Oral Answers to Questions — War Transport. – in the House of Commons am ar 10 Rhagfyr 1941.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport what representations he has received against the removal of the Belisha beacons; and what reply he has made to them?
The only representations of this order which I have so far received came from the Pedestrians' Association. I replied:
With regard to Belisha beacons, no decision has yet been taken, but I have noted the views of your Association. On the other hand, you will appreciate that there are strong reasons at the present time for their being turned over to scrap. We must determine in what way they can best serve the national interest.
Will my right hon. and gallant Friend bear in mind that these beacons afford a measure of protection to young children and elderly persons? Will he bear that in mind, particularly in view of the large number of road accidents?
I am not sure that the beacons serve the purpose which my hon. Friend has in mind. I think the pedestrian crossings do that. The only advantage of the beacons is to show pedestrians where crossings are. I do not think the beacon has any effect on the motorist, who stops when he sees the studs across the road.
It is not proposed to do away with the studs?
Certainly it is not proposed that we should do away with them.
Does not my right hon. and gallant Friend agree that these beacons are a very serious menace to pedestrians in the black-out, and that one simply bumps into them without any warning whatever?
Yes, Sir, I have done that myself.
asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of War Transport whether it is now proposed, in the light of present-day necessity, to remove all traffic-beacons so as to make the material available for war purposes; and whether, in view of the official pronouncement to the contrary on 2nd April, 1941, he will indicate the reasons then obtaining that no longer apply?
It may be necessary to surrender traffic beacons as scrap for war purposes; if and when this is done, it will be done because that use of them will make the greater contribution to the need of the nation.
Was not the position the same last April as it is now, with the exception that labour costs were less than now, and may we take it that the statement made in April resulted from confusion of thought and is no longer applicable?
It is a question of the amount of scrap that is needed in this country, and matters have considerably changed quite recently.