Road Safety Bill [HL]

I congratulate the noble Lord on introducing a subject that we have not met in recent Bills. I had thought that there was no novelty left regarding road traffic but this is a new concept. The problem is accurately portrayed by my noble friend. Traffic islands serve different purposes. One purpose—it is probably the most important—relates to the defence of the pedestrian. As my noble friend emphasised, it would be odd to settle on uniformity which guaranteed security but which would greatly offend the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, by being far too high for separating traffic. The amendment seeks uniformity whereas the present practice involves variety. I maintain that that is right. Because the islands serve different purposes they should be of different heights. The noble Lord may have seen a number of islands which offend against his principle: they have variety but some are too high for their purpose. I understand his complaint. Whether measured in millimetres, centimetres or inches, could we conceivably settle on one height for traffic islands?