As a motorist with a fairly wide itinerary, I am not unaware of the fact that most hon. Members have problem stretches of road within their constituencies, those in urban areas probably more than others. But although I represent substantially a rural area in Suffolk, I nevertheless feel well justified in drawing the attention of the House to the problem which is the subject of this debate. I am most grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for being able to do so.

The stretch of road about which I want to give voice, as it were, is on the A.12, which runs from London to Yarmouth, and I am concerned about the four-mile stretch of road between Ipswich and Martlesham. I hope that by constraining my remarks into a reasonable compass I may be able to make way for the hon. and learned Member for Ipswich (Mr. D. Foot) to endeavour to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, for roads start and finish somewhere, despite the frustrations of getting held up in traffic queues, and this road runs into our big city of Ipswich, which is on the outskirts of my Constituency, if I may invert the situation like that.

As I see it, the A.12 between Ipswich and Martlesham is suffering from two root problems. The first is that it is grossly overloaded. If ever there were a case of a quart into a pint pot, this surely is it, with all the attendant hazards. Secondly, this piece of road reflects a basic defect in the relationship of past development to the road which will make the eradication of accidents extremely difficult. Perhaps for a moment or two I may enlarge on both these points.

First, I should like to refer to the maximum capacities for various types of carriageway specified by the Ministry of Transport. I am particularly glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galbraith) is here to answer this brief debate.

The specification laid down by the Ministry of Transport in relation to two-lane carriageways is, I understand, 6,000 passenger car units per 16-hour day, and yet a recent survey by the county surveyor of the traffic on this stretch of road demonstrated that within a matter of a few months the traffic will build up at certain minimum points to 14,250 passenger car units per 16-hour day and at maximum points on the road to 18,000 passenger car units per day. These figures compare with the advised maximum of 6,000 passenger car units. In other words, they are more than twice in any event and in some cases up to three times the specified safety levels laid down by the Minister.

A word about the defects in past development. I think that I can perhaps best illustrate this by quoting from a report recently prepared by the county surveyor, who said: This section of trunk road has a two-lane single carriageway which has no speed limit throughout its length. There is no proper system of street lighting. There are long lengths of ribbon development throughout nearly all this section. The length through the parish of Kesgrave has residential development in depth on the south side giving rise to considerable right-hand turning movements across the opposing traffic stream at the evening peak period. There are 24 side roads joining this length of trunk road, including one Class I, one Class II and six Class III roads, apart from service roads and numerous individual accesses to the residential properties fronting the road. It will be appreciated that this gives a basic situation which is contrary to the generally accepted principles of road safety, which call for the segregation of development from main traffic routes and the strict limitation of the number of points of access. Those are the two root problems to which I want to draw attention. The situation is not a mere statistical abstraction. Over the past five years the numbers of accidents reported by the Chief Constable of Suffolk on this four-mile piece of road have been 90, 79, 108, 92 and 85 and roughly one-third, in some cases getting on for one-half, of those accidents in each year have involved injury. Each year there has been at least one fatality, in two years two fatalities, and in one year three fatalities.

Hence I suggest that it is little wonder that two petitions, involving signatures in excess of 15,000 persons, have recently been collected quite spontaneously, one by a small newsboy going his rounds on the estates roundabout this road, and submitted to the Minister. Further, we have recently had a public meeting which was very well attended by a keen, attentive audience which passed resolutions asking for the immediate imposition of some form of speed limit and blocking of the access roads.

May I round off my remarks about the bad development and the under-capacity of the road in relation to its usage by referring to the ultimate solution? This is a bypass from somewhere on the Ipswich boundary through to the A.12, perhaps four or five miles to the north-east. I understand that the Ministry was about to indicate the line of this road when the Government, two to three years ago, commissioned the South-East Study and the Vincent Report. Now that those Reports are with us and have cast considerable doubts on exactly which way the area will develop, though develop it will, the bypass has once more gone into the melting pot. We should be well advised to put it on one side this evening and concentrate on the future of the existing road. In proportion as the bypass is deferred so it is useful and important to consider the future of the existing road.

In May, 1961, the Ipswich Borough Council undertook an origin and destination study of traffic on this piece of road. This study demonstrated that, even with a bypass, about two-thirds of traffic would disappear but one would be left with one-third on this stretch of road, which would still be in excess of 6,000 passenger car units per 16-hour day. If one has regard to the 5 per cent. per annum compound increase in traffic, which is what the Minister recognises in design stipulations and is certainly modest by Buchanan standards, a dual carriageway rather than the single two-lane carriageway we now have would be necessary by 1975, even if the bypass were constructed and deflected some two-thirds of the existing traffic.

As the Ipswich borough survey pointed out, it is by no means certain that two-thirds of the traffic would be so deflected, even with a bypass in the immediate future. It all depends in fact on where the junction between the bypass and the Ipswich traffic would be. In fact, if the traffic were to enter the Ipswich area at Tuddenham, the fall would not be two-thirds but one-half. In other words, one would be left with about 9,000 passenger car units on this piece of the A.12 and this, allowing for growth in traffic, would certainly mean that dual carriageways would be necessary, bypass or no, by 1968. I submit that as far as can be foreseen dual carriageways are necessary and would be justified on the existing roads, even if the bypass is not constructed.

The long-term answer is doubtless the bypass, but this is for the future. We must address ourselves to the short and medium term. Here I specially underline the need for a dual carriageway within the next two or three years at the outside commencing and concentrating on the run from Ipswich to Dobbs Lane, which is about a quarter of the stretch with which I am concerned. There are immediate points which require attention. One of these is lighting. Forty-five per cent. more accidents occur in the hours of darkness, and in the period of darkness 50 per cent. of the injuries and 70 per cent. of the fatal accidents occur.

I would like to hear from the Minister that the Ministry is prepared to make the 50 per cent. grant which is customary in these circumstances, in order to get first-class lighting along this stretch of road. I believe that it is customary, but the local authorities are looking for some guidance and initiative in this regard.

Secondly, there is the question of right-hand turns. In 1962 and 1963 the major causes of accidents were right-hand turns across the passing traffic stream, and overtaking. There is a strong case for reducing the number of side roads into which right-hand turns can be made, and also for improving junctions. The junction with Dobbs Lane has been radically improved recently, and at Beech Road and Edmonton Lane improvements are in hand. The Bell Lane junction would require an order from the Minister under the Highways Act, 1959. There is room for a more radical approach, such as the closing of access roads and providing better lay-bys and turning points for the reduced number of access points.

I have mentioned overtaking. Then there is the question of speed. The occurrence of accidents at off-peak periods, when higher speeds are possible, is a strong indication that speed is a factor affecting the number of accidents. I urge the Minister seriously to reconsider the attitude he has adopted up till now, which has led him to impose no speed limit on this stretch of road. I suggest that a 40 m.p.h. speed limit should be considered. Such a proposal would have the complete endorsement of the acting chief constable of the county, who has pointed out that The road between the points mentioned is narrow and there is only room for one line of traffic in either direction. There are at least three points on this road where a motorist appears to have a clear field of vision when in fact the layout can hide approaching vehicles, so that drivers believing they have a clear road ahead start to overtake at high speeds and meet oncoming traffic head-on.2. There are a large number of houses each having a garage, the entrance to which is used at least twice a day, with the resultant danger of traffic turning on to the A12 in front of other high speed vehicles.3. The number of roads on the south side of the A 12 necessitating a large number of right-hand turns and the consequent danger when vehicles travelling at high speeds are unable to pull up in time to avoid a stationary car in the centre of the road waiting to turn right.4. The heavy volume of traffic passing over this road….5. The heavy accident record.6. The steady increase in the population using the road. The acting chief constable says, of the objection that a speed limit would not be respected and would fall into disrepute, that It would be a matter for police to enforce the limit, particularly at critical times of the day. He appears to be quite satisfied. There may be a case for having signs along the road warning motorists that they are approaching a dangerous accident area, and perhaps the prohibition of overtaking.

I want to say a word about pedestrians. There is a pedestrian subway, which is part of the Kesgrave Modern School, and for some time there has been agitation to allow ordinary pedestrians to use it. Apparently the thing is now bogged down with the county education committee, and it will be some time before that committee holds its next meeting to consider its decision in this matter. I suggest that anything that the Minister might be able to do to expedite that on the right lines would be very warmly received in this district.

In summary, this is a shockingly bad piece of road. An ultimate bypass is all well and good, but we cannot hope on hope for ever while being struck down by passing vehicles. What the people in this area want immediately is lighting, a speed limit with adequate signs, and access roads, and, in the not-too-long term, a road with all the characteristics of a dual carriageway.