ROAD TOLL

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Venning:

That this house:

(a) notes with concern, the continuing road toll in South Australia and urges a full investigation into the reasons and causes why so many South Australians are losing their lives;

(b) instructs the government to publish statistics to indicate to what degree road conditions, speeding, alcohol, drugs, fatigue and age profiles of drivers and the type of vehicles contribute to these accidents and fatalities; and

(c) condemns the government for taking the credit for the previously reduced road toll in 2008 and for failing to take effective measures to curb it further.

(Continued from 24 June 2010.)

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:40): I will continue my remarks that I started last week in relation to the road toll. An investigation into the reasons and causes that so many South Australians lose their lives on the roads each year must be undertaken so that strategies and measures can be put in place to lower the number of accidents and fatalities. I know that police investigate fatal accidents, but I believe that more information about the causes of such accidents should be made publicly available soon after the accident occurs.

There is a need to look at what factors contribute to fatal crashes, not only alcohol, drugs and speed, but the road conditions, fatigue, the age profile of drivers and the types of vehicles involved in fatal accidents. I know that some of these details are outlined on the Department of Transport website and also on the SAPOL website, as well as being replicated on the Motor Accident Commission's website.

However, the statistics are not very specific. The age and sex of the person involved is quite clear, but other details such as the type of vehicle are not, and some statistics are only presented as a percentage over a whole year. For example, the South Australian Police website states that 'in 2009, 35 per cent of people who died had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.05 per cent or higher'. I think such information should be released on an accident by accident basis, not as an average over the whole year. I know and realise the sensitivities involved here, so maybe it could just be said to be driver impairment.

The type of vehicle and the road conditions should also be made public, not just whether it was a four-wheel drive or a sedan but whether it was a high-powered supercharged V8 or a turbo charged sports car. Was the road full of potholes or the verge crumbling and falling away? I believe it is important to release all the details that contribute to a fatal accident.

At the risk of being controversial, I believe that too much emphasis has been put on speed only and not on other contributing factors as well. The compilation and publication of statistics and data indicating what factors contribute to fatal accidents would assist the public to be more aware of the causes behind road deaths and may result in altered driving conditions and behaviours and, therefore, prevent more fatalities in the future.

It would also assist the government by highlighting areas that need more focus so that targeted measures—legislation, driver education programs and whatever—can be implemented to reduce the toll. For example, it is interesting to note that the age group that is over-represented in our state's fatalities at the moment is 40 to 49 year olds, an age group that you would not traditionally think would be the highest level of fatalities.

Mr Pederick: I'm in it.

Mr VENNING: The member for Hammond says he is in that, so let the member be warned that, statistically, he is at high risk. I do not know why this aberration is there, I have no idea, but it ought to be explained to us why it is and how it happens. Is there any correlation between this and younger driver behaviour? When you think about it, many learner drivers would be taught by drivers in the age bracket of 40 to 49. Are our young people getting the best driver education by being taught by these people?

Mr Pederick: Absolutely.

Mr VENNING: Are they learning bad habits? 'Absolutely,' I heard the member for Hammond say. In 2008, the road toll was reduced to 99 deaths for the year, a result the Rann Labor government took much credit for. However, it rose again last year to 119, and the number of deaths so far this year leads to predictions that the road toll will again be near 110-120 fatalities, which is pretty sad indeed.

There is a need for the Rann Labor government to take further measures to curb the road toll. The Motor Accident Commission recently called for its own road safety curriculum for schools, as a large proportion of deaths on South Australian roads are of young people. However, the Rann government's response to this has been to say that it will expand the existing Metropolitan Fire Service's Road Awareness and Accident Prevention Program so that 90 per cent of year 11 students undertake the program, compared with 44 per cent currently. The Rann government has not given any time frame for this expansion.

I think the German experience is something that we could learn from. In Germany, learner drivers are taught to handle cars at speed, and they practise driving on their autobahns, with up to 130 km/h speed limits on them, before they obtain their licence. European governments are also channelling more resources into making their roads safer, especially divided highways. In South Australia, we should be spending much more on dualling our troublesome busy highways—absolutely. The road to Victor Harbor should be a dua highway, at least as far as Mount Compass in the short term, so should the Sturt Highway (eventually all the way to the state border) and Port Wakefield Road to at least Port Pirie in the short term. The Dukes Highway from Murray Bridge to Bordertown should be dualled immediately.

You can see what is happening as they open up the Northern Expressway at the moment. The new dualling is just fantastic, and I congratulate all those involved. It is so much safer because you cannot run into cars coming the other way, because there is a piece of land between you and the oncoming cars—and these highways are busy. The question remains: is too much emphasis put on speed alone and not more on these other factors? Does this government care more about placing cameras in areas for revenue raising to fill its coffers than they do about implementing other measures that would have an impact on reducing the road toll?

There is a strong opinion out there that this is the case. I believe that all money raised from speeding fines should be directed into road safety. Surely that makes sense. New strategies and measures need to be implemented to reduce the road toll, as the current measures are clearly not working at all, yet the Rann Labor government has failed to implement any new initiatives that may result in a reduction in road deaths.

I was moved to move this after driving to Adelaide the other day. Coming through Clare, in the 80 km/h speed area, I noticed a police car on the other side of the road had picked up a driver—the flashing light was going. Of course, I automatically slowed down. I was driving at the speed limit, anyway, but you do that automatically. It was not 30 seconds later, when this car came up behind me and screamed past me like I was standing still. It was a Subaru WRX, and the age of the driver was 16 or 17. What sort of a brain is that, with a police car just down the road?

It really upset me. I should have taken the number of the car. There is another statistic waiting to happen. It is just all about driver education. Lads like that should not have a car like that. They are showing off because they have got this invincible attitude: 'It won't happen to me'. When I first came into this house, I was lucky enough to represent the Port Broughton area. The Port Broughton secondary school had a motor car on campus, and all the students undertook driver training from a professional driver training instructor. I think we should see that idea returned.

I wanted to raise these matters, because we have a fight here. It does cross the political line. We are trying to address this, but we are losing the battle. More and more of our young people are losing their lives. The cost to the community, the state and the government as a result of this loss of life is a massive amount of money. If we decided to put more money into our road infrastructure, we would certainly save that money. It would be a commonsense move.

We would all appreciate being able to drive safely on the roads. When a car is being driven along a road, you just presume that that person is in control of the car, it is a roadworthy car, the driver is not drunk or under drugs and will not hit you or your family. I urge the parliament to consider this motion. It is not a moved along a political line at all; it is common sense, and I hope that you will support it.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (12:49): I will speak very briefly because it would be good to have this motion dispatched. The first point to make about the road toll is that, while in recent years the road toll has fluctuated—going down to under 100 a couple of years ago, but recently climbing back up again to the 111 mark, which is disappointing—one has to keep in mind that, when this government came to office, the road toll in 2002 was 156. So, what we have seen in the eight years of the Rann government is a 30 per cent reduction (about a third) in the road toll—a massive reduction. If the member for Schubert had done his homework, perhaps he might have realised that.

The reduction in road fatalities is one of the things that this government can point to as one of its greatest achievements. That achievement has not come about from the government sitting on its hands and doing nothing. It has come about because the government has been willing to introduce a number of important reforms which, in the face of criticisms from the opposition, the government has pushed ahead with and which have resulted in serious reductions in both the number of fatalities and the number of serious injuries on the road.

In the past five years South Australia has had the greatest average annual decrease in the number of fatalities of any state—a 5.3 per cent decline. This decline is in the face of ever increasing numbers of road users. So, we have a greater number of road users, yet we are still able to achieve a reduction in fatalities. Although the figures for 2009 showed an increase in fatalities, there was a reduction in serious injuries in the previous year. It is important, when looking at the road toll, to focus not just on the fatalities but to look at the whole picture and keep in mind the number of serious injuries.

Since 2000, serious injuries have decreased each year, except in 2006 and 2007. In 2009 the total reached 1,101, a 10 per cent decrease from the 2008 total and the lowest yearly total of serious injuries since systematic recording began in 1968. If we think about the amount of traffic that would have been on the roads in 1968, it is amazing to think that we have the lowest number of serious injuries on the road. Despite probably a quadrupling of the number of road users, we have a huge reduction in the number of serious injuries.

Regarding the points made by the member for Schubert about data being produced, all of this information is already available; it does not require a direction from this house to the government. The Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR) undertakes research on a variety of road safety issues, and I commend the CASR to anyone interested in the issue of road safety. We are very lucky to have that unit here in South Australia, and a range of reports have been published and are available on the CASR website. It is the only research organisation in Australia that conducts 'at scene' crash investigation, enabling the collection of crucial data about the causes for crashes for in-depth investigation, and reports of these in-depth investigations are available on the CASR website. If the member for Schubert googles the Centre for Automotive Safety Research, he will find that his motion is entirely redundant.

The other information the government produces is through the Department of Transport, Energy and Infrastructure. Up-to-date fact sheets, monthly reports and road crash fact booklets are available on the DTEI website, including the road safety progress report published by DTEI each quarter. I commend to members that information, which is readily available. We do not need a motion in this place directing the government to produce data that is already readily available. One only has to hop onto the internet, google the Centre for Automotive Safety Research, or look on the DTEI website, and one will find that all that information is readily available.

With regard to the road toll, sure, in the last couple of years we have had unfortunate increases. It will be nice to get the road toll back down to under 100, as it was a couple of years ago. That was a proud achievement of this government, and I pay particular tribute to the Hon. Carmel Zollo, who was minister at the time, and to the work of the Road Safety Advisory Council as well. A lot of the initiatives they put in place were responsible for an all-time low in the road toll. It is unfortunate that the road toll has crept back up, but even so it is still significantly lower than when this government came to office in 2002.

My other message is to look at not only the road toll but also serious injuries as they are a good indicator of what is happening out there on the roads. This government has been prepared to take tough action—difficult political action—to make sure that our roads are safer and that fewer kids, fewer young people, fewer adults are killed and harmed on our roads. That is why I say that this motion should be resoundingly defeated in the chamber.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:54): I would like to make some comments in relation to this motion. As the Minister for Road Safety has pointed out, the road toll is tragic—the loss of any life on the road is tragic—but it is now less than a third of what it was 20 years ago. It would be great to get it down to zero, but that is a challenge. While it is still significant in terms of personal tragedy it has dropped dramatically. I believe that is because people in the main have been wearing seatbelts. For some reason which escapes me, some people, particularly in rural areas, do not wear seatbelts; I cannot understand why.

The other important issue is that modern cars are better designed. Sadly, South Australia has the oldest car fleet in the nation outside Tasmania. In particular, many young people are getting around in cars which should have been pensioned off. I have argued to the federal government that we should follow the German, French, British and, in part, American experience of assisting people on low incomes to update their motor vehicle because it will help to save lives.

In relation to the question of painted speed limits on roads, I have spoken informally to the minister about this. In New South Wales they have had it for 20 years. I met the head of the road safety section of the Roads and Traffic Authority (Michael de Roos), who said that it is not a problem for motorcyclists over there. It does provide information. It is on the road surface. They are not everywhere because they cost about $1,000 each and last about seven or eight years. He said that motorcyclists in New South Wales have no problem with the speed limit painted on the road, but what they do not like is the full cover of the road near crossings and schools—but that must happen.

There is no mention in the motion of pedestrians and cyclists. I would like to see the Motor Accident Commission fund a reflective singlet or reflective armbands to give to cyclists. Apart from the tragedy of a cyclist being killed, the cost to the community is about $1 million for every road death. In relation to pedestrians, I think there needs to be a review of pedestrian crossing light times. If people have to wait, they do not wait but, rather, cross—and that is incredibly dangerous. I ask members to try the crossing in Grenfell Street near Adelaide Arcade and other crossings around the city and they will see that people do not wait because they have to wait too long. We need better roads. Some of the separation of carriageways can be done relatively inexpensively, using the steel cable (as is being done in parts of the state). I think that is a good move. A lot of other initiatives are happening in that regard.

I am very sensitive about this issue because my nephew was killed by someone speeding. Up until the allegation in 2008—and I won't go into detail—I had never had a speeding fine, demerit point loss or accident while driving since the day I turned 16. I take this matter very seriously. I believe that, while there has been a reduction in the number of people killed on the roads, it is a work in progress—and I am sure the minister would agree with that. I think there are some things we can do, including better driver training. Too often people blame the roads when, in reality, it is the person behind the wheel.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:58): I thank members who participated in the debate and, in particular, I want to address the issues raised by the minister in relation to what has happened and how the road toll has fallen. We can do a lot with figures. Many would say that the road toll has a lot to do with statistical aberrations; in other words, acts of God and things that just happen. People are people and they make mistakes, so things will always happen. We should do anything we can to make it better and safer for people.

I remind the minister that he was a bit liberal in what he was saying. Who introduced the first drug law into this place? I did—or at least I intended to—and for almost two years the government denied the house passing the drug law. Eventually, they did defeat it and then a few weeks later introduced their own bill. We could have had drug laws in this state two years before we did. Liberal governments over the years have consistently outspent Labor governments on the road network. I will give the former Bannon government an accolade—

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Madam Speaker, I assume the house will allow the matter to be resolved beyond 1pm by the order of a few minutes. I do not know what the technical motion would be.

The SPEAKER: Member for Schubert, one minute.

Mr VENNING: I thank the honourable member. I remind the house that Liberal governments have consistently outspent Labor on our road infrastructure. Also, I have accessed information on the internet, and you see that too many young people are killed. The data is there but it is not specific. I want to see data after every accident, specifically showing what happened in that accident. Anything we can do has to be agreed to and I ask the house to support the motion.

Motion negatived.

[Sitting suspended from 13:01 to 14:00]