asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he will, in constructing new dual-carriageway roads, better the standards in force before the war as to width, camber, gradient, and radius of curve.

Recommended standards for width and radius of new roads are now higher than before the war; so are those for super-elevation and vertical visibility. Standards for camber and gradient remain at present the same.

Is the Minister aware that there is a tendency in these new trunk and ring roads to allocate far too high a percentage to pavements and grass verges which, in fact, is a waste of carriageway and also of agricultural land, both of which we need in this country?

It may well be so, but that supplementary, I think, relates to the previous Question.

asked the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation whether he is aware of the waste of land and money involved in the provision of cycle tracks as well as footpaths on each side of the pre-war dual-carriageway roads; and whether, in any new programme for the extension of such roads, he will, in appropriate areas, provide for a single track in each direction for both cyclists and pedestrians.

For the sake of economy in both land and money, the overall widths of dual carriageway roads are kept to the minimum necessary to serve the needs of present and anticipated traffic. To combine cycle tracks and footpaths where these are necessary would not be in the interests of road safety.

Mr. Orr-Ewing:

Will the Minister look at the height and steepness of the kerbstones on the centre part of arterial roads? Before the war they sloped and, therefore, they were much less dangerous in an emergency. Now they are vertical and much higher, and obviously they would turn over a car and might lead to much more serious accidents than did the previous design?

I did indicate to the House a few weeks ago that I was looking into this question of the kerb on roads in rural areas, and I hope shortly to complete those investigations.