Road Safety Bill [HL]

We have had a variety of views in   our relatively short debate this afternoon. The Government’s road safety strategy recognises the problems in urban areas where speed is a contributory factor in many accidents and injuries, especially to more vulnerable road users. We take very seriously the concerns expressed in these amendments. The strategy therefore encourages the implementation of 20 mph speed limits and zones in the right situation, and has also made a commitment to develop and test practical solutions to improve the safety of main roads through urban areas, which often carry high volumes of traffic but also support high levels of pedestrian and cycle activity. In answer to the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, a restricted road is an urban street lit road. There are 10 mixed priority route demonstration projects under way looking at exactly how this situation can be improved. I would be very happy to speak with noble Lords about where the demonstration projects are around the country. I hope to persuade noble Lords that these amendments are therefore unnecessary. In relation to Amendment No. 67 tabled by the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, and my noble friends Lord Simon and Lord Berkeley, and proposed subsection (2) of Amendment No. 83A tabled by my noble friend Lord   Berkeley, Section 81(2) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 already provides a general power for the Secretary of State to increase or reduce the maximum speed limit on restricted roads by way of order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Furthermore, traffic authorities already have the powers to set a local speed limit through traffic order under Sections 82 to 84 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 where it is appropriate to adopt a speed limit other than 30 mph for restricted roads. Through the Road Traffic Regulation Act traffic authorities also have the powers to introduce a speed limit of 20 mph without obtaining consent from the Secretary of State. The purpose of proposed subsection (1) of Amendment No. 83A is to reduce the maximum speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph on single carriageway restricted roads (urban street lit roads) without a centre white line. The department has no record of how many restricted roads do not have centre white lines so is unable to judge the immediate effect this amendment would have on speed limits. However restricted roads that vary in width may have centre white lines that are interrupted by intervals where there are none because of the different widths. The speed limit would fluctuate between 20 mph and 30 mph. This would be impractical and as such may   not have the full support of drivers, making enforcement difficult. The removal of centre white lines to make the road 20   mph would have the effect of substantially increasing speed limit signing. This may be an unwelcome financial burden on local authorities who may prefer to use this money to introduce proven traffic calming measures at sites where there is a history of speed related accidents. As I have already said the Government encourage the implementation of 20 mph speed limits. Research has shown that 20 mph limits and zones can reduce the number of accidents by two-thirds. However, it has also confirmed that 20 mph speed limits should generally be self-enforcing and that reducing the speed limit from 30   mph to 20 mph with no accompanying traffic calming features only reduces vehicle speeds by around 1   mph. The department therefore recommends that 20   mph speed limits are introduced only on those roads where vehicle speeds are already low, or where additional traffic calming measures are planned as part of the strategy. The existing restricted road network would clearly not fall into this category. There are also problems in that not all safety cameras—or, thinking back to the last debate, speed cameras—are type approved for use at 20 mph. The GATSO camera that currently appears on many restricted roads is for example only type approved for 30 mph and above. Traffic authorities determine local speed limits having regard to guidance issued by the department. We have recently consulted on updated guidance designed to improve clarity and deliver greater consistency of local speed limits across the country. I believe that that is the aim of the noble Earl’s amendment. The traffic guidance also seeks to incorporate important wider factors such as quality of life through, for example, striking a better, more sensible balance between road safety, accessibility and environmental objectives, and taking better account of the needs of more vulnerable road users. It is a fundamental part of that guidance and the local speed limit process that traffic authorities give full and proper consideration to what is the right speed limit for individual roads, based on local needs and requirements and taking into account their wider management responsibilities. As well as improving safety, that also increases respect for, and compliance with, speed limits. As we know, if people see that there is a sensible and considered logic behind the imposition of speed limits on certain roads, they will be more likely to comply. Through our wide-ranging Road Safety Strategy, we are improving the position of the most vulnerable road users. The number of child casualties, as pedestrians, cyclists and car passengers, has been reduced significantly, as has the number of adult pedestrian and cyclist casualties. I hope that, in view of that explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.