Road Safety Bill [HL]

Perhaps we should have centimetres in Scotland and millimetres in England. That would sort the matter out completely. More fundamentally, I think that the amendment raises serious issues. Traffic islands are there to control traffic but also to protect pedestrians and give them some refuge as they cross the road. Therefore, from my point of view as a pedestrian, the higher they are the better. The high islands are often constructed with something that used to be called a Trief kerb, which is designed to divert the car or lorry wheel back into the road if it hits it. So it is a good safety measure of its own account. You see them in many places, not just where pedestrians cross. If islands are tank traps, it is, to some extent, because people are driving tanks these days—““Chelsea tractors””, SUVs or whatever we call them. Clearly lorries come under the same category in terms of size of wheel and height of axle. You need high kerbs to protect pedestrians against lorries. That is the purpose of an island. If the island is so high that a car hits it, it is better that the car is damaged than a pedestrian killed, which is what could happen if the kerb were lower. I should like to see most traffic islands where there is a serious risk of pedestrians being hurt being increased in height, provided that you can walk through the middle of them without having to step on to them. Therefore, I oppose the amendment, regardless of whether centimetres or millimetres are used.