House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 May 1992

Hansard

House of Commons

Friday 15 May 1992

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[Madam Speaker-- in the Chair ]

Road Safety

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Lightbown.]

9.34 am

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover) : On a point of order, Madam Speaker. You will have noticed this morning, because it has been well advertised in the press and on television, that Olympia and York has now filed for bankruptcy. You have heard me call at least three times this week for a statement in the House by either the Secretary of State for the Environment or by the President of the Board of Trade to let us know that in no circumstances will taxpayers' money be allocated by the Government to that bankrupt firm. I have never received proper assurances. You will have heard the inconclusive exchanges the other day between me and the Secretary of State for the Environment.

I now call on the Government through you, Madam Speaker, to make it clear that if Olympia and York files for chapter 11 and bankruptcy proceedings, in no circumstances will the Government use taxpayers' money to bail out the company in the Canary Wharf development or anywhere else. We should have a statement here today to make that abundantly clear.

Madam Speaker : That is barely a point of order for the Chair. I inform the hon. Gentleman and the House that I have been given no indication that a Minister is about to make a statement. Those on the Treasury Bench will, of course, have heard what the hon. Gentleman has said.

Dr. Robert Spink (Castle Point) : Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker. I should like to say that the information given this morning by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)--

Madam Speaker : Order. May I give a little guidance to the hon. Gentleman? A point of order must be a matter directly for the Chair. We cannot get into a debate on points of order. I have dealt with the matter now.

9.36 am

The Minister for Roads and Traffic (Mr. Kenneth Carlisle) : I am truly delighted that my first opportunity to open a debate as Minister for Roads and Traffic should be on the vital subject of road safety. It is a matter to which the Government and I personally attach the highest importance, and I know that that sentiment is shared by the whole House.

Road safety is about people. Nine out of 10 casualty accidents involve human error and they are one of the most avoidable causes of human suffering--avoidable, that is, if only people would drive more carefully, obey road traffic law and follow the highway code. We are all

Column 850

road users in one way or another, as drivers, passengers, cyclists or pedestrians, and we all have a strong human interest in making our roads safer. It is of paramount importance to our constituents that they and their families should be able to travel safely on our roads. There is also an important economic interest at stake. Road accidents cost the country a staggering £6 billion a year.

I am committed to our drive to reduce casualties. Even one casualty is one too many, and this is a campaign on which we will not falter. That is why, in 1987, we set ourselves the target of reducing casualties by a third by the year 2000 compared with the average annual level for 1981-85. We are now five years into this programme. There is no room for complancency, but there are many encouraging signs.

The provisional casualty statistics for 1991 have recently been issued. They show that road deaths in 1991 were 13 per cent. down on the previous year and more than 19 per cent. down on the 1981-85 average. Just over 4,500 people were killed on our roads in 1991. That is the lowest figure since 1948 and the second lowest since 1925. It compares with almost 8,000 deaths in the worst years of the 1960s. Let me remind the House that there is nine times as much motor traffic on our roads today as there was in 1948.

By international standards, too, our record is good. Latest comparable figures show that for every 100,000 in the population, there are 10 road deaths a year in Great Britain compared with 13 in the western part of Germany, 18 in the United States of America and 20 in France. Ours is now the lowest fatality rate in the Common Market, but I must stress that it is still 4,500 deaths too many. Every road death is a major tragedy for the victim's family and friends.

Serious injury accidents can be almost as devastating, in many cases leaving those involved physically or mentally scarred for life. It is particularly good news that the number of those fell by nearly 15 per cent. between 1990 and 1991--and 1990 was a relatively good year. For serious injuries, we have almost reached the target with a reduction of over 30 per cent. since the base years of 1981 to 1985. So we are making fair progress on the most serious casualties. However, we still have a long way to go on the overall casualty target, which is only 3 per cent. down on the baseline. That is largely attributable to a growth in slight casualties among car users, which appears to reflect the growth in traffic of more than 40 per cent. since the base years 1981 to 1985.

One may ask whether those dramatically lower casualty figures are really a significant long-term trend or merely a "blip", a fortuitous piece of good luck, which will soon reverse itself. Some have claimed, for example, that road accidents always go down in a recession and will increase as soon as the economy picks up.

Against this, I can point out only that, despite the recession, the level of traffic on our roads has not fallen--indeed, there was 3 per cent. more traffic in 1991 than in 1990. The improvement can no longer be written off as short term. The number of deaths and serious injuries has now fallen in six successive quarters compared with the corresponding quarters of the previous years. So there are good grounds for optimism, although none for complacency.

As I have said, human error is the most common cause of road accidents, so the cornerstone of our strategy to improve road safety is encouraging better conduct by

Column 851

drivers and riders on our roads. We can do this by education and publicity campaigns, but better enforcement and stiffer penalties are also necessary ingredients.

The highway code is an invaluable teaching aid for all road users. We are reaching the final stages of preparation of a completely revised edition-- the first major revision since 1978. The more detailed "Driving Manual", long recognised as a key reference book, has also been completely revised, and a new edition will be published later this month.

Publicity campaigns play an important role in helping to reinforce legislation and improve attitudes and driver behaviour. Our current publicity programme is largely directed at two major areas--drinking and driving and child road safety. I shall have more to say later about our success in changing attitudes to drinking and driving. The child safety campaign aims to reduce the number of children killed or seriously injured on our roads, in particular by encouraging motorists to reduce their speed in urban areas where children are likely to be around. The first child road safety campaign was launched in May 1990. Changing attitudes, and translating those changes into improved behaviour, is a slow process. The campaign must be maintained for a number of years before its full benefit is felt, but research shows that it is already having some effect on driver attitudes. I know that the whole House will support this campaign to protect our children.

The majority of drivers will respond to well-focused publicity and modify their behaviour if they are fully aware of the risks. Unfortunately, though, there is a minority who appear to enjoy taking risks or who are totally unconcerned about the danger they cause to themselves and others. Behavioural research funded by the Department is aimed at improving our understanding of this type of driver. We hope that it will point the way to some positive policies for reducing the risk they pose to themselves and others, but for some, it seems that stiff penalties may be the only answer.

There has been much public outcry about certain cases in which the courts have been unable to impose the highest penalties on drivers who have caused death or serious injury because of the difficulty in proving a charge of "recklessness". That was a central concern of the committee chaired by Dr. Peter North in the mid-1980s, and it recommended that the most serious driving offences should be reformulated.

That has now been done in the Road Traffic Act 1991, much of which was based on the North committee's recommendations. Those provisions will come into force on 1 July this year. The new offences of "dangerous driving" and "causing death by dangerous driving" are constructed in such a way that the court's decision will be based more on the objective standard of driving than on the driver's state of mind. I hope that this will lead to much severer penalties being imposed where the appalling standard of driving justifies that. Another important change the new Act will make is that drivers convicted of the "dangerous driving" offences will be ordered to take a double-length driving test before regaining a full driving licence. Courts will also have the discretion to require a re-test--in the more serious cases a double-length one--where a driver is convicted of other

Column 852

endorsable offences. The longer test will provide more opportunity to examine the attitude of the driver in a variety of traffic situations, as well as driving skills as such.

In looking at the main behavioural causes of road accidents, two factors clearly predominate--speed and drink. Attitudes to drinking and driving have greatly improved in recent years, but we are all aware that speed limits are still widely ignored. Yet, as other causes of accident are gradually reduced, speed emerges ever more clearly as the main killer on the roads of the 1990s.

We have all heard the expression "speed kills", but just how literally true that is was brought home to many people by last year's excellent campaign on the subject, "Kill your speed, not a child". That showed vividly the difference of impact on a child pedestrian of vehicles travelling at 20, 30 or 40 mph--literally it is the difference between life and death. At 40 mph, most children are killed ; at 20 mph, most live.

Research shows that, in between 22 and 32 per cent. of accidents, excessive speed is a contributory factor. Accidents at speed are more likely to result in death or serious injury. It is a sobering thought that it has been estimated that a 1 mph reduction in average speed across the board could save around 8 per cent. of all injury accidents and around 11 per cent. of fatal accidents.

Therefore, it is essential that we have the right speed limits for different classes of roads. My right hon. and learned Friend, the previous Secretary of State for Transport, confirmed in July 1991 that the top national speed limit would remain 70 mph. I am pleased that the Association of Chief Police Officers now supports our decision.

We have recently issued a consultation paper on the guidelines we give local authorities in setting local speed limits on roads for which they are responsible. We are proposing that local authorities should have greater freedom to take account of the environment through which the road passes. That has been widely welcomed, and we shall shortly be issuing revised guidance, taking account of the many comments received.

The main problem about speed limits, of course, is how to enforce them. The Road Traffic Act 1991 has replaced the flat rate of three penalty points for speeding with a range from three to six points, which a magistrates court may impose according to the severity of the offence. That means that, in future, a driver may lose his licence on the basis of only two serious speeding convictions.

The main enforcement problem is catching the offender in the first place. Here, technology can help, in the form of automatic cameras. Some police forces are already using this sort of camera to detect drivers who cross on red traffic lights. It has proved a remarkably effective exercise, not only in bringing offenders to book, but also in deterring others. As these cameras become more widely used, we hope that drivers will regard every traffic light as a potential camera site. That would produce significant accident savings. The legislative changes in the Road Traffic Act 1991 will enable us to take a similar approach to the problem of speeding, and these measures come into effect in July. Evidence from type-approved camera equipment will no longer need to be corroborated by a policeman on the spot. We are hoping for the same sort of success we have achieved with red light cameras, particularly in terms of deterring people from speeding. The acid test will be

Column 853

whether the introduction of cameras reduces speed and accidents. From our experience with red light cameras, we have every reason to be optimistic.

Apart from speed, the other form of road user behaviour that causes an alarming number of accidents is driving under the influence of alcohol. This is not only illegal but utterly selfish and dangerous. Fortunately, the message seems finally to be getting through. The number of people killed in drink-related accidents has more than halved over the past 12 years. This suggests that we are beginning to reap the benefits of years of patient campaigning and education and that the attitude of society is itself changing. But drink-related accidents still account for some 800 deaths, so it is important that we maintain the momentum.

The Government's publicity campaigns alone would not have had such a dramatic effect without the widespread support that they have received. I should particularly like to acknowledge the contribution of the police, who have trebled the level of breath testing in the past 10 years, and of the drinks industry, which has promoted low-alcohol and alcohol-free drinks.

It is gratifying that the general level of driving over the limit is going down, but, as we know, there is still a hard core of heavy drinkers. Some may have a medical dependence on alcohol and should not be allowed to drive at all. The high-risk offenders scheme, which was extended in June 1990, imposes additional medical checks on repeat offenders or those convicted at very high blood-alcohol levels. They cannot regain their licences until they have satisfied the Department's medical experts that they are no longer alcohol dependent.

The Road Traffic Act created a new offence of causing death by careless driving while unfit through drink or drugs. This will carry the same maximum penalty--five years imprisonment--as the offence of causing death by dangerous driving.

Some drink-drivers need help as well as the deterrence of legal penalties. Much useful pioneering work has been done by the probation service and the voluntary sector on rehabilitating drink-drivers and others with a drinking habit that gets out of control. The Road Traffic Act provides a power to conduct a large-scale experiment in rehabilitation courses for drink-drive offenders.

Under this scheme, an offender can earn remission on the period of disqualification by attending and completing an approved course. I emphasise that this is not a soft option. It will require attendance for about 16 to 20 hours, and the offender will be required to pay the course fee. It offers the possibility of bringing about a permanent change in behaviour which cannot be achieved by penalties alone. The experiment will be well worth watching, and I shall do so with great care. It may have wider applications.

For the experimental period, this scheme will operate in certain parts of the country only. If the experiment shows that rehabilitation courses are effective, the scheme will be extended throughout Great Britain. This will require an affirmative statutory instrument, so Parliament will be fully involved in the decision. The experiment is, of necessity, over a long period, so it will be a few years before the debate takes place.

Although I have concentrated on measures to improve road user behaviour, road safety can also be improved by better design of vehicles and roads. These are areas in which steady progress has been made for a number of years.

Column 854

One important recent development in vehicle safety has been the compulsory fitting of speed limiters on lorries as well as coaches. I have already spoken of excessive speed as a major factor in accidents, and the impact of heavy vehicles at speed is particularly severe. For some years now, all new coaches capable of travelling at 70 mph have had to be fitted with speed limiters, and retrofitting of older coaches is, I am glad to say, now complete.

From August this year, all new goods vehicles over 7.5 tonnes will also be fitted with speed limiters, and a retrofitting programme for the heaviest vehicles already in use will end in 1993. This will result in considerable fuel savings and environmental benefits in addition to the much-needed road safety benefits.

Another substantial recent step has been the extension to rear seats of the requirement to wear seat belts which are fitted and available. Rear seat belt wearing was made compulsory for children in 1989 and for adults last July. The combined effect of these changes could be a reduction of at least 100 fatal and 1,000 serious injuries a year. Wearing rates by drivers and front seat passengers in this country are among the highest in the world. In post-1987 cars, rear belts are now worn by almost 90 per cent. of children and almost 60 per cent. of adults. The rate for adults has more than doubled since wearing was made compulsory. It is clear that more and more passengers recognise the value of using seat belts.

Further progress on vehicle manufacturing standards depends crucially on securing agreement within the European Community, since no member state can unilaterally lay down standards which would form a barrier to trade. As we all know, getting agreement can be a long and tortuous process, but the United Kingdom is pushing hard on a number of fronts, and some good progress has recently been made. Although progress on car standards moves slowly, manufacturers could do more at the design stage to improve safety. Consumers are becoming more aware of safety issues, and several large manufacturers are vigorously marketing the safety aspects of their models. Gone are the days when it was said in the advertising world, "Safety doesn't sell".

We intend to maintain this momentum by providing the consumer with safety statistics on makes and models of cars. This week we published the second of our reports on "Car and Driver : Injury Accidents and Casualty Rates" which gives information on how well cars protect their occupants. As more information becomes available we shall follow this up with further publications to assist the consumer in making informed decisions when buying a car.

For vehicle safety, Governments and the Community can only set standards and regulate, but the trunk road network is a direct responsibility of the Government. As well as providing mobility, as roads are the arteries of the nation, the roads programme makes a substantial contribution to road safety. New roads, purpose built to modern standards, are far safer than the ones that they replace. They also make a welcome diversion of traffic away from less suitable, lower quality roads. The scope for accident reduction is one of the factors taken into account in selecting schemes for the national trunk road programme.

Trunk roads carry about 30 per cent. of all traffic, but only about 10 per cent. of accidents occur on them, and the casualty rate on motorways is only one fifth that of other

Column 855

roads. But the volume of traffic is growing more quickly on these roads than on others, so achieving casualty reductions here is a real challenge. We are making a determined effort, and we now require all the Department's new roads to be subject to a full safety audit. Best estimates are that the road programme will save about 80,000 casualties cumulatively over this decade.

On existing trunk roads we have completed a major programme of gap closures. Since the casualty reduction target was set, we have installed around 1,000 miles of central reserve fencing on dual carriageway trunk roads.

However, almost three quarters of all casualties occur on local roads, and I cannot stress too much how we welcome the support and commitment of local authorities to road safety. Following the guidance given by the local authority associations in their excellent code of practice for road safety, almost all local highway authorities have now prepared their own local safety plans setting out the way in which they seek to improve road safety across their whole area of responsibility.

Some of the most impressive casualty savings can be achieved by relatively minor and inexpensive measures to remove a specific source of danger. These are commonly known as local safety schemes. The majority are carried out on local authority roads and the latest transport supplementary grant settlement allocated over £42 million for this purpose. The combined grant allocations for 1991-92 and for this year will allow local authorities to build around 7,700 local safety schemes nationally. They should save about 170 lives and prevent 2,200 serious injuries and 9,000 other casualties in any 12-month period. The same techniques are used to improve black spots on the trunk road network.

A very promising development in recent years has been the specification of a road hierarchy in urban areas to get traffic on to a network designed for vehicles and away from the residential areas where people live and children play. This has permitted the use of design and engineering measures to reduce the speed of drivers on these purely residential roads.

It is estimated that this approach, which was developed by the Transport Research Laboratory, can save up to 13 per cent. of all injury accidents in the areas treated. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Epping Forest (Mr. Norris) is with me on the Front Bench today, because, as the new Under-Secretary with responsibility for these matters in London, he is taking many of these measures forward with his usual verve. I know that he will have much to contribute to this campaign.

Road humps have proved to be one of the most effective ways of calming traffic in residential areas. In 1990, we simplified the regulations to make them easier to introduce and less expensive. More recently, a small legislative change in the Road Traffic Act 1991 will increase the scope for non-standard humps to be approved. There are, however, a number of other engineering techniques for calming traffic, such as chicanes and road narrowings. Until recently, local authorities have been reluctant to use these because of doubts about their legal status. I hope that these will now be resolved thanks to the new Traffic Calming Act 1992, which happily just received Royal Assent before Dissolution.

Column 856

I must pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) who introduced that legislation as a private Member's Bill in the last Session. I am sorry that he is not with us today, but he has given me an understandable excuse for that. Since going to the Department, I have come to realise what a contribution his private Member's Bill will make to safety. It was a tremendous effort to get his Bill through before Dissolution.

Mr. Ian Taylor (Esher) : I entirely endorse my hon. Friend's comments about the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans). I was fortunate enough to be a sponsor of the Bill. However, will my hon. Friend note that many of the authorities responsible for the implementation of these more interesting traffic-calming measures are now claiming that they have problems with resources? Although I am not requesting further Government funding, should not councils give higher priority to the implementation of such schemes, in the interests of pedestrians and other road users?

Mr. Carlisle : My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. As I said, we are giving substantial sums for local safety measures--about £42 million a year. That is ring-fenced, so it has to be used on such measures. Obviously, as we introduce and persuade people to take traffic-calming measures, the input that local authorities have to make is paramount. We shall have to carry this forward with real energy. I assure him that I intend to do that, because I see traffic-calming measures as the most effective way not only to improve safety but to make residential areas better to live in. I pay tribute to the part that my hon. Friend played in getting the Bill through Parliament.

It is also important to try to reduce speed in residential areas, and some of the measures that I have described have been used to good effect in the new 20 mph zones. Some 27 of these have now been authorised, and there are more in the pipeline. All in all, this is solid progress from which we can derive some satisfaction. The improvement in casualty figures from 1990 to 1991 was the best for 50 years. Our road safety record is excellent by international standards, and I have mentioned a number of other measures which are about to come in or are very recent, which should improve road safety even more.

However, we cannot be complacent. With traffic continuing to grow, we cannot afford any relaxation in our efforts. It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Similarly, the price of safer roads is ceaseless activity. I can assure the House that we shall take all steps necessary to achieve the casualty reduction target for the year 2000, and if possible to go even further in reducing this senseless waste of life and limb.

I am particularly concerned at the level of road casualties among young people. Young, newly qualified drivers represent only 10 per cent. of all licence holders, but they account for 20 per cent. of driver casualties. They are involved in accidents which result in 1, 000 road deaths each year. Many young people drive carefully and responsibly, but there are others who consider good driving to be fast and aggressive rather than safe. Some important research is being carried out in this area and in the light of this I shall be looking carefully at what can be done to reduce the unnecessarily high rate of casualties among this age group.

Column 857

I have no doubt that many hon. Members are hoping to take part in the debate and, as a new Minister to this subject, I shall listen with great care and particular interest, and certainly with an open mind, to the points they make. As the Minister for Roads and Traffic, I am already aware that I have inherited a programme of impressive work. One of my highest ambitions is to drive this work forward and to strive to my utmost ability to make our roads ever safer. 10.8 am

Ms. Joan Ruddock (Lewisham, Deptford) : I begin by welcoming you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to your new position. May I also be the first to congratulate the Minister on his appointment to his new post? These debates on road safety have become an annual event, in which the Minister tells the House all the good things that the Government are doing. We applaud proven achievements, but, despite the welcome news that death and injury figues fell in 1991 as compared to 1990, there is a fundamental weakness in the Government's approach. Road safety primarily concerned with the interaction between private cars, cyclists and pedestrians is only part of the general issue of transport safety. Huge sums of money are being spent on rail and undergound safety, two modes of transport with far better accident records than road-borne transport.

Have the Government made any analysis of any overall evaluation of transport safety and the return on moneys invested in various modes? Might it not be the case that such an analysis would reveal that public transport has a far better safety record than the use of private cars and might suggest some new perspectives in thinking about road safety?

Perhaps the new Minister will take more seriously than his predecessor the potential disaster inherent in the predictions that the number of vehicles on our roads will double by 2025. Surely such an increase in road-borne transport would be bound to affect road safety seriously. Surely any objective analysis of transport safety would dictate that there should be a major effort to shift people from modes of private transport to public transport.

I welcome the reduction in road accidents and I hope that the downward trend continues and that all agencies involved in road transport matters are given encouragement, support and appropriate resources to continue that vital work. I note the decrease in motor cycle accident rates and believe that the introduction of compulsory basic training for all learner cyclists, which we supported, must have been a significant factor in that welcome change. I also pay tribute to the industry for its research into design improvments, such as better braking, tyres and suspension.

However, as the Minister acknowledged, the good news cannot hide the fact that too many people are being killed or injured on our roads. I remind the House that last year there were 4,520 deaths in road accidents in Britain and more than 300,000 injuries. We all agree that that level is unacceptable.

Some sections of the population are considerably more at risk than others, and the Government must do more to deal with that. Older pedestrians are twice as likely to be killed on the road as other adults on foot. In 1989, nearly half of all pedestrians killed on the roads were more than 60 years old. Children are also at risk, road accidents being

Column 858

the leading cause of death for school age children. Most shockingly, road accidents are the cause of one in three male deaths between the ages of 15 and 24--a matter to which the Minister alluded in his closing remarks.

As a priority, we ought to be trying to ensure that the message of road safety reaches those young drivers, especially young male drivers--drivers aged between 17 and 20 are twice as likely to have a road accident as people in the 31 to 40 year age group.

Since our last debate, there has been much activity, both by the Government and by others, and most significant is the primary legislation that occupied us last year--the Road Traffic Act 1991, which is relevant and to which the Minister referred. While we strongly opposed part II of the Act, as I shall explain later, we supported the provisions in part I. I agree with the Minister that, once fully implemented, that Act will make a major contribution to reducing casualties on our roads. As he said, the new offence of dangerous driving will be easier to establish, as it is assessed on driver behaviour and not the driver's state of mind.

I am also pleased that there is a new offence on the statute book of causing death by careless driving while drunk. The Minister may not know that we pressed hard for that offence to be widened to include serious injury, but the Government refused to compromise. We also supported another measure to which the Minister referred, the fitting of cameras to catch red light violators and those speeding on motorways. Those are two useful devices which I hope will act as much as a deterrent as a detector. I was pleased to hear the Government's account of what has been happening to red light camera detection, which is already in force.

Valuable though the 1991 Act is, it is deficient in some respects. The main area of deficiency is its omissions. Inexplicably, we once again failed to put on the statute book the introduction of random breath testing. Perhaps the Minister does not appreciate the vital importance of that issue, and the strength of the arguments put by the proponents of random breath testing. Although he has probably not yet had the chance to do so, I hope that he will find time to meet the British Medical Association, the Consumers Association, the Association of Police Surgeons of Great Britain and the National Federation of Women's Institutes--to name but a few--all of which support the introduction of random breath testing. Perhaps the Minister has a more open mind than his predecessor.

One of the problems of advancing arguments is the lack of recent research. I was encouraged to read--I hope that the Minister knows about this--that the Prime Minister ordered studies into drink driving in February this year. Would the Minister tell the House what progress is being made on that study? Drink-driving accidents kill 800 road users each year and injure 20,000, half of whom have not been drinking and driving.

Government research shows that more than 40 per cent. of people who admitted to drinking and driving believed that the chances of being caught were small, and they are right. The chances of detection range from one in 250 trips in some areas to one in 4,000 trips in others. It is true that there has been a reduction in the proportion of drivers killed who are over the legal limit, to around 19 per cent., but the level is still too high and we must not be complacent.

Column 859

Above all, drivers need to be persuaded that the chances of their being caught are high. There needs to be an effective deterrent, and it does not exist at present. Overseas experience, in New South Wales for example, shows that, where perceptions of being caught were low, high-profile random breath testing could act as a powerful deterrent to drinking and driving. Reductions of about 35 per cent. were recorded there, with savings amounting to 20 times the cost of implementing the measures.

Random breath testing, as proposed by the Opposition, involves the establishment of roadside checkpoints where the police can check for excess alcohol. It does not involve giving the police unfettered powers, which could lead to an infringement of civil liberties. It would be a highly publicised, high-profile deterrent, and it has public support. Surveys conducted during the past three years show that 70 per cent. of the public support that measure.

We still firmly believe that the introduction of random breath testing could lead to a sharp drop in drink-driving and could add to the considerable successes which have already been recorded in this country. I hope that the new Minister will have a more open mind on that issue, because it remains critical to road safety.

In our previous debate on road safety, the then Minister approved regulations to introduce the compulsory wearing of seat belts in the rear seats of cars--a measure which we have supported for some time and to which the Minister referred today. He said that the fact that we were approaching a figure of 60 per cent. of adults wearing rear seat belts was a great success, but that leaves 40 per cent.

Mr. Toby Jessel (Twickenham) : Sixty per cent.?

Ms. Ruddock : Specifically it is 58 per cent., and that allows for a 40 per cent. improvement. On every occasion that I have taken a taxi from this place which was fitted with rear seat belts and have fitted the belt before leaving, the taxi driver has told me that, in his experience, I am the only Member of Parliament to do so. If any hon. Members present in the Chamber today can say that they doso--

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris) : I always wear them.

Mrs. Ruddock : The Minister now has the benefit of a ministerial car and may not be taking taxis. Among taxi drivers who come to the precincts of the Palace of Westminster, it is certainly a common opinion that Members do not wear rear seat belts. I urge them all to set the best example and do so consistently.

The Traffic Calming Act 1992 was also passed in the last Session and, as the Minister and I acknowledge that it is a significant Act. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wyre (Mr. Mans) on piloting the Bill so skilfully through its various stages in the House. The Act allows local authorities far greater flexibility to implement measures to calm traffic--to slow it down in urban and residential areas. Together with the Government's recent announcement that local authorities may vary local speed limits and the establishment of several 20 mph zones, there will be a considerable improvement. These measures are particularly relevant to our concerns about accidents to two-wheeled travellers--cyclists and motor cyclists--and pedestrians.

Column 860

Although the figures for those categories have indeed fallen, our record for those modes, unlike car transport, compares less well with that of other European countries. In many other European countries, it is safer, and indeed pleasanter, to walk and cycle. As the Minister acknowledged, one of the principal problems of our roads is excess speed. The Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety reports that work by the Transport Research Laboratory shows that about 10 per cent. of drivers involved in accidents are going too fast for the conditions.

The Minister has said that he will shortly issue revised guidance on speed. Will he look carefully at the PACTS leaflet on reducing road injuries caused by speed? It lists sensible measures, such as changing public attitudes through publicity campaigns and discouraging the high rating given by the press and advertisers of the top speed and performance of new cars. That advertising of the cult of speed is a major problem in changing attitudes. I demand of the Minister that more work is done on that.

PACTS also draws attention to the need to ensure that local authorities are properly resourced to carry out their vital safety work. It is on this point that I should like specifically to address the concerns that we share with the Association of Metropolitan Authorities about recent changes in the allocation of resources for local authority capital expenditure on transport. Only 7 per cent. of those resources can now be spent entirely on the basis of local discretion--the so-called headroom allocation. That has a direct bearing on local authority programmes for street lighting, traffic -calming measures with environmental objectives, locations with accident records and initiatives aimed at improving conditions for pedestrians and cyclists.

Will the Minister look closely at the AMA's arguments for increasing headroom? Will he acknowledge that, if the 1991 level of headroom were to be restored in real terms over the next three years, resources of £220 million would become available in the 1992-93 settlement? Surely the Minister must acknowledge--indeed, this morning one of his colleagues almost pressed this upon him--that resources in this area must be increased and that they have a positive effect on road safety. If he will not acknowledge or be persuaded that resources should be increased, what is his attitude to the alternative approach of changing the balance of local transport capital settlements more in favour of headroom and away from named major projects and earmarked initiatives?

I now turn to a more controversial aspect of transport planning which is highly relevant to road safety in London. I am delighted to see the Minister for Transport in London in his place, because I refer to red routes. The predecessor of the Minister for Roads and Traffic made great play of the reduced casualty rates along the pilot route. There was a 36 per cent. decrease compared with decreases of 12 per cent. over London as a whole and 11 per cent. in Islington as a whole. I welcome those reductions in the casualty figures, but more caution should be exercised in making claims for the red routes. Surveys show an average increase in traffic flows of 8 per cent.--that is, more traffic along the pilot route--compared with a 1.6 per cent. decrease in London's general traffic. The speed of traffic in the pilot area has increased by 12 per cent. in the southbound direction and by 29 per cent. in the northbound direction. A survey by

Column 861

Haringey council shows that the average speed on Archway road has increased from 30 mph, the legal limit on that road, to 37 mph. As many more cars are travelling faster on the roads, it is likely that pedestrians now perceive the roads to be more dangerous, and so exercise greater care when crossing. Although we welcome that greater care and the reduction in accidents, we are afraid that this may be a short -term response and that increasing frustration and difficulties in crossing the road will lead to more serious accidents on these routes. The Government have consistently acknowledged that faster speed is a problem for road safety. Speeds increasing as a result of red routes pose new dangers.

Mr. John Bowis (Battersea) : I am sure that the hon. Lady is right. Will she also acknowledge that the experiment included 17 new or improved pedestrian crossing points, and that that must be an integral part of any such plan? It was on the route she describes, and I hope that it will be on any other routes in London.

Ms. Ruddock : The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I acknowledge that, if a road becomes more difficult to cross because of increased speed and traffic flows, there must be more pedestrian crossings. He will appreciate that, when the Government plan to introduce 300 miles of red routes, such a proportion of additional crossings will undoubtedly become a major problem and will defeat the increased speeds and so on. I am outlining the paradox here for the benefit of the House. It reflects seriously on potential road safety and future problems. The Government are not proposing to give the 300-mile network the same sort of financial support for all the additional measures, such as pedestrian crossings, entry-route treatments and traffic-calming treatments, that are in the pilot route.

Mr. Jessel : Can the hon. Lady please enlarge on that point, because I am not sure that I have understood her clearly? She seems to be saying that, because traffic is moving faster on red routes, pedestrians are more careful and the safety record is improving, but that in future the same pedestrians may change their minds and disregard the faster traffic, so dangers will increase. Why should they?

Ms. Ruddock : All the reports and local surveys suggest that there is a huge amount of frustration in the local neighbourhood as people try to go about their everyday life--shopping and moving about--with a red route crossing through the community. Although there has been an attempt to deal with the frustration and difficulties, by the provision of pedestrian crossings, in the pilot scheme, that is unlikely to happen on the Government's proposed 300-mile network. My other point is that, although at this stage we see a reduction in accidents and more caution, it may be too early to make that positive assessment and believe that it will continue. We all know that, in an accident, the speed of the vehicle is extremely important in terms of the degree of injury that results. As the Minister explained, at certain speeds people are unlikely to be killed. If speed is increased by 10 mph, a pedestrian colliding with a vehicle will with certainty be killed. These are important matters, and I bring them to the House for serious consideration.

Column 862

There is a flaw in the Government's claim to promote road safety and traffice calming when they also propose 300 miles of speeded-up traffic through shopping and residential areas. I am particularly concerned about the effect of the 300-mile network on people with disabilities. I am sure that the Minister's advisers will be familiar with the essential principles laid down by the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation and with representations of the Greater London Association for Disabled People.

Increased traffic speeds and the present lack of provision of pedestrian crossings have a disproportionate effect on the disabled. Will the Minister confirm that the Department does not have figures for the number of pedestrian casualties accounted for by those who suffer from various disabilities? My understanding is that such figures are not available--but if they are, I shall be delighted to know of them.

Will the Minister undertake to examine the question of road safety in respect of the disabled? I raise that in the context of red routes in London, but impress on the Minister the wider concern for the safety of the disabled on all our roads. Is the Minister aware also of the views of the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which suggests a number of key action points to benefit the visually impaired?

The RNIB takes the view that research should be undertaken into the number of accidents involving visually impaired pedestrians and the causes of those accidents. The institute believes that the use of tactile paving and of audible and tactile signals at pedestrian crossings ought to be mandatory and not discretionary. It also believes that the guidelines on the installation of drop curves, traffic-calming systems, and shared facilities should also be made mandatory, not advisory.

As to pavement parking, many organisations argue that the present law ought to be clarified and enforced. Excavations, road works--those famous holes in the road--and the lack of overall maintenance are all aspects which specifically concern the disabled. Unfenced road works present a hazard to us all, but particularly to the blind and visually impared. I hope that the Minister, in the enthusiasm that he must have for his new job, will consider those aspects, to which far too little attention has been paid.

If road safety and care for the environment were at the heart of the Government's road safety policies, they would not be proposing 300 miles of red routes for London. No amount of packaging red routes, giving buses a little more space, or adding pedestrian crossings can disguise that the purpose of the routes is to facilitate through traffic. If road safety were to be put first, a different network would emerge that prioritised buses and non-motorised forms of transport over car users.

Recently, the EC Environment Minister suggested for a club of cities with car-free zones. The scheme, "Cities without Cars", aims at encouraging individual cities to tackle exhaust emissions, improve environmental quality by cutting down on car use and exclude cars entirely from certain zones. There is some interest in those suggestions among local authorities in this country, if not among people in this Chamber. I hope that we will learn in due course of the Minister's response to them.

The EC scheme shows that the debate on road safety ought not to be confined to questions involving collisions between vehicles and between vehicles and pedestrians and

Next Section

Home Page