HL Deb 08 June 1971 vol 320 cc1-3
LORD SEGAL

My 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 what evidence is available of the effects on traffic movement at busy road intersections, of the abolition of the amber light, and whether they will consider this change for an experimental period in certain areas of London.]

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries would not regard the abolition of the amber light as a safe measure. Two experiments have been carried out to evaluate the effect of omitting the amberplus-red signal but in neither case was there any significant change in the total number of accidents; there was, however, greater delay to traffic.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord for that reply. But may I ask him whether he is aware that the present system is working unsatisfactorily in some parts of London; that some motorists try to crash the lights as soon as the amber light appears? Is the noble Lord's mind completely closed to the advisability of trying out the abolition of the amber light, even for a restricted period?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, with great respect, I think I can say that my right honourable friend's mind is never completely closed to anything. We have behind us the experiments which were carried out about nine years ago and 15 years ago, and since those days we have adopted a new timing system for the lights. I take the noble Lord's point about traffic crashing the lights, but that is really a matter of enforcement for the police. It is an offence willingly to cross lights at amber. If we were to do away with the amber phase after red, it is suggested that there would be a greater number of the nose-to-tail type of accidents. Furthermore, there would not be an absolute offence if traffic crossed at red, which at the moment is the case.

BARONESS BURTON or COVENTRY

My Lords, will the noble Lord ask the Minister whether he can do anything to draw attention to the problem of the pedestrian and filtering traffic? Is he aware that, where traffic is almost continuous, because of filtering it is practically impossible to get across the road? And am I not correct in assuming that under, I think, Section 47 of the Highway Code that is an offence?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I think we are getting on to a somewhat different question. But I take the noble Baroness's point and I will look at it.

LORD O'HAGAN

My Lords, is it Government policy, where traffic lights are concerned, to be guided by experiments which are ten years old or older?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, I have explained to your Lordships' House the fact that those experiments did not show any significant danger point. Since those times we have changed the system, and Her Majesty's Constabulary are now happy with the new system.

LORD SEGAL

My Lords, under the changed system will the noble Lord not press for an extension of warning signals allowing pedestrians either to cross or not to cross?

LORD MOWBRAY AND STOURTON

My Lords, this is all a matter of observance of the law. In the big cities we have very good systems, with signs indicating"Do not cross"and"Cross"; and there are lighted-up gentlemen and ladies and signs of that sort. I believe that if people are observant of the law these accidents will not happen.