Page:Report of the Traffic Signs Committee (1963).pdf/80

 296. Since there are some 1,300 authorities responsible for traffic signs as well as 9 Divisional Road Engineers of the Ministry of Transport in England and Wales and a Chief Road Engineer in Scotland, it seems inherent in the system that there should be considerable differences in treatment and efficiency as between the authorities concerned. Another reason for these differences is that despite the central power of Regulations, Directions, memoranda of advice and grants, many important matters are still left entirely to the judgment of highway authorities. While they are told, for example, the exact size of lettering to be used, they are left to make up their own minds as to the frequency with which signs should be erected in relation to traffic volume. They must decide whether a junction justifies the provision of advance direction signs and route confirmatory signs in addition to signs at the junction itself. It is left to them to judge how much signing is desirable in urban areas and what proportion of their roads should have warning lines, lane lines and 'catseyes'.

It is only to be expected that some authorities should be less interested in traffic signing than others, and that they should give it varying priorities amongst their many preoccupations and urgent calls upon an often over-worked staff. Some authorities may be deterred by expense.

By contrast a number of authorities have placed the greatest possible emphasis upon traffic signing as an essential part of traffic engineering and attend to the problem by having specialist traffic engineering units on their staffs. Others take steps to remedy urban clutter, including the contribution made by traffic signs, by inviting civic and amenity societies to advise them upon tidying-up schemes. Others are outstandingly good (or bad) in their attention to maintenance and siting of signs, to the elimination of obstructions (by tree lopping and hedge trimming for example) and to the principle of the continuity of signing.

297. This lack of uniformity in the application and in the efficiency of traffic signing as between responsible authorities has frequently been noticed and criticised in press and Parliament. For this reason proposals have sometimes been made that local highway authorities should cease to be responsible for traffic signs and that what is required to achieve the necessary uniformity in the interests both of safety and the convenience of road users is that all traffic signing should become the direct responsibility of Ministers, who, it has been suggested, should be advised by a committee consisting of leading traffic engineers, representatives of motoring organisations and the police.

But the opposite point of view continues to be voiced by local authorities who tend to complain that Ministers retain too much control over traffic signs. This attitude may be exemplified in complaints about Ministers' control over the erection of Halt signs and, more frequently, over the establishment of pedestrian crossings. These, it is claimed, are entirely matters of local safety which should be left to the judgment of the local Council.

298. Our own observations, as well as the criticisms made to us by the organisations we have consulted, leave us in no doubt of the importance of achieving greater uniformity in traffic signing. Undoubtedly there are at present considerable differences in standards and efficiency which could and should be avoided.

299. It may well be true that if the central control over traffic signs such as is at present exercised over them on trunk roads in the United Kingdom could