| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Greg Knight: The Minister is on a roll this afternoon. We have enjoyed listening to him. He has been bold, helpful, and willing to listen to views expressed in the House and the points raised in the debate. Knowing how the Government Whips Office works, I should warn him that he is in danger of being shuffled off to another Department because he is being too helpful to the House.
Before the Minister rose to speak, I wrote on a piece of paper what I intended to say to wind up this part of the debate: the guidance is seven years old, needs updating, is overcautious and restrictive, and the Government should update it. He guessed that that is what I intended to say, and I warmly welcome the fact that we are to get new guidance. I hope that he will put a copy in the Library so that right hon. and hon. Members can see it.
Our main criticism of the guidance that is seven years old is that it leads local authorities to act too cautiously and not to consider innovations that may be suitable for the locality that they serve. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham referred to motor cycles being allowed to use bus lanes. Apart from Bristol, as far as I am aware, there is no part of the country where that is allowed. Although the guidance makes it clear that the decision can be made locally, at the end of paragraph 4.12 on motor cycles, it states:
- "The Department recommends that motorcycles should not normally be permitted to use bus lanes."
5 pm
The hon. Member for Shrewsbury and Atcham (Mr. Marsden) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) expressed concern about the policing of bus lanes where other vehicles are allowed to use them. That should not be a problem given the advent of new technology—digital cameras are better than the earlier analogue ones—and a policy of unannounced and occasional policing. Policing a law by which certain motorists are not supposed to be in a vehicle unaccompanied—for example, learner drivers are supposed always to have a qualified driver with them—does not present a particular problem and, as camera imaging gets better and more buses have cameras inside, this should not be an insurmountable problem either.
The draconian business motion leaves me with a dilemma: should I test the mood of the House or save 15 minutes of debating time to raise issues further down the amendment paper? In the light of the Minister's helpful response and the fact that he is to issue new guidance, which we warmly welcome, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 5
Traffic Lights
'In exercising their network management duty, a local traffic authority (or, in London, Transport for London) shall be required to monitor all traffic lights in operation in their area and shall—
(a) ensure that all traffic lights operate on a traffic sensitive basis during non-rush hour periods;
(b) require that traffic lights are set to achieve the most expeditious flow of traffic and pedestrians at all times they are operational;
(c) require that unless there are good reasons for not so doing that traffic lights at junctions with low traffic volumes operate in amber warning mode in all directions during non-rush hour periods.'.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]
Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Greg Knight: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 8—Network management duty—
'In exercising their network management duty, the local traffic authority shall be required to ensure:
(a) that all traffic lights operate on a traffic sensitive basis during non rush hour periods,
(b) traffic lights are set to achieve the most expeditious flow of traffic and pedestrians at all times they are operational,
(c) that traffic lights give longer green phases to main roads than to side roads and give continuous green phases to main roads during quiet times of the day and night, save where the traffic sensors recognise traffic on approaching side roads.'.
Mr. Knight: I cannot think of a single factor that induces road hypertension more than having to stop at a set of traffic lights at a junction on a main road only for no traffic to emerge from a minor road and no pedestrians to seek to cross. Yet that happens in every city in the United Kingdom every day during non-rush hour periods—it certainly happens on the streets around this building. Traffic lights should be responsive to the flow of vehicles on our roads. If they are not, we end up with unnecessary tailbacks, which are far too common in our urban areas. Indeed, on most occasions when I leave this place at an early hour, I find that I am, along with other motorists, obliged to stop and wait at traffic lights that are showing red, only for no vehicles to cross the junction. There must be a better way of operating traffic lights. Unnecessary red lights add to pollution, add extra time to people's journeys and add to congestion.
Does the Minister know what percentage of traffic lights are capable of operating in traffic-sensitive mode? Wherever new traffic lights are installed or old ones refurbished, there should be some requirement on those responsible to install traffic lights that can operate on a traffic-sensitive basis.
Mr. Redwood: I hope that my right hon. Friend would not limit traffic sensors to new traffic lights, but would want retrospective fitting to take place as soon possible, because many would benefit from it.
Mr. Knight: I agree with my right hon. Friend. I was trying, in the first instance, to find out from the Minister
whether, as a matter of good practice, it is a requirement that all new traffic lights are capable of operating on a traffic-sensitive basis. I hope that he will confirm that that is the case.I hope that the Minister agrees that traffic lights should never be operated in a fashion other than to ensure the most efficient movement of traffic and pedestrians at a road junction. A report that appeared in the Evening Standard on 2 February this year refers to a particular set of lights in London and challenges its readers:
- "Have you found a worse set of lights? . . . Situated at the junction where The Mall meets Trafalgar Square, they are responsible for some of the most notorious tailbacks in town. The reason is obvious to anyone who has sat in the ever-lengthening queue of cars trying to get to Trafalgar Square: they simply do not stay green for long enough."
- "We studied the lights on different working days, at different times, and found: the lights changed from red to green every one minute and eight seconds; the lights stayed on green for only eight seconds each time."
Mr. Knight: I agree. We floated that idea in Committee, and if my right hon. Friend examines new clause 5(c), he will see that it seeks to introduce another innovative measure from the United States: setting traffic lights that control low-density traffic flows to flash amber in all directions at non-rush hour periods, in effect signalling to motorists from all directions to cross the junction with care.
The report in the Evening Standard points out that those particular lights have caused such anger and frustration in the film director Michael Winner that he
- "has pledged to stand for Mayor of London on the single issue of getting them changed."
- "Having just eight seconds for motorists to squeeze through means that they are so frustrated they end up jumping red lights."
Mr. Redwood: On that crucial point, would my right hon. Friend use his considerable powers of persuasion to suggest to the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London that if he took up that popular policy—both on the specific lights at the approach to Trafalgar square and on the more general problem—he would win many votes?
Mr. Knight: I think that if I strayed too far into my conversations with the Conservative candidate for Mayor of London, you would call me to order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, may I just say that in all my conversations with Steven Norris on this matter, I have found him helpful and willing to listen? I think that he will take note of the points made in this debate.
A report in The Daily Telegraph on 10 February last year said:
- "Traffic congestion in London is costing business about £3.4 million a day, according to calculations by the London Chamber of Commerce, and conditions are getting worse. But business analysts point out that the jams are not being caused by more vehicles coming into London. Indeed, the AA's figures suggest there are actually fewer cars in central London now than there were 20 years ago . . . There has, however, been a sharp increase in the number of traffic lights, and in some parts of central London they are now on average only 80 yards apart. In addition, the timing of 170 of the 562 traffic lights in the central ring has been altered to slow the traffic even further."
I do not know whether the Minister has made any studies of the situation in America to which I have referred, but we should be prepared to look at schemes that are in place in other countries, and embrace those that work. I have seen no evidence that the amber flashing system, which the Americans use regularly in non-rush hours, has led to an increase in the number of accidents. I hope that the Minister will be prepared to reflect on that, and perhaps give the go-ahead to a pilot scheme somewhere in the United Kingdom if he does not feel able to accept new clause 5.
I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the new clause, whose sole aim is to reduce congestion. It does not seek to put pedestrians at risk, but has one aim only: congestion busting. I therefore hope that he will welcome it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |