Road Safety Bill [HL]

I am grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this short but useful debate. I understand the Committee’s interest and concern about the use of retro-reflective tape. I share the interest and concern of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. However, power to regulate the use of the material is already available and therefore the amendment is unnecessary. Previous research indicated the potential for increased visibility to reduce accidents by the wider fitment of ECE regulation 104 reflective tape, but it also highlighted disproportionate cost. The Department for Transport commissioned a new review of the benefits and costs of mandating the use of such material on goods vehicles, trailers and large passenger-carrying vehicles. Its final report, Assessment of the safety benefit of retro-reflective markings on HGVs and buses, was issued on 18 May, and copies are available in the Library. The review updated our understanding of the issue. I hope that the Committee will see that we are being positive about Members’ suggestions. It also updated our understanding of the costs involved in applying retro-reflective tape. It also indicated a more favourable cost/benefit ratio, compared with the earlier research, for the application of such tape to some categories of vehicle. My department will now consider how best, including wide consultation, to take this forward. The issue of mandating retro-reflective tape for all vehicles, as my noble friend suggests, has not arisen before. Any advantages and disadvantages, such as a possible reduction in the ready recognition of slow-moving, abnormal and indivisible loads and their retro-reflective marked escorts, have not been researched. It would be wrong to give guarantees on the basis of so little research. However, the department will keep in mind my noble friend Lord Simon’s view on the matter. I hope that with that explanation he will withdraw the amendment.