Road Safety Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 140:"After Clause 39, insert the following new clause—"    ““POWER TO IMPOSE REQUIREMENTS ON TRAFFIC AUTHORITIES AS REGARDS PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT AT LEVEL CROSSINGS (1)   Section 1 of the Level Crossings Act 1983 (c. 16) (which enables the Secretary of State to make orders as to safety arrangements at level crossings) is amended as follows. (2)   In subsection (2)(a), after ““order;”” insert— ““(aa)   may impose requirements on any relevant traffic or highway authority as to the provision, maintenance or operation of any such protective equipment, including the maintenance or operation of equipment provided before the making of the order;””. (3)   In subsection (6)— (a)   for ““the operator and to each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated”” substitute— ““(i)   the operator; (ii)   each local authority in whose area the level crossing is situated; (iii)   in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned,””; and (b)   for ““or local authority”” substitute ““, local authority or relevant traffic authority””. (4)   In subsection (8)— (a)   after ““situated”” insert ““and, in the case of a proposed order which includes a provision under subsection (2)(aa) above, the relevant traffic authority concerned””; and (b)   in paragraph (b), after ““local authority”” insert ““or the relevant traffic authority concerned””. (5)   In subsection (11) (interpretation)— (a)   in the definition of ““protective equipment””, after ““television equipment””, insert ““, prescribed device within the meaning of section 20 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (devices for detection of road traffic offences),””; (b)   after the definition of ““protective equipment”” insert—    ““““relevant traffic authority”” means a traffic authority in whose area all or part of the level crossing in question is or is proposed to be situated or any barriers or other protective equipment in question is or are situated or is or are proposed to be situated;””; and (c)   after the definition of ““road”” insert—    ““““road traffic authority”” has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984””. (6)   This section applies in relation to barriers and other protective equipment provided before, as well as after, this section comes into force.”” The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 140, I shall for the convenience of the Committee speak also to Amendments Nos. 141 to 144. All the amendments relate to the interrelationship between road and rail transport and traffic. The first three amendments relate to level crossings and the final two relate to what one tends to call bridge bashing. They are based on the principle that the polluter or the damager pays, or is responsible. These amendments have been put forward with great assistance from Network Rail. It has received a letter of agreement or support, or whatever one likes to call it, from the Health and Safety Executive, which is clearly very helpful. I turn to the first three amendments, on level crossings and begin with a few statistics. Level crossings account for 23 per cent of the train accident risk on the UK network. That is pretty high. Safety performance has increased very significantly in spite of the increase in road traffic levels, although it has declined recently. The past year has seen 1,800 acts of misuse or abuse by road users of level crossings. Some noble Lords may have seen what I think is quite horrendous video coverage of cars and the occasional coach or lorry, driven by professional drivers, disobeying the red lights, trying to weave through half-barriers or generally contravening the regulations. We need some joined-up management of these level crossings from the UK road and rail sectors. I turn to Amendment No. 140. Virtually every level crossing accident is caused by road vehicles. The consequence of the recent Ufton Nervet accident was that a number of rail passengers were killed, but it was caused by a road vehicle. Amendment No. 140 would make it easier to install road safety measures at level crossings. It would enable the Secretary of State, when a level crossing is required or each time the arrangement has to be modernised or upgraded, to require the installation of red light enforcement cameras, speed detection devices, chicanes, central barriers, or whatever would be judged to enhance the safety of the particular crossing. It would give responsibility for the safety of the highways that go across the crossing to the relevant highway authority. Of course, the technical operation of the barrier, its link to the signalling and everything else would have to stay with Network Rail, but the highways aspect of the level crossing would then be the responsibility of the highways authority, as has happened in many other countries, including the USA. The amendment would require those authorities to make sure that the highway across the railway is designed in a logical and coherent way. There are examples of local authorities putting bus stops 50 yards beyond a level crossing and wondering why traffic jams build up behind the bus when it stops to pick up or let down passengers. At the moment, Network Rail can do absolutely nothing about this, so it is reasonable that the highways authority has responsibility for the total highways aspect of the crossing. Amendment No. 141 is slightly different. There have been occasions in the past when planning authorities have given planning permissions for big developments—housing and occasionally commercial developments—where the main or only access has been via a level crossing. Network Rail has found that it has not been consulted on these permissions and on the potential danger of greater accidents and greater traffic which would be caused on a level crossing. People who work or live in these areas complain that they cannot get across the crossing because it is always shut. The idea behind the amendment is to increase the level of consultation on planning applications which have the potential to affect traffic on a level crossing. That is reasonable, especially if something like a supermarket is concerned. Amendment No. 142 would increase the penalties for level crossing misuse. I have given a few examples; we can give very many more. It is ridiculous that the penalties are so low for a car driving through a red light. To me, a red light is the same whether one is crossing an ordinary road or a railway. The consequence could be the same: you could be killed or somebody else could be killed. It is reasonable for such a serious offence to earn six points on a driving licence. I turn to bridge bashing, which causes endless delays, as many noble Lords will have experienced if they have been on a train. According to Network Rail, 2,343 incidents of bridge bashing occurred last year. The minimum delay is the time it takes to get an engineer to come and look at it; the maximum delay is obviously a great deal longer if the bridge is damaged. But the total train delay minutes is 25,000. That is 25,000 minutes’ total delay to train services spread over the network in a year. If one has experienced it, it is not nice. Amendment No. 143 would increase the penalties for driving into a railway bridge. If you drive into a railway bridge with a high lorry or coach, you might not only damage the lorry or the coach—and even hurt the passengers on the top deck if it is double-deck coach or bus—but you could also displace the tracks of the railway sideways and cause the whole train or several trains to become derailed. If the train is going fast, a very large number of people could be killed or seriously injured. So it is reasonable to increase the penalties for driving into a railway bridge. The last amendment in this group, Amendment No. 144, would require local authorities to consider the installation of bridge protection systems. It is extraordinary that some local authorities apparently oppose this. If you put up a gantry or something similar ahead of the bridge and a lorry hits it, at least it has not hit the bridge. Apparently some local authorities resist this because they might be liable in some shape or form, but surely it is better to have a free-standing gantry or, if possible, a warning system that does not hurt anyone, rather than hit the bridge itself. This would make it easier for Network Rail to require or persuade the highway authorities to consider putting in such protection where it is considered that the risk or frequency of a bridge bash is great. That is a quick run through five amendments. I beg to move.