Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 77:"After Clause 17, insert the following new clause—"    ““TRAFFIC SIGNS FOR INDICATING SPEED RESTRICTIONS    In section 85 of Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (c. 27) (traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions), after subsection (4) insert— ““(4A)   Where a road is subject to a speed limit under section 84, regulations made under subsection (1) or (2) shall provide that at least one prescribed traffic sign would always be within sight of a driver if there was no other vehicle on his side of the road.”””” The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 77, it may be convenient if I speak also to Amendments Nos. 78, 79, 80, 82 and 83. On these occasions when we debate road safety matters, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, normally moves an amendment to provide for 30 miles per hour repeater signs on restricted roads. Equally predictably, the Minister resists his amendment. I suspect there are two reasons for that. First, the total cost of doing so could be very high; secondly, the Minister will desire to retain the principle of Section 8 of the Road Traffic Act 1984, which provides for a speed limit of 30 miles per hour on restricted roads. Repeater signs showing 30 miles per hour would undermine the principle of Section 81. But I am not convinced that a high proportion of drivers are aware of the principle of Section 81. I am suggesting that where a road is not a restricted road and it has street lights, the driver must always be able to see the next repeater sign but not necessarily to read it. When driving along a road that has street lights I often have a fright because I suddenly realise that I do not know what the correct speed limit is at that point even though I know the road very well. If my amendment was agreed to and I was driving along a road that could be restricted but I saw a repeater sign, I would know that it was not restricted and that the speed limit would be at least 40 miles an hour. In any case, it would not be long before I could read the repeater sign and I could be confident that I was not exceeding the speed limit. On the other hand, if I was driving along a faster rural road with street lights it would be out of the question for it to be restricted, but what would be the speed limit? My amendment would deal with that problem because I would quickly see the repeater sign. Part of the A1 near Sandy has street lights. Presumably there is an accident hazard there and the road is lit to reduce the number of accidents. This is very welcome. But the speed limit starts at 60 miles per hour and then, presumably when the authorities judge that there is an even higher accident risk, the speed limit is reduced to 50 miles per hour. I am very happy to have that advice as to what is the appropriate speed to drive at because otherwise I might tank along at 70   miles per hour—so I am grateful for the advice—but you can go an awfully long way without seeing a repeater sign. On one occasion I counted 12 lampposts before I saw another repeater sign. I am suggesting that you should always be able to see the next repeater sign but not necessarily be able to read it. This would make it much easier to comply with speed limits where there are lampposts. I beg to move.