SPEED CAMERAS

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Venning:

That this house establishes a select committee to examine the use and effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed measuring devices used by South Australia Police.

(Continued from 9 March 2011.)

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:50): I will be brief because I know that other members have other matters that they wish to address. The first point I make is that you must have a system of monitoring road behaviour, otherwise people will do whatever they like, when they like and with serious consequences. I understand the government will oppose this. I think select committees have an important role because they give the wider community a chance to have an input. It is also an educative process for members of parliament.

My view is that speed cameras and other speed measuring devices, including lasers, are accurate if they are used according to manufacturers' specifications and in accordance with proper standards. I will seek to address some of those issues through separate measures in this parliament shortly, so I do not need to canvass them now.

I point out to members that the Queensland parliament has recently concluded a very thorough study of fixed cameras. That report is available online. It is incredibly comprehensive and covers every aspect of fixed cameras/speed cameras that has been examined, I think, anywhere in the world. I would urge members interested in this topic to have a look at that report because it covers a lot of the points that the select committee would look at.

It is a pity that the government is not going to support this, as I understand it, because I think there is merit in looking at issues from time to time. Certainly, these devices bring in revenue but they also help curtail speeding on the road and, therefore, save lives. The critical issue is that they are used properly, transparently and according to proper standards of the manufacturer and in accordance with other standards, such as the Australian Standards.

Mr ODENWALDER (Little Para) (11:52): We all know that speed is a major contributing factor to the state's road toll and dramatically increases the likelihood of being involved in an accident. The state government consistently urges drivers to slow down through ongoing road safety campaigns. Yet it seems to me that the opposition is seeking to undermine SAPOL's speed enforcement strategies by attacking them as revenue raising. It is a political campaign which undermines the simple message that drivers need to slow down and drive safely.

I understand that this motion came about from a research assignment done by an intern in the member's office. I make no reflection on their research work except to say that if the opposition wanted a report into the effectiveness of speed cameras they need only have visited the Adelaide University's Centre for Automotive Safety Research, which confirms that speeding is dangerous and that speed cameras are effective in reducing casualty crashes.

The report of the Centre for Automotive Safety Research shows, among other things, that: for every five kilometres over the 60 kilometre speed limit the risk of causing an accident doubles; the reduction of the speed limit from 60 to 50 km/h has saved lives and reduced casualty crashes on our roads; and a thorough speed detection regime, using both fixed and covert speed cameras, provides a general deterrence for motorists to speed and reduces casualty crashes.

It is a fact that speed cameras save lives. This government has no intention to revisit the substantial body of science that supports this view. The government has based its road safety policy on the advice of road safety experts, yet some in the opposition continue to cast doubt on SAPOL's speed detection regime and frequently complain that the placement of speed cameras is solely about revenue raising.

It is my understanding that members of the opposition have been briefed many times on the placement of speed cameras. Speed cameras are deployed in accordance with established SAPOL policy as part of the strategy to reduce speed-related fatal and serious injury crashes and to establish a firm base for long-term change in driver attitude to speeding. SAPOL's traffic intelligence branch identifies the locations to deploy speed cameras. The following factors are considered when installing speed cameras in specific locations:

whether the location has a crash history;

whether the location contributes to crashes in other nearby locations;

where intelligence reports provide information of dangerous driving practices associated with speeding; and

whether the physical condition of a location creates a road safety risk.

Speed contributes significantly to the extent of trauma suffered by victims of road crashes and even small reductions in average speeds can result in substantial reductions in deaths and injuries

Road safety is everyone's responsibility and SAPOL will, with the support of this government, continue to work in a coordinated effort with the community and its partners to ensure that this message gets through. This government is committed to reducing the road toll and crash injuries by maintaining speed cameras and, through road safety campaigns, urging motorists to slow down.

There is a culture among some drivers that it is acceptable to drive a few kilometres over the speed limit but, as the research has shown, this greatly increases the likelihood of causing an accident. In order to change driving behaviour, the government runs the Stop Creeping campaign to remind motorists that creeping over the speed limit is dangerous and dramatically increases the likelihood of causing a serious accident.

SAPOL has also reduced the tolerance levels at which it issues an expiation notice for speeding, so that motorists are more likely to be fined for low-level speeding offences. This is entirely appropriate, because creeping just five kilometres over the speed limit dramatically affects the force at which a car hits another vehicle or a pedestrian when they are involved in an accident.

With regard to the claim that speed cameras are about revenue raising, SAPOL's 2009-10 annual report shows that expiation revenue, which includes fines from red-light cameras and other offences, was $76.4 million. To put that figure into context with the state budget, expiation revenue collected by SAPOL represents just under half a per cent of South Australia's total revenue of $15.5 billion. By comparison, SAPOL's annual budget is $693 million.

The opposition also fails to acknowledge that all speeding fine revenue goes towards road safety programs through the community road safety fund . As has been said before, if speeding fines are a tax they are a voluntary tax, and the government would be happy not to collect if it meant that motorists stopped speeding. Not only would lives be saved but motorists would save a fortune on their compulsory third-party insurance premiums.

Any campaign to discredit SAPOL's speed detection regime is, I believe, irresponsible and undermines attempts to encourage a safer driving culture in our community.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mr Pederick.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Can I move that the time allotted for orders of the day under private members' business be extended by five minutes to allow consideration of the Berri hospital development?

The SPEAKER: Member for Fisher, no, it is not possible for you do that. You would have to do it by suspension of standing orders and I am not sure that you have the support of the parliament for that.