§ 3.2 p.m.
§ LORD SOMERS rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Traffic Signs Regulations, 1957 (S.I. 1957 No. 13), dated January 7, 1957, laid before the House under Standing Order No. 61 on February 8, 1957, be annulled. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving 598 the Motion which stands in my name, I can assure your Lordships that I have not done so without having given it careful consideration. It must be nearly five years since I wrote to the Automobile Association on this very subject, and when I saw the new Regulations I felt that something must be done to air the matter; for I felt that they were about as unsatisfactory as they possibly could be. It may seem to some of your Lordships that I am putting it rather strongly, but these alterations are going to cost a considerable amount of money and, for some reason that must seem good to them, Her Majesty's Government have not shown any great willingness to make any major expenditure on road improvements. I feel it is highly likely that if we have the alterations now proposed we shall not get any further alteration for a very long time; therefore it seems to me that if we are to have a change now, it is essential that it should be a satisfactory one. I hope that those of your Lordships who are interested in the subject have in front of you a copy of these new Regulations, because I shall be referring to them in detail.
§ I will begin by saying that I am one among many others who would like to see the Continental system adopted in this country. I know many have said that we like to make a compromise between the Continental system and the American system, but I can only say that any Americans who come to this country would find our roads very puzzling in comparison with theirs, even with the same road signs as are in use in America. I hardly think their signs would be very suitable for our roads. On the other hand, the Continental signs are simple, clear and easily understood; and they provide for every possible contingency that one may come across on the roads, and do so in about twenty-four signs as against something like the 300 which your Lordships will find in this list.
§ The Continental signs are chiefly pictorial—another point which makes them much more easy to recognise when one is driving past them at a high speed. It also makes them understandable to those who are either illiterate (if there are any left) or who come from foreign countries. They are recognisable to all who come over from Europe. That seems to me to a valuable point. We 599 have a beautiful country, in spite of the fact that in many cases we seem to be doing our best to ruin its appearance, and it is quite possible that by encouraging European motorists to visit us we might bring about a thriving tourist trade. Granted we should first have to stimulate our hotel keepers to raise the standards of their food slightly, but, none the less, it is not an impossible thing and would be highly desirable.
§ Let us examine these signs as they stand. On page 16 there are shown three forms of road junction sign and the old, familiar sign for a cross-roads which, as your Lordships will see, has been changed from the multiplication sign to the addition sign. I think the great point about these signs is that not one of them gives the essential information—an indication as to whose is the right of way. I feel that one should never come upon a road junction without having quite clear in one's mind whether it is one's own right of way or the other man's. None of these signs show that. At a cross-roads one road should always be considered the major, whether in fact they are equal or not, and the minor road should have a "Major Road Ahead," "Go Slow" or "Halt" sign, while for the purpose of reassuring the driver the major road could have a sign similar to that used on the Continent—an upward pointing arrow with a small stroke across it.
§ On the next page we have the "Roundabout" sign which is unchanged except in size. That is perfectly all right; but there are two new "Bend" signs. The old sign of the "Double Bend" has been changed slightly to conform to the actual lay-out of the road, and for a single bend we are to have the upward pointing stroke, bending either to left or right. That is certainly an improvement, but, on the other hand, it is not definite enough, because, for one thing, these signs for road junctions, cross roads and bends are scattered all over the countryside at every conceivable point. Sometimes they are very significant and sometimes they have absolutely no significance. I have many times come across a "Cross Roads" sign on a main road and discovered when I arrived at the crossroads that it consisted of just a farm track leading off on either side. When one sees the enormous number of signs and knows that they may 600 or may not be significant, one tends to become careless, with the result that when a sign is significant one may do something silly. This absolutely indiscriminate use of signs in any and every circumstance should be abandoned. I do not feel that the "Bend" signs are definitive enough. They do not show whether the bend is an absolute "hairpin" or just a mild curve in the road for which one hardly needs to slow up at all. That could be made much more easily recognisable by a very simple method—by just placing inside the curve of the bend, the ratio of the curve in yards. That sounds rather involved, but the public would soon learn to recognise the fact that a large number was comparatively safe and a small number was dangerous. If they can recognise the fact that "1 in 4" means a steep hill and "1 in 120" does not, surely they can do something similar with regard to a bend.
§ May I revert for a moment to road junctions? One particular junction has not been provided for, and I have felt for many years that this is most important. The junction to which I refer is the "V" junction, where two major roads converge upon each other. I know one particular case of that in Norfolk where all that is given on the right hand of the two roads is a "road junction" sign—an upright stroke with a small stroke to the left implying a small side road. Of course, one does not see the road until one gets there, and there is always some difficulty in approaching these places. One has to look behind to see whether there is traffic going in the same direction and converging upon one, and one has to look in front to see if there is any traffic going across one's nose. There again it seems to me that a particular sign is needed. I would suggest an inverted "V"—a very simple sign—with either an "R" or an "L" in the centre which would imply that the converging road is on one's right or on one's left. That would be a simple solution.
§ We come now to page 18. Here we have three signs. One says: "Low Gear Now". The next says: "Keep In Low Gear", and the third says: "Low Gear For 1½ Miles". It seems to me that all these signs for low gear are useless because they do not apply to every class of vehicle. If you come to a sign for a hill, as given in No. 118 on the next page which reads: "Hill 1 in 12" then surely 601 any sensible driver will know whether he has got to change down or not. If he is driving a very large eight-wheeler lorry, he probably will change down, but if he is driving an ordinary private car he will not. I think one should do the ordinary motorist the justice of assuming that he probably has the sense to know whether or not he needs to change down.
§ On page 19 we come to the same sign for different circumstances, although in fact they are the same circumstances. One says: "Road Narrows" and the other says: "Narrow Bridge". What does it matter whether it is a narrow bridge or a narrow road between two cliffs, or something of that kind? The point is that the road narrows. So why should we have to have two specific signs for one thing. Then we look at No. 121, which is a sign bearing the words "Tram Pinch". That I think, is a new one—certainly I have never seen it. As trams are rapidly being made out of date, and are disappearing from the country, I do not think we need evolve a new sign for a "Tram Pinch". In fact, I think the only vehicle that would suffer from such a thing would be an ancient Trojan with solid tyres. I have seen many ancient Trojans, but not, I think, one with solid tyres. Then on page 20 we come to two signs—"Single File Traffic" and "Single Track Road". Those are alike enough in wording to be confusing, but they mean different things. One means that you must not overtake and the other means that traffic can move only in one direction. It seems to me that the difference between the two would be much more obvious if the first one "Single File Traffic" were changed to the words: "No Overtaking".
§ Let us now pass to page 22. Here we find two signs which are to be used for level crossings. The first indicates a level crossing with gates, and the second a level crossing without gates. There is also an additional sign bearing the words: "Trains Cross Here". I understood from the expert at the Automobile Association Headquarters, to whom I was speaking on this subject, that the first two of these signs are considered as warning signs, and that the third is to be placed only at the actual point where the crossing of the trains take place. Surely, if one has seen warning signs one naturally looks out at any rate for rails going across the road. 602 I hardly think that we need have a sign showing where the lines actually cross. They are pretty obvious if one has one's eyes on the road. On page 23 we see signs saying "Tramway Crossing", "Trams Cross Here", and "Uneven Rails". Surely those three could be dispensed with. A tramway crossing, after all, could be marked as a level crossing without gates and the same thing applies, with regard to "Trams Cross Here" and "Uneven Rails". It seems to me that the signs "Trams Cross Here", "Trains Cross Here" and "Uneven Rails" could be changed to the sign "Bad Surface", which could also apply to several signs which I am going to mention later. The "Bad Surface" sign could apply to anything in the way of temporary surfaces, newly tarred surfaces, roughly paved surfaces or anything in that line Again, on page 23 we have: "Single Track Road With Passing Places". I suppose one can say that that is necessary, since if the sign did not include the words "Passing Places", one presumably would not venture down the road.
§ Let us now turn to page 24. We have there three signs for fords. One says simply "Ford"; another says: "Deep Ford", and the third, which is to confront you as you have crossed the ford, says, "Try Your Brakes". What is the significant difference between a "ford" and a "deep ford"? It seems to me that if a ford is worth mentioning it will probably be a deep one. In any case, there is always a danger of getting water in one's brakes, and I should have thought that the sign, "Try Your Brakes" is an injunction to do something which most people obviously would do, though in the interests of safety it may be as well to have the sign there. On page 25, we have two signs for "Two Way Traffic". One is presumably intended for the motorist's direction at the end of a dual carriageway, at the point where it becomes a single carriageway. That is why the two arrows upon it point one up and one down. There is also another sign with the same words: "Two Way Traffic", with arrows pointing sideways, one to the right and one to the left. What is the significance of that? When you come to a "T" junction you normally expect two-way traffic—and by the time you have got there, you can see whether the road has a dual carriageway or not. In any case, 603 the first direction in which one should always look is to the right, because that is whence the traffic will be approaching.
§ On the same page we come to the two much-discussed new signs for "School" and "Children." First of all, why have both? Surely the significance is the same. Children are children whether they are at school or not, and so far as the argument about the time of day is concerned, that does not apply, because often children are allowed to use the school playground after school hours, so that there will always be a danger that children will be there. As to the signs themselves, I think—and I know that I am not alone in this view—that they are badly designed. They are fussy and they are not easily recognisable from a distance. I know that my noble friend Lord Derwent, who is sorry that he is not here to take part in this debate but has authorised me to voice his views, has said that he very much disagrees with them because they show pictures of children doing precisely what children should not do. I think that that is a sound point, in that one surely does not want to educate children to start playing ball in the middle of the street. I think that the sign seen abroad for children is much more easily recognisable—just two children.
§ Going over to page 26, we have "Children crossing ahead". After the other two, why have that? What is the point? We then have No. 150, "Pedestrian crossing ahead". I must say that these pedestrian crossings have been a source of great danger, because if one cannot see them oneself, which is often the case if one is behind a lot of other traffic, one might find that one has to pull up very suddenly, and pedestrians are not always considerate in how they use them. Some sign of the sort is necessary, but again I think that a far more effective sign would be the sort of thing one sees abroad—a flashing amber light in advance of the crossing—not at the crossing, but in advance of it.
§ We have two signs for "Traffic signals ahead". Why two? Again I think that it is most essential that we should aim at uniformity in our signs, because the smaller the number we have for one purpose, the more easily we shall learn to recognise them and to know what they 604 mean. The one given at No. 151, with a picture of traffic lights, is far more easily recognisable than just the words, "Traffic signals ahead". On page 27 we have three signs for animals: one is the picture of a cow and the word "Cattle"; the second says, "Stray Animals" and the third says, "Cattle Grid". Again it seems to me that there is much too much diversity. There should be only one sign for animals. It does not really matter in what circumstances they are crossing the road or are likely to be on the road. The point is that if there is the risk that animals may be there, one should look out. It does not matter whether one runs into a cow or a New Forest pony, the result is going to be very much the same, except, I suppose, that if one runs into a cow, one has to pay damages to the farmer, and so it is that much worse. One sign, that at No. 153, showing the picture of a cow, is ideal; and the one sign is enough for all animals.
§ No. 156 says "Road liable to subsidence". What is the significance there? If one sees that sign, does one drive down the road? Presumably, if one is driving an Austin Seven one might risk it, but if one is driving a large lorry one would hesitate to do so. Personally, even if I were in an Austin Seven I should not care to go down a road which was marked "Liable to subsidence". Next we come to "Temporary surface." As I have said before, I think that that could be replaced by "Bad surface". On page 28, we have three signs—four, if one includes the first one on the following page—for road works. One says, "Road works"; another says, "Road works ahead"; the third says, "Wet tar. Please drive slowly"; and the fourth says, "Temporary road surface". I should have thought that "Road works ahead" was quite enough for anybody to be on the look out and to drive slowly. Incidentally, I hope that there will be some regulation—I have found none among these—to see to it that the sign will be placed ahead so that the road works really are ahead. Too often I have seen a sign "Road works ahead" placed right up against the but in which the foreman was sitting. The other signs on page 29 I think one can pass, such as "Beware—ramp" and "Pass either side".
§
Now we come to the warning signs. Those in the first three pages are all right; but again, on page 33, we have
605
two signs for "Turn right". One says "Turn right" and the other says "Turn right—one way only". What is the difference? The fewer words we use the better. "Turn right" means turn right and let us leave it at that. We go on to the prohibitory signs. The first I have any real grumbles about is on page 38. To me all these signs are far too wordy. One cannot stop driving a car, especially if there is a good deal of traffic behind one, and take five minutes to read through a notice such as this:
Prohibited—locomotives, tractors, heavy motor cars and motor cars with seats for more than 15 persons unless requiring access to premises or land adjoining the road".
One must have some quick indication of whether one can go down a road or whether one cannot. Again at page 39 why have this sign:
Play street. Prohibited—all vehicles 8 a.m. to sunset unless calling at premises in the street.
Why not just have the sign for children?
§ On page 40 we come to "One way" signs. This is a very knotty point. Too often, I think, these "No Waiting" signs do not show in which direction from the sign one is allowed to wait. Under every sign there should be an arrow pointing either to the left or to the right, or in both directions (incidentally, that is the way it is done abroad), so that one knows at once whether one is allowed to wait or not. There are certain places, such as in High Street, Worcester, where the permission to wait changes from one side of the street to the other, according to whether the date is odd or even. If one wants to wait, one has first to stop to consider whether it is an odd or even date; one has then to look at the sign to see whether one is within the hours; and then one has to find a place to park. During all that time traffic has been accumulating, and one is hooted at and yelled at to get out of the way. It is quite hopeless. It seems to me that the simplest way of getting over that would be to have detachable signs. The posts could be left there, and all that is needed is to have a detachable signboard. Again, when I mentioned this point to the Automobile Association, I was told that local authorities object to this method on the ground that they have not the manpower to carry it out. What are we coming to if we cannot provide the manpower to do a job which would take any noble Lord twenty minutes to do: to go 606 down one side of the High Street, collect the signs and come up the other side and put them up there. If local authorities say they cannot provide manpower for that sort of thing, then it seems to me that they should be made to do it.
§ I pass now to page 41. It seems to me that these signs which imply hours when one may or may not park—for instance, Monday to Friday, 11.30 a.m. to 6.30 p.m. and so on—are much too confusing. "No reversing into street" is another sign which, among others, seems to me to be completely unnecessary. On page 44 mention is made of two signs of which I cannot see the significance. The first one is, "250 yards ahead, no entry." What does one do? Does one go on for 250 yards and then turn round, or does one turn round at once? It does not imply whether the "No entry" is to the right or left, straight ahead or what. Then, "130 yards ahead, no right turn." There again why does one want to know that in advance? Surely the "No entry" sign at the particular point where one cannot go further is sufficient.
§ We then come to the direction signs. On the whole, they are abort as efficient as they could be. I have no grumbles against them except one that I have already mentioned to the noble Lord, Lord Mancroft, who is to reply to the debate. He tells me that I am not right, but I have often found that on approaching a major road one finds only the next town on the road indicated. For instance, on reaching A1, one sees some town to the right and some town to the left. If a driver has lost his bearings and wants to get to London, he may not know which way to turn. I feel that the ultimate destination of the road, as well as its immediate next point, should be indicated, at least on important roads. But apart from that, I do not think I have many grumbles about the direction signs.
§ I do not think there is much more I need say, except on what I think is one important point: that is, I cannot find anywhere in the Regulations any provision of how far in advance of a given object a sign is to be placed. I rather believe that that rests very much with local authorities. To my mind, however, the Ministry of Transport should have have an absolute say on these matters; local authorities should have the right to 607 question, of course, but it seems to me that the final decision should rest with the Ministry of Transport. The only point of a warning sign is to warn one of something that cannot be seen. Generally, one can see the object itself long before one sees the sign. It seems to me, in view of the higher speeds on main roads today, that signs should be placed a great deal more in advance of the object than they are.
§ To what conclusions do we come from all this? I think the chief one is that there is much too much diversity; there is too little definition of signs indicating the severe or not severe circumstances, and there is a lot of unnecessary wordiness. I am not going to press for a Division, and to-morrow, of course, these Regulations become law. However, I should be grateful if the noble Lord who is to reply could give me some assurance that these Regulations are not going to be the be-all and end-all of reform in traffic sign regulations. I beg to move.
§ Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Traffic Signs Regulations, 1957 (S.I. 1957 No. 13), dated 7th January 1957, laid before the House under Standing Order No. 61 on 8th February 1957, be annulled.—(Lord Somers.)