniformity as possible in the practice of local authorities, the Minister has under consideration, with the assistance of the Road Safety Committee, the question whether it would be helpful to give them further guidance for coming to a decision in doubtful cases. Some months ago, the Minister asked the Road Safety Committee to consider the general policy in relation to speed limits, in order to see what advice can usefully be given to local authorities. They submitted a report which has been referred back to them for further consideration on certain points. I am not able to say how far the Minister will be able to go in giving advice. I give that information merely to show that this matter is receiving the active attention of the Minister.

Before I go on, I want to say that one should try to look at all sides of the question. John Stuart Mill once said that the man who knows only one side of a question does not even know that. It must be borne in mind that while the population continues to grow, and the Government are pursuing a vigorous housing programme, the number of built-up areas must inevitably increase; and this will result automatically in an appreciable increase in the number of roads subject to the speed limit. The Minister is under constant pressure from local authorities and local residents—this was the point I wanted to make; it is not a political point—to agree to new speed limits on roads in or near housing estates and, moreover, proposals for de-restricting even the more important traffic routes, such as trunk roads, are often opposed by petitions from local residents affected by them. We may think that they are wrong in doing that, but we all know that it happens.

While figures for new roads made subject to a speed limit during the past year are not yet available, during the year ended March 31, 1948, the total length of roads in all areas subject to the speed limit rose by 1,483 miles. It is unlikely that the increase in the mileage of roads so restricted during the past year is very different from the increase during the year ended March 31, 1948. Moreover, most restricted roads are minor roads in towns and cities, and other built-up areas which are not important for through traffic, and where, beyond question, a speed limit is necessary in the interests of safety. Only 1,367 miles of trunk road, out of a total of 8,189 miles, are subject to a speed limit. This represents just under 17 per cent. of the total mileage of trunk roads.

I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, that the Minister recognises that the application of the speed limit under the 1934 Road Traffic Act needs special attention in rural areas, because in the face of local opinion, which is usually against the removal of a speed limit, local authorities are sometimes reluctant to de-restrict roads which ought not to have a speed limit. There is no such difficulty, however, in respect of unlighted roads which are subjected to a speed limit by order. Such orders are, if the roads are trunk roads or roads in the London Traffic Area, made by the Minister; otherwise, they are made by local authorities, subject to the consent of the Minister. In every case, therefore, the Minister must be satisfied that such a speed limit is necessary before an order is made; so that speed limits are not imposed unnecessarily on unlighted roads, either in urban or in rural areas.

To sum up, the Minister asks me to say that he is satisfied that the general criterion of the Road Traffic Act, 1934, which imposes a speed limit automatically where there is proper street lighting, together with the powers to de-restrict lighted roads or to restrict unlighted roads by order, has worked well in practice and is generally satisfactory. He does not think that it is practicable or necessary to adopt some other criterion for roads in rural areas. To attempt to do so would raise precisely the same problems which were discussed so fully before the passing of the Road Traffic Act, 1934. Moreover, the difficulty of defining what is a rural or urban area would, for the purposes of applying a speed limit, be almost impossible to overcome satisfactorily. I can only repeat that I shall see that the Minister and the Department give consideration to the specific cases mentioned by the noble Lord, and I will have them looked into.

5.5 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for that informative and full reply to my Motion. I want to say only two or three words more. The noble Lord mentioned a criterion which was applied in 1934. I agree that that was at that time the best criterion that could be devised, but I have grave doubts as to whether it is now. The reason is simply that so many country roads are now being lighted. The noble Lord said there were now stringent restrictions upon lighting. What will happen when those restrictions are removed? This problem will then be doubly acute, and I have graver doubts still whether the criterion will then be good, and whether it will be possible to apply it—but that is a matter for the future.

I have carefully noted what the noble Lord said and I should like to finish with this remark. On the particular stretch of road which I have in mind, and which prompted me to put down this Motion, I see that lights have recently been put up, the speed limits immediately following, but—and I say this without any political motive—I have noticed no new houses. All the houses there have been there for years and years. Again, I thank the noble Lord, and beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.