Road Safety Bill [HL]

I understand the point about the default mechanism, but we are not persuaded that it is the way to move ahead. Amendment No. 79 seeks to insert an additional category of road into Schedule 6 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. The intention is to lower the speed limit from 50 mph to 40 mph on single carriageway roads without a central white line for passenger vehicles which exceed 3.05 tonnes, or are adapted to carrying more than eight passengers, or are drawing a trailer; and for goods vehicles which do not exceed 7.5 tonnes. This would align the speed limit for these classes of vehicles with that of HGVs which are already restricted to 40 mph on these roads. This is a complex issue, as has been brought out in the debate. We believe that it will need more careful consideration in order to avoid potentially imposing additional restrictions for potentially little benefit. On the face of it, the proposal might appear to be attractive from the point of view of improving road safety. However, it would be wrong to reach the conclusion that speed limits should be reduced without, for example, first having some clear understanding about what proportion of accidents on these roads involving these vehicles may be related to inappropriate speed. That information is not currently to hand and no doubt other factors will also need to be taken into consideration before a firm decision can be made on the merits of the amendment. However, I should be happy for officials to engage in a separate discussion with Members of the Committee about the amendment outside the consideration of the Bill. If after further discussion the proposal were to be accepted, the necessary legislative amendments could be made through statutory instrument. I hope that in view of that undertaking the amendment will be withdrawn. On Amendment No. 80 in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Dundee, we come to a call for an annual report on speed limits. I thank him for setting out his reasons for the amendment. However, I am still a little unclear as to whether the report that he wishes to see is intended to cover the trunk road network for which the Highways Agency is traffic authority. The local authorities’ responsibilities in respect of road safety go much wider than speed limits. They are already locally accountable in a number of ways, as the noble Earl suggested. For example, Section 39 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 imposes a duty on local authorities to carry out studies into road accidents in their area and to carry out programmes of measures designed to promote road safety. That is done through a combination of engineering schemes, education, training and publicity. Local highway authorities in England are already required to prepare and submit five-year local transport plans. They are also required to prepare annual progress reports setting out progress against those local plans and targets. The department’s guidance on the second round local transport plans, covering the period 2006–11, also now requires authorities to produce and to publish a speed management strategy as part of their overall approach to delivering safe roads in their area. Traffic authorities determine local speed limits having regard to guidance issued by the department. We have recently consulted on updated guidance which is designed to improve clarity and deliver greater consistency of local speed limits across the country. The updated guidance, which will be published later this year, is intended to form the basis for the local speed management strategies. Local authorities already keep their speed limits under review with changing circumstances. The updated guidance on setting local speed limits is, however, eagerly awaited by traffic authorities and can therefore be expected to lead to more formal reviews as it is implemented on the ground. It would seem appropriate that local authorities’ intentions for reviewing speed limits in accordance with the new guidance could usefully be part of their speed management strategies. To conclude on the amendment, local authorities already therefore have a number of other important priorities, which include work in relation to speed management. We would much rather that the time that might have been spent on compiling a speed limit report, as set out in the amendment, was spent on implementing further road safety measures that will help to reduce casualties. Amendment No. 82, tabled by my noble friend Lord   Berkeley, calls for regulation of cameras. Noble Lords will know that most speed cameras are now operated under the national safety camera programme, which requires the safety camera partnerships to operate under the strict rules set out in the department’s The Handbook of Rules and Guidance for the National Safety Camera programme for England and Wales 2005–06. National safety partnerships consist of local authorities, the police, the magistrates’ court, the Highways Agency where appropriate and other key stakeholders, including the local health authority, to ensure that the safety camera programme operates in the most effective way. Among other things, the handbook stipulates the rules on important matters such as the process to be followed in order that netting off—cost recovery—is allowable; camera deployment criteria; signing; and conspicuity rules—visibility rules. The content of the handbook of rules has been reviewed and strengthened annually since the programme was first established in 2000 to ensure that the programme remains effective. Furthermore, individual cameras are also kept under review by safety camera partnerships as part of their operational case submissions. Camera partnerships must already fully comply with the statutory requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 with regard to speed limits and camera signage. Further regulation of the rules as proposed in Amendment No. 82, would reduce the flexibility to develop the programme to ensure that it continues to be effective in future. For example, it would make it more difficult readily to change deployment criteria—where to place the camera—or rectify any problems, should the need arise. Amendment No. 83, would insert a new clause entitled,"““Traffic signs for indicating speed restrictions at regular intervals””." I understand the concern that may arise from drivers being unaware of the speed limit. However I hope to show that the amendment is unnecessary. Section 85 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 requires the Secretary of State and local traffic authorities to erect and maintain prescribed or authorised traffic signs to ensure that adequate guidance is given to drivers regarding the speed limit on any road. Under that section, no signs are required where a road subject to a 30 mile per hour speed limit is lit by lamps not more than 200 yards apart. The amendment would be to reverse that position and mean that 30 mile per hour repeater signs would be required on such roads. The Secretary of State has power to make directions by statutory instrument for the placing of speed limit signs. Provisions relating to the placing of speed limit   signs are contained in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2002. The TSRGD already provides that repeater signs are placed at regular intervals along all roads. The only exceptions are street-lit roads where a 30 mile an hour speed limit is in force or unlit roads where the national speed limit is in force. As I said earlier, Members of the Committee may be of the opinion that the presence of street lighting may be an odd way to indicate a speed limit. However, as I also said earlier, it has the merit of simplicity. Furthermore, TSRGD requires that terminal speed limit signs must be placed on both sides of the carriageway at the start and end of a speed limit, including roads with a system of street lighting subject to a 30 mile an hour speed limit, except at a junction with a road subject to a higher speed limit, where only one terminal speed limit sign is required. The effect of the amendment would be to place an additional requirement on local traffic authorities to place repeater signs on street-lit roads subject to a 30 mile an hour speed limit. That requirement would significantly increase the number of repeater signs required for our roads. Aside from the sign clutter, which has already been mentioned, and environmental intrusion aspects, there are substantial cost implications related to such a move. Local traffic authorities would be expected to fund additional signing. The department would much rather that money was spent introducing proven traffic-calming measures in areas where there is a history of speed related accidents. Ultimately, a driver should be fully aware that the presence of street lights indicates a road subject to a 30   mile an hour speed limit, unless signs indicate otherwise. In view of that lengthy explanation, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.