§ 60. Mr. E. L. Mallalieu
asked the Minister of Transport to make a statement upon his regulations concerning uncontrolled zebra crossings, in view of the decision of the Divisional Court in Leicester v. Pearson.
§ 62. Dr. Stross
asked the Minister of Transport whether he has noted the implications arising from a recent decision in the Divisional Court of Queen's Bench, in the case of Leicester v. Pearson; and whether he will redraft the Pedestrian Crossings (London) Regulations, 1951, so as to avoid any dubiety as to the absolute rights of pedestrians on zebra crossings.4W
It is the duty of the driver of a vehicle to give way to a pedestrian at an uncontrolled crossing if the pedestrian is on the crossing before the vehicle or any part of it has come on to the crossing. The decision of the Divisional Court in Leicesterv. Pearson does not affect this duty of the driver, and I do not think that there is any need to amend the Pedestrian Crossing Regulations.
§ 66. Mr. Langford-Holt
asked the Minister of Transport what consideration has been given to the use of "cats eye" studs on zebra crossings.
This point was carefully considered by the Committee on Traffic Signs which reported in 1944. They recommended that reflecting studs should not be used for this purpose. Their reasons are, I think, sound.
§ 67. Mr. Langford-Holt
asked the Minister of Transport whether he is yet able to assess the effect of zebra crossings on road accident figures.
Zebra crossings have almost certainly reduced pedestrian accidents. In the first nine months of this year pedestrian casualties were about 3,000 less than in the corresponding period of 1951, a decrease of 7¼ per cent.