Not every day does one stumble upon a discussion as intriguing as this, but I recently had the pleasure of revisiting a particularly fascinating discussion from 1930, which took place in the House of Commons. The topic? The growing issue of neon signage—specifically those brightly colored signs outside commercial buildings situated near major roadways. At the time, these signs were creating a considerable amount of confusion for drivers.
Why? Because they were so strikingly similar to the automatic traffic signals that motorists used to guide them. This led to a heated exchange, where Captain Hudson, the Minister of Transport at the time, outlined the powers granted under Section 48 (4) of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. Under this provision, local highway authorities had the right to demand the removal of any sign or object that could be mistaken for a traffic signal.
In theory, shop neon lights this would help clear up any confusion caused by neon signs in close proximity busy roads. However, as you can imagine, the matter was not as straightforward as it appeared. In the House, Captain Sir William Brass raised a good question: "Who, may I ask, is the judge of what is or isn’t confusing? he asked. To this, Captain Hudson responded that it would be up to the local authorities to make that determination. This raised the question of whether there would be uniformity—would each area take a different approach?
Mr. Morgan Jones, ever the inquiring mind, then asked whether the Ministry of Transport had had enough data on this particular issue. After all, with the rise of electric lighting, surely the Ministry should have research and a policy in place to handle the confusion caused by these bright signs. Captain Hudson, in a polite yet firm response, reiterated that this matter was not within the direct remit of the Ministry. He insisted that it was for local authorities to take the appropriate action, and that his superior was already looking into it.
Yet, Mr. Jones raised another important concern: should not the Minister of Transport take a more active role in ensuring consistency? This is where the debate really hit its stride—should it be left to local authorities to address it, or should the Minister step in to ensure a consistent, national solution to a problem that seemed to be causing growing confusion? Ultimately, Captain Hudson acknowledged that the matter was indeed causing difficulty, though he deferred to the Ministry’s internal discussions for a more decisive plan.
He suggested that the situation would be closely reviewed, but as yet, no firm action had been taken. What is most striking about this debate, looking back, is how such a minor matter—electric signage—could become such an important topic in Parliament. While today we may take these kinds of discussions for granted, it was a time when new technology—even something as simple as new signage—could create a domino effect across society.
If you have any issues regarding where by and how to use Signs & Lights Studio, you can get in touch with us at the web site.
