THE EARL OF GOSFORDMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will take urgent steps to build an "anti-crash" fence between the up and down lanes of the M.1 and any other M-type motorways; and whether they would consider imposing a strict speed limit on these motor- 120 ways, when they are wet, until such time as the fence has been installed.]
§ THE JOINT PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (LORD CHESHAM)My Lords, the provision of crash barriers on motorways is a question which my right honourable friend is constantly watching. He does not, however, consider that the installation of such a barrier on M.1 would be justified at present. The benefit of it would lie in preventing collisions with vehicles on the opposing carriageway, but there have, in fact, been very few such accidents. During the first year of operation of M.1 two people were killed in accidents of this type. Study of accidents on M.1 and experience of the effect of crash barriers abroad indicate that a central barrier might well cause more accidents than it prevented although they might not be of such a serious character.
My Lords, it would not be practicable to impose or enforce a speed limit that applied in wet weather only. I would, however, point out that drivers should be very careful in wet weather and should adjust their speed to the conditions.
THE EARL OF GOSFORDWhile thanking my noble friend for his reply, may I ask him two further questions? First, can he tell us the number of accidents that have so far taken place on the M.1 involving cars crossing from one track to the other; and, secondly, what is the difficulty in imposing a speed limit when the road is wet?
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I am very happy to give my noble friend the figures for which he asks because I think they help to put the whole problem in proportion. In the first year of the operation of the M.1 there was a total of 511 accidents, including those where there was damage only and no personal injury. Of that total of 511, 47 involved a vehicle of some kind running across the central reserve into the opposite carriageway. Of those 47, in only 6 cases did a vehicle collide with an oncoming vehicle on the opposite carriageway, and in those 6 cases injury resulted in 4. That, I think, sizes up the problem fairly accurately.
So far as a speed limit in wet weather is concerned, it would be a very difficult thing to impose, principally because it 121 would throw on to the driver the onus of deciding whether the road is, in fact, wet or half dry. Moreover, I think that the idea of introducing a conditional speed limit, if one were disposed to do so, would apply to roads other than the M.1, and possibly also to conditions other than rain. I do not think it could be made to work and it would be extremely difficult to enforce.
§ VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGHMy Lords would it not be worth while at least for the Minister to consider the whole problem of accidents in relation to having a maximum speed limit, whether it is fixed at 60 or 70 m.p.h., on all the roads which are still to be used by ordinary drivers? It seems to me that, with such varied skill, sight, and hearing, and all the other things, in drivers, to have this complete lack of any limit on such a road as this is highly dangerous and not in the interests of the public.
§ LORD CHESHAMI do not think there is any aspect of the accident problem and possible measures that might be taken to deal with it that my right honourable friend does not and has not considered. But I am convinced that it is necessary Ito be very careful about the question of imposing on roads of this kind what must be an entirely arbitrary speed limit.
THE EARL OF GOSFORDI should like to ask my noble friend if he would ask his right honourable friend whether, if he is unwilling to impose a speed limit in these circumstances, he would at least have notices put up prominently on the motor way advising drivers to reduce speed when the conditions are wet.
§ LORD CHESHAMIt has been said in your Lordships' House on many occasions that the majority of drivers are fairly decent and careful sort of people, and that remark has been followed by a number of "Hear, hears!" Surely, we must expect drivers to take some responsibility for their own conduct. I do not think we can become quite as grandmotherly as to warn people with prominent notices—we have too many notices on our roads to-day—that they should be careful on the road when it is wet. I should believe that to be most elementary.
LORD REAMy Lords, in view of the publicity this roadway has had, is the 122 noble Lord in a position to say what percentage the 500-odd accidents represent of the total number of vehicles using the road? Is the percentage higher than that for vehicles using other main roads?
§ LORD CHESHAMI could not give the noble Lord, out of my head, the exact figures he asks for, but I can tell him that the accident figure is about 50 per cent. of that on other roads.
LORD WINDLESHAMMy Lords, will the noble Lord who has just replied appreciate—I am sure he will—that many of us feel that the M.1 is the first, almost the only, contribution to getting the traffic moving in this country over the last few years, and that any attempt to impose a speed limit, particularly one which would be quite unenforceable (as the noble Earl who asks the Question has agreed, it would be impossible to differentiate between a dry bit and a wet bit of road), and any attempt to slow traffic down on this magnificent new motorway, rather than to rely on the skill and intelligence of the drivers, is to be deplored?
§ LORD CHESHAMI would certainly not agree with the noble Lord that this is the first and only contribution to getting traffic moving in this country—on that I would disagree with him strongly—but, as I said to the noble Viscount who leads the Opposition, I feel that any consideration of this matter would have to be most carefully handled.
THE LORD BISHOP OF LEICESTERMy Lords, may I ask Her Majesty's Government whether they would consider, as an alternative to the crash-fence, excavating a continuous trench or pit between the tracks, thereby limiting the disastrous consequences of crossing the central reserve to the vehicle which first leaves the course?
LORD FARINGDONMy Lords, when the noble Lord is replying to that question I wonder if he could also elucidate the point which he made in his initial answer, that a barrier might, in fact, precipitate accidents. I do not follow the noble Lord.
§ LORD CHESHAMThose are two interesting questions. I have just heard it mentioned (I say this with the greatest respect to the right reverend Primate) that it is usually considered the business 123 of the Church to save us from the pit. But, my Lords, in answer to the first question, the trouble is that there would not be room for such a device on the central reserve of the M.1, which is thirteen feet wide, and therefore anything of the kind which was dug to stop a car would be extremely dangerous because anyone who ran off course would pratically be bound to have a serious accident. It has been found, where it has been tried in America, that it needs a width at the middle of fifty feet and a sufficiently shelved bay into which to run. That would, of course, require a great deal more land to be taken for future motorways and is impossible on the M.1. A point about a crash-barrier precipitating accidents is that it seems reasonable to suppose that, of the forty-three accidents I mentioned with a very small casualty rate, probably some of those would have been much worse if there had been a barrier which they could hit. With a barrier there is a strong possibility of cars of vehicles being spun back on to their own side into the path of cars going the same way as themselves. Quite a number of accidents are clearly saved by the fact that cars can run on to the grass, get under control and run back again.
§ LORD WALSTONMy Lords, would the noble Lord consider the suggestion made, I think, in the correspondence column of The Times a few days ago, which seemed to me very reasonable at first sight, Whereby on the M.1 and similar roads traffic, while still travelling on the left, would use the right-hand three lanes: in other words, instead of taking the left section of the motorway you would take the right section. Thereby the slowest traffic would be in the centre lane and the fastest in the outside lane, so that if an accident occurred and the vehicle left its lane it would not cross into the oncoming traffic but would come against traffic going its own way. I do not know whether the noble Lord understands what I mean; it is very badly expressed. It seemed to me from the diagram in the paper it was an essentially reasonable suggestion.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, I understand the noble Lord's meaning very well and it is very well expressed. 124 Certainly that will be considered, but I cannot promise what conclusions may arise from the consideration.
§ LORD CONESFORDMy Lords, when my noble friend is considering the question of speed limits and so forth would he consider what I believe is the practice in America, where I understand that on wet days or other occasions when a great speed is dangerous a notice is put up, presumably by the police, stating what the maximum speed is to be? If that is what is done in America where they have considerable experience of these roads, it might be a matter for study here.
§ LORD CHESHAMMy Lords, we endeavour not to overlook the experience of other countries anywhere, but I still at the moment adhere to my original view, that there would be great practical difficulties certainly in warning drivers of variable speed limits in varying conditions.