§ 2.43 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTH rose to move to resolve, That this House approves in principle the proposal to make regulations governing the use of pedestrian crossings, in accordance with the Government Statement made in this House on November 28 last. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion standing in my name upon the Order Paper has been put down to fulfil an undertaking that I gave to the noble Viscount, Lord Swinton, when in November last I made a statement upon the proposed new regulations regarding pedestrian crossings, and in order that, before we finally decide upon these regulations and lay them before Parliament, we can have the benefit of the advice and guidance of your Lordships. I intend to be very brief and will explain now the main points of the new proposals. Then with the leave of the House I will try to answer any questions that your Lordships may wish to raise.
79§ The principal change that we propose is to omit from the regulations any reference to the rights and duties of pedestrians and drivers respectively at crossings where traffic is controlled by light signals or police officers. I hope I may say this respectfully, but your Lordships' House is the cause of all the trouble, because sitting in its judicial capacity it delivered a judgment which has made the law upon this subject rather difficult to understand —at least from the layman's point of view —and it is a little confused. We therefore propose to rely upon the lights themselves, which give a large measure of protection to the pedestrian, as well as to the vehicle. We propose to deal with controlled crossings in the Highway Code, where we think we can deal with them better, and to lay down a treaty of good pedestrianship, if I may so call it, for the guidance of pedestrians. I will come back to the position of the Highway Code in a moment.
§ We propose to retain studs at the intersections where there are traffic lights, but these studs will have no other purpose than to give guidance to the pedestrians that that is a safer place to cross than any other. On the uncontrolled crossings, where pedestrians would have precedence over all traffic, we propose after very lengthy research by the experts, to adopt what is known as the "zebra" crossing. This will be a black and white striped crossing, which research has shown is far better for the vehicle driver and also the pedestrian. The pedestrian at those crossings will have a precedence, except when a police officer takes control, and then the precedence of the pedestrian will cease. We have not yet decided as to the best method, if any, of lighting such crossings, and that is a matter upon which I would value any expression of opinion from your Lordships. Those are the two main proposals. We hope to be able substantially to reduce the number of pedestrian crossings. As I told your Lordships when I made my statement, there are approximately 35,000 crossings, and we feel that this multiplicity has not been conducive to respect by pedestrians.
§
That, my Lords, is really the substance of the new regulations. We propose to put into the Highway Code something to the following effect. We propose to substitute for paragraph 19 of the existing Code these words:
80
Except at light signals, where they are marked just with studs, pedestrian crossings are marked with alternate black and white stripes and an orange globe mounted on a black and white post, and can readily be seen. You have a prior right of way over striped crossings unless traffic over them is being controlled by a Police Officer. Don't use this right unreasonably. Remember that vehicles cannot stop as quickly as you can. Give the traffic a chance and cross only when you can see that it is safe.
When crossing at a road intersection look out for traffic turning the corner. At traffic signals or Police-controlled intersections watch the traffic as well as the signals and cross only when you can do so safely. Do not cross at traffic signals when they show green or amber to traffic coming across your path. Wait until they show red to the traffic. If there is a crossing marked with two parallel lines of studs keep between the studs.
The other alteration concerns drivers and riders, and follows paragraph 37 of the existing Highway Code. This is the new wording we propose:
Except at light signals, where they are marked just with studs, pedestrian crossings are marked with alternate black and white stripes and an orange globe mounted on a black and white post, and can readily be seen. Pedestrians on these striped crossings have the right of way unless the traffic is for the time being controlled by a Police Officer. Even then you should carefully respect the safety and convenience of pedestrians on the crossing.
Similarly, although pedestrians have no precedence on crossings at road junctions where traffic is controlled by Police or light signals, you should treat them with respect. If anyone is already crossing the road when you receive the signals to go ahead, do not interfere with his passage. If you are turning right or left, look out for the pedestrian round the corner who is crossing in front of traffic held up by a signal and give way to him.
§ May I say one further word? I may be asked why we do not make it a statutory obligation for the pedestrian to honour traffic lights in exactly the same way as does the vehicle driver. We believe that it would be impossible to enforce such a rule. I think your Lordships will appreciate that fact from one simple example. If it were made compulsory for the pedestrian to cross the road only when the light was in his favour, and not to cross when it was not in his favour, all he would have to do would be to step one yard away and he would be outside the law. If crossings, instead of being, as now, about ten feet wide, were made twenty feet wide, he would only have to step twenty-one feet away to be outside. This would be an absolutely impossible situation. Also I 81 think your Lordships would agree that we could make only one universal law, and it would seem to be rather ridiculous to make pedestrians honour traffic lights in the middle of the night, when there is no traffic about, or in the country where there are traffic lights but no traffic in certain hours. So we have come to the conclusion that it is far better to try and deal with this matter in the Highway Code.
§ My final word on the Highway Code is this: that if we attempted to give legal effect to the Code, we should have to re-write it. It would cease to be a Highway Code and would become regulations, and there are so many things in the Highway Code that could not be enforced by law. Your Lordships know, for example, that we set out in the Highway Code what signals should be given. Are we to compel all road users by Statute to give signals of their intention to turn this way or that way on any road at any time, whether it is in a built-up area or whether it is in the heart of the country? If so, how are wo going to enforce it? It has been a very great disappointment to my right honourable friend, and to all those connected with the Ministry of Transport, that the Highway Code has not received more support from the benches and the courts of the country. We feel that if that is altered in the future, the guidance we give now on these controlled crossings, where we have taken away the precedence of the pedestrian, together with the liability for not exercising due care and attention (which is in the present law and can be enforced) will ensure greater safety and be far better for everyone concerned. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.
§ Moved to resolve, That this House approves in principle the proposal to make regulations governing the use of pedestrian crossings in accordance with the Government Statement made in this House on November 28 last.—(Lord Lucas of Chilworth.)
§ 2.53 p.m.
THE MARQUESS OF READINGMy Lords, this discussion reflects a somewhat novel but, I think your Lordships will agree, very acceptable procedure, for it gives the House an opportunity to consider, as it were almost informally, the purpose and content of regulations before they are formally presented to us for 82 scrutiny. That advantage is enhanced if we remember the somewhat rigid system whereby Parliament is unable to make any alteration, even textual, in regulations once they are laid on the Table. It is perhaps not attributing too much merit to this House to say that it may even be that the Minister considers that he can derive benefit from the accumulated experience of the House in these matters, and do so at a stage when it is still open to him to put the results of that experience to profitable account.
I do not propose to go into the minutiæ of the lay-out of crossings, which is no doubt necessarily embodied in these regulations with almost the meticulous precision of dress regulations issued from the Lord Chamberlain's department. My main and, indeed, my almost exclusive concern is with the preliminary and predominant question whether the rights and duties alike of motorist and of pedestrian should be incorporated in regulations or should merely be set out in the Highway Code. That, of course, is no mere question of convenience of procedure, but one of actual determination of policy; for if the former course is taken, then any breach of the regulations can be visited by the penalties; of the law, whereas if the second course be taken a breach of the Code can be signalised only by, at best, a reproof. I should personally very much hesitate to advocate any system which meant merely that the public was to be harassed by a mutiplicity of trivial prosecutions. None the less, in this particular case my personal view is that the public has over the past years had every chance of reforming its homicidal or suicidal habits, and that it has profited singularly little from the opportunities given to it. Far too often as we go about London we can see at lightcontrolled crossings, and especially where two roads intersect, motorists who, when the light changes, accelerate so vigorously that pedestrians on the crossing at the further intersection are obliged to run for their lives; and equally far too often we see in similar conditions pedestrians who seem to have no regard for the fact that motorists have a claim to obey the light signal to go, and who continue to saunter across the road as nonchalantly as if they were taking a stroll along an unfrequented country lane.
There is, of course, the ancillary problem of what is called the filtering vehicle; 83 the vehicle which, quite legitimately, because the light is in its favour, comes round a corner and, by so doing, comes on to a crossing upon which pedestrians are just as legitimately walking, because in their turn the lights are in their favour. I wonder whether that difficulty could not to some extent be obviated by a more extensive use of the "Cross Now" signal on lights, of which we have examples, for instance, at a very busy corner by St. Martin's-in-the-Fields and another at the junction of Berkeley Street and Piccadilly. I suppose the interposition of an additional signal means some slight delay and consequent hold-up of traffic, but surely, if it can be advantageously done at such busy London crossings as those— there is a long experience behind it now— there are many other crossings at which it could equally be done. I sometimes wonder to what vital purpose the one or two minutes are put by people who protest so indignantly that they have lost one or two minutes on their journey.
I have noticed in previous debates on this subject that mention of the Alness Committee causes an almost imperceptible shudder to pass over the noble Lord, Lord Lucas; but the words have now been mentioned and perhaps, I can go on without fear of further painful consequences, to say that ever since I was a member of that body I have been watching very closely happenings on the road, and I think your Lordships will find that I have not drawn a picture which is in any way exaggerated. If you think I have, I would only respectfully counsel you to take a leisurely and observant walk up, for example, Oxford Street at any busy time of the week. I do not doubt that, as a result, you will find that between motorists and pedestrians there is too often no such spirit of co-operation as public interest and self-interest dictate, but rather a spirit of retaliation calculated to add physical injury to mental insult. It is a curious phenomenon, and it might even be worth investigation by psychologists, that the resentment and contempt towards pedestrians felt by a pedestrian momentarily elevated to a car is equalled only by the similar feelings towards motorists experienced by an habitual motorist suddenly degraded to his feet. I cannot persuade myself that the cure for this trouble is the mere inclusion amongst the graceful courtesies 84 of the Highway Code of a code of correct conduct at crossings.
It is true that one's behaviour in violation of the Highway Code can be used as evidence in a subsequent action for damages for injuries caused by negligence. And, no doubt, it is often most helpful to executors. At the same time, with all apology to my friends of the legal profession, it seems to me preferable to forestall the infliction of those injuries, and if long trial and persistent error have proved— as I believe they have—that more drastic action is necessary, then, very regretfully, I am strongly of the opinion that any flagrant abuse of crossings ought to be subject to prosecution and, if proved, to the imposition of a suitable penalty. But if, as I hope will be the case, it is ultimately decided to include these provisions in the regulations, and not in the Highway Code, I would suggest that, before the regulations come into force, there should be interposed a period of supervision by what we have been accustomed to call "courtesy cops," who should be charged to watch a number of the more notorious crossings with the idea of bringing home to a too casual public the unpleasant and expensive consequences which are likely to attach in future to their continued breaches of regulations which are devised solely in their interest.
I imagine that I shall be told that to insist on detection of offences of this kind is only to add an insupportable burden to the work of an already overworked and undermanned police force. But, after all, the same argument could be applied to the enforcement of any set of regulations—to the observance of the thirtymile limit in built-up areas, or to any one of a number of other regulations. Are we to scrap them all, or are we going to do our best to observe those which are considered necessary in the public interest? I cannot help thinking that the police might be more usefully employed on the supervision of some of these crossings than in the detection of very minor parking offences, to which, in present conditions, so much of their time seems to be devoted. Naturally, it would not be possible to exercise a constant watch upon all crossings, but it would surely be possible to pick out certain well-known "black spots," and vary the choice from day to day, so that the public never quite knew when they would be under observation.
85 The noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, spoke just now of the difficulty which had been created by a decision of your Lordships' House sitting in its judicial capacity. But, after all, the Supreme Court of Appeal, as any other court in this country, only interprets existing law. It neither makes new law nor amends law. And laws in this country are not made by the Medes and Persians, but by the Lords and Commons. It should not be beyond the capacity of a Government Department to produce a measure which would put the position right. It is for the Ministry to make up their mind what is, the right balance to strike between the duties and obligations of the pedestrian and the motorist. And until the Ministry have made up their mind on that matter, all this discussion is largely in the air.
Yesterday's debate at least showed that we were conscious of the existence of the problem, and I must say that although towards the end of his speech the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made some reference to a vague, almost mythical, possibility of legislation, when he came down to saying that legislation might be introduced in the course of time, that statement struck a somewhat melancholy and discouraging note; because, apart from everything else, it seemed to indicate that the Ministry of Transport were not alive to their responsibilities to the public in this urgent matter. It is a good many years now since the Alness Committee met. It is no secret—in fact, we put it in our Report—that we were far from being impressed by the attitude of Ministry of Transport officials who gave evidence before us at that time. It is rather sad to detect something of the same climite of bewildered impotence afflicting the Ministry to-day.
The noble Lord also made some reference to the difficulties of persuading benches to inflict adequate penalties. May I say this to him? When you are dealing with light-controlled crossings, you are dealing, for the most part, with London and big cities, because that is where the majority of such crossings are situated. In London and the big cities you have for the most part Metropolitan magistrates or stipendiaries, rather than benches of lay magistrates, dealing with cases of this kind, and from experienced magistrates such as they are, you are likely to see a much more appropriate and 86 consistent scale of punishment than that obtained from a bench of lay magistrates. That seems to me to be another reason why these matters should be dealt with in the regulations.
Then the noble Lord painted an obvious picture of the difficulty of the situation in the country where Mere are traffic lights but no traffic. So far as I am concerned, I would raise no objection if these regulations were made applicable only to builtup areas. That would to a large extent get over that undoubted difficulty, because the last thing we want is to make regulations which we are unable to enforce or the enforcement of which merely makes us ridiculous. But if the regulations applied only to built-up areas, it seems to me that that would to a large extent obviate that difficulty.
I agree with the noble Lord that at the present moment there is a superfluity of uncontrolled crossings and that they act merely as an incitement to uncontrolled persons. If he proposes to abolish a number of them, I am sure that course will be received with general accord by your Lordships. Like other controls, they are effective only if the public are prepared to obey the rules, and the more of them there are, the less the public are anxious to pay heed to them, however much they may be devised for their own benefit.
The Minister desires to paint these crossings in black and white stripes. I do not imagine that that design will seriously outrage the æsthetic sensibilities either of the Fine Art Commission or of the public, but I have a recollection that some years before the war a departmental committee of the Ministry of Transport was commissioned to investigate the relative visibility of various combinations of colours. It is true that that was directed to signs rather than to road surfaces, but presumably the same considerations would, in general, apply. If my recollection is correct, that committee came down strongly in favour, not of black and white, but of black and yellow, and it may be worth while casting a thought back to the findings of that committee and seeing what were the con-siderations which led them to come to their conclusion.
The noble Lord spoke about the lighting of these crossings. I think your Lordships will all agree that they should be lit in some way, though rather as a sign than from the point of view of actual illumination. By that I mean Mat it seems right 87 that motorists and pedestrians should be made aware from a reasonable distance of where a crossing is situated; but it is much less desirable that motorists should be confronted and distracted by long stretches of comparative darkness with floodlit strips running across them. The obvious solution of that problem seems to me at first sight the insertion in the Belisha beacon of the Barnes bulb. There I leave the matter for others with more expert knowledge than I possess to take it up, only reiterating my strong feeling that this is no time for mere exhortation or procrastination, but most essentially a time for action.
§ 3.14 p.m.
§ EARL HOWEMy Lords, on inquiry at the Printed Paper Office I was unable to obtain a draft of these proposed regulations; therefore it was rather difficult to find out what line the debate was going to take. However, there are one or two questions I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. He said there were 35,000 pedestrian crossings. Did he mean that that was the number for the British Isles, or just for England and Wales? The noble Lord asked for the opinion of members of your Lordships' House on the subject of lights. I disagree with what has been said on this subject by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. He advocated that these crossings should not be lit up with an illuminant. Speaking generally, I agree with him, but on the other hand there are special crossings where the effect of lighting might be to induce pedestrians to use them.
I refer in particular to a point which most of your Lordships know very well —the crossing at Charing Cross Station about rush hour. There is at that time a seething mass of humanity, and how the police at that point manage to shepherd all the people across the road, and at the same time control the traffic crossing the line of humans going to the station, baffles one's imagination. But they do it somehow. If such a crossing were well lit up, by lights shining down on to it, and had illuminated "cross now" signs, I am sure that it would be an inducement for people to use the crossing. That sort of crossing is to be found at many places in the big cities and towns of the British Isles, at points where 88 everybody is trying to get to a station. I feel that these crossings should be lit in some way to draw the attention of pedestrians to them. With regard to the illumination of Belisha Beacons with the "blonde bulb"—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: The "Barnes bulb."
§ EARL HOWE"Barnes bulb"—I am sorry, I thought it was something quite different. I see that in the Interim Report of the Committee on Road Safety, 1944, one of the recommendations was that pedestrian crossings should be illuminated at night. Yesterday a great deal was said about what had been recommended and had not been done. Here is another recommendation made no less than six years ago; and still nothing seems to have happened. I was on the Public Safety Committee of the Ministry of Transport when the Belisha Beacons were invented, and I remember being taken down Euston Road, with other members of the Committee, to have a look at the beacons, to see what we thought of them. The first remark made by practically everyone was: "Why are they not lit? How are people to see them at night if they are not." There is an additional danger in the background of lights behind the Belisha Beacons when they are lit, but I do not think that is any reason why the beacons should not be lit. The problem is an important one. I have here the Report of the Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis for 1949, on page 70 of which he indicates that no fewer than 300 pedestrians were killed within fifty yards of pedestrian crossings but not on them. Anything we can do to try to make people use these crossings is of service.
I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, this other question. The noble Marquess, Lord Reading, suggested that these regulations should apply only to crossings within built-up areas. I could not agree with him more. But there are a number of controlled crossings outside the built-up areas, and it is a little difficult to know what to do about them. I wonder whether, in his reply, the noble Lord could give the House an idea of how he thinks these crossings should be dealt with.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHWould the noble Earl please repeat that?
§ EARL HOWEWith reference to crossings outside built-up areas, if the noble Lord accepts the suggestion of the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, with which I entirely agree, that these new regulations should apply only inside built-up yeas, can the noble Lord give us an idea of what will happen with crossings outside the built-up areas, and how far the proposed regulations will apply to them?
With reference to the striped crossings, there again the Committee on which I had the honour to serve examined the same question as long ago as 1934. We then decided that we preferred the combination of black and yellow to black and white, as we thought it more visible. The noble Lord produced quite good reasons for not giving the force of law to the Highway Code as it stands. But could not he and his officials go through the Highway Code and select a few of the points which could be strengthened? It seems to me that there are provisions in the Highway Code which might well be given more force than they have at present, without their having the force of law. The noble Lord asked what we thought about the lights, and what sort of signals should be given to pedestrians. I entirely agree with the noble Marquess. Lord Reading, that nothing is better than the "Cross now." If that could be extended to all controlled crossings, I cannot help feeling chat that would be the best way of indicating to the pedestrian that his great moment to go across the road had come.
§ 3.22 p.m.
§ LORD CALVERLEYMy Lords, I have been in touch with the West Riding Police, and a high official asked me last week whether I could put forward in this debate a few of their difficulties. After listening to my noble friend Lord Lucas, I am relieved, because his clear statement has made it obvious that these regulations can be worked. This senior officer was afraid that there might be chaos. I always thought that the colour of a zebra was yellow and black.
§ LORD CALVERLEYI have seen only one in my life.
§ LORD CALVERLEYI have seen plenty of them, and been stung. What is the colour of a zebra—black and white, like the whisky? What I am driving at is that we can expect greater success for these regulations, owing to the continued action and constructs work of the police during the past four or five years. For over four years I have been associated with the Road Accident Prevention Federation in Yorkshire, and from January 1 to December 31, last year, the police in the West Riding alone addressed 154,786 children in 1,229 schools. Your Lordships will see that the police are taking the hard, although the most successful, way in trying to prevent accidents. When your Lordships consider that in the West Riding alone there are, in addition, ten county boroughs, with their own police forces, all working on similar lines, with the police in full accord with the educational authorities, you will appreciate that we are converting the children to be missionaries to try to prevent accidents. Only last week the chief constable in a great borough in Yorkshire stated, as I have done when I have been touring the countryside that the children are now teaching their parents the Highway Code. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, will agree with me, when I think of him in his salad days in another place, that he also needed a little conversion.
I want your Lordships to contemplate over 400,000 children being taught the ordinary kerb drill and what to do, not only in the large congested areas, but also on the country roads. It was emphasised in yesterday's debate that in the country, where there are no "zebra" or other crossings, the children themselves act as little policemen, and they are doing a great job of work. The statistics for Yorkshire up to December 31 last year show that the number of fatal accidents and accidents causing injury to children have been halved. That is something constructive and positive, upon which we can look with pleasure, and it has been done under the guidance of this much-maligned Ministry of Transport. I will not weary your Lordships with a great many statistics, but it appears that 31 per cent. of the accidents were caused by drivers of vehicles, and 24 per cent. by dogs.
With regard to the policies of the various magistrates courts, manned by 91 what we call lay magistrates, as a working magistrate myself I can say that we consciously try, without bias, every case that comes before us. We are bound by the same laws as are stipendiary magistrates in the London Metropolitan area, or anywhere else, and we have the same maximum penalties. I suggest to your Lordships that it is our duty as lay magistrates to listen patiently to these cases, and not to have a sort of standard penalty, willy-nilly, as I believe they have in some parts of America. Is the noble Earl, Lord Howe, an advocate of that?
§ LORD CALVERLEYI thought he would not be. Every case should be tried upon its merits. Sometimes we find that the police have summoned the wrong person, and we dismiss the case. I do protest at the slightest implication being thrown at these lay magistrates, especially in our large cities. My colleagues and I have already had six cases this month, and we try to consider, on the evidence, what our verdict should be. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned the juries. The jury do not pass a sentence in a High Court—I should like to tell him that bit of law without charge. It is the High Court Judge who assesses what the sentence for manslaughter shall be. I will not even criticise a High Court Judge. The reason why I rose was mainly to emphasise that these new regulations will have a better prospect of success now than they would have had in the "bad old days" when the noble Earl, Lord Howe, had a lot to do with transport. There has been a reformation. We believe that the children can reform even their own parents. If we can go on as we are doing, with the good will of the education authorities and the teachers, and with the police going into the schools and talking to these young children, the results will be positive in the days to come. It is a hard road, and we are not going to achieve miraculous results.
I am not going to touch upon the roads, as that subject was dealt with yesterday, but I should like to make a present to the Parliamentary Secretary of 114 photographs sent to me by the highways committee of the West Riding County Council. They are nearly "at their wits' end" in trying to keep the Al and similar roads in any sort of repair—some 92 of them made only recently. I wish my noble friend would try that charming smile of his on the Treasury and get some money out of them. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, and his friends now contribute £200,000,000 and receive back between £20,000,000 and £30,000,000. It was Mr. Winston Churchill who said that he would "rob the hen roost," and went to the Road Fund. Succeeding Chancellors of the Exchequers have been receivers of the ill-gotten gains. I wish my noble friend and his Department would allow the authorities to repair these roads, some of which were made only just prior to 1939. It would not cost a great deal now, but if nothing is done there will be a big bill to pay in a few years' time. Although I believe I am out of order in speaking about it—
§ SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS: Hear, hear.
§ LORD CALVERLEYI beg your Lordships' pardon. Several noble Lords were out of order yesterday. I will not transgress any more, except to say that this is one of our major problems. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, spoke about the Highway Code. The police in the West Riding have made a film, and I wish the noble Earl could have appeared in the film being "run in." That film has gone all over the country, and Australia has asked for it. The Highway Code should be produced on those lines. The film comes from the West Riding, where there are more vehicles using the roads than in any other part of the country, with the exception of the Metropolitan area. The County Palatine of Lancashire and the West Riding of Yorkshire are publishing this film on their own. It is already out of print, and no more money will be allowed us. It is far better than any of the Highway Codes because the instruction is in pictures. I will not trouble the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, any longer. I have a whole sheaf of notes, and I wish I could make a present of them to him and ask him if one of his secretaries would "vet" them and see whether anything can. be done. I support what he is doing.
§ 3.34 p.m.
LORD SANDHURSTMy Lords, I must start by joining issue with the noble Lord who has just sat down upon his attack upon the noble Earl, Lord Howe, on the question of education of children. There has been no Peer in this House since I have been here who has done so 93 much to advocate the education of children. It has been one of his hobby horses, to my knowledge, certainly for the last eighteen years.
§ LORD CALVERLEYI was not attacking the noble Earl. I knew him in his salad clays, when we were colleagues together in another place.
LORD SANDHURSTThere is one point about which I know the noble Earl is most anxious, and it is that when these new regulations come out they should, if possible, be circulated in a form which will appeal to children. He and I have many times seen a mother with a pram with a child in it and a small child walking alongside. The small child has pulled the mother back and stopped her going into the road when she should not.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, made a remark which completely defeated me. He said that the multiplicity of pedestrian crossings led to lack of respect by the pedestrians. I should have thought that it certainly led to lack of respect by motorists, but that it ought to have led to an encouragement to pedestrians to use them as they had not to walk too far to do so. I am wondering whether he actually said what he meant. I am also going to join issue with both the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, and my noble friend, Lord Howe, on the question of the colour of the crossings. They both advocate black and yellow. I know that most careful experiments have been made by the Road Research Laboratory. I have seen those experiments, and I have actually experienced for myself the difference between looking at black and white, and black and yellow. There is not a shadow of doubt in my mind that black and white is the winner every time. I hope, therefore, that, whatever has been said this afternoon, the Ministry will stick to their black and white.
Then we come to this vexed problem of what the noble Lord calls the "zebra crossing," on an uncontrolled road. Now that is a problem with which it is very difficult to deal. The motorist expects to "bat" down that road fairly fast, and he watches the traffic. The traffic will probably obscure from his view the zebra crossing, and quite likely he will not even be able to see a Belisha beacon. If we are going to have uncontrolled crossings, as I call them, on uncontrolled roads, I 94 think there should be some light indication—say, a hundred yards each side of the crossing—to the effect that there is a pedestrian crossing ahead. Certain authorities in this country have already adopted that method, and I an sure it has a salutary effect. It slows the motorist down and gives him a chance to stop when somebody steps off the pavement. Short of that, I do not see how a success can be made of a pedestrian crossing on an uncontrolled road unless there are lights there.
Now I want to come to what I consider is the fundamental point about pedestrian crossings. I have no arguments at all against the regulations; I am fully in favour of them. I think there is an almost impossible problem to solve, and the regulations go as near to solving the impossible as they can. But there is one problem which will materially affect those regulations and their success, and that is the actual siting of the crossings. Now I submit that that is a specialist's job. The right man to do it is the gentleman I mentioned yesterday—a traffic engineer. I am going to ask the Minister the question I asked yesterday and to which I did not get a reply, but to which I do expect a reply to-day because he has been in his job a sufficiently long time to know the answer. Is there a single traffic engineer employed at the Ministry?—I mean a traffic engineer as distinct from a road surveyor, because a traffic engineer is a man who, by his training, if he has gone through the proper course, has learnt where to put a pedestrian crossing so that the motorist will respect it and so that it will be of some use to the pedestrian. Unless it fulfils those two requirements, it might just as well not exist. That is a most important point. It is a specialist's job. The police cannot do it; they do not know enough. They know a great deal but they do not know enough for that; they have not been specially trained. It is a job for a specially trained man.
I have one final word, on the problem of traffic filtering to the left at a controlled crossing. I would suggest that the answer to that problem may prove a nuisance to the foot passenger—and I am a foot passenger practically 100 per cent. when I am in the City because I do not like driving cars in traffic. The answer is to put the pedestrian crossing back 95 about ten yards from the actual turning, and not on the turning itself. That will have this effect. To start with, it will automatically stop the traffic well short of the crossing, so that the man who "jumps" the light will not do it as dangerously as he does at the present moment. It will give the pedestrian plenty of time to see the car coming along and give the driver of the car plenty of time to see the pedestrian. Furthermore, it will allow one or two cars to draw up behind one another whilst they are waiting for the pedestrians to cross, without creating a great block of traffic behind. I hope those have been constructive suggestions and that I shall get a reply to my question about the traffic engineer.
§ 3.42 p.m.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHMy Lords, I am most grateful to your Lordships for the approval you have given to these proposed regulations and for the helpful suggestions that have been made. I will undertake to consider them all. I will answer one or two points now. I will at once put the noble Lord, Lord Sandhurst, at rest on his question: Do we employ traffic engineers at the Ministry of Transport? The answer is yes, the best in the country. Another point I was asked was whether the regulations will apply to Northern Ireland or only to the United Kingdom. The answer is, only to the United Kingdom. Another point is that the black and white striped crossing was adopted after extensive research and experiments by the Road Research Laboratory. I myself have seen it and tested it and I absolutely confirm their choice. You have to take into considera-tion that it must be viewed obliquely. All the other suggestions I will consider. I can say now to the noble Earl that I do not think it will be only an exceptional case when a zebra crossing is put outside a built-up area. I appreciate his point about the "Cross now" lights, and if the noble Earl will tell the Ministry where, in his view, we can extend those "Cross now" pedestrian lights, his suggestion will receive every consideration.
LORD SANDHURSTIs the noble Lord able to tell me where his traffic engineers receive their training—because it is not in this country. The only place that I know of where there is a faculty is in America.
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHI have not that information, but I hope the noble Lord will accept my assurance that they are properly trained and that they are the best traffic engineers in the country.
THE MARQUESS OF WILLINGDONMay I ask the noble Lord whether the 35,000 pedestrian crossings include the crossings in Scotland?
§ LORD LUCAS OF CHILWORTHYes.
§ On Question, Motion agreed to.