ROAD SIGNAGE

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:27): I move:

That this house calls on the state government to implement better and clearer road signage.

I will try to be brief because I do not want to hog—

Mr Pengilly interjecting:

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: The member for Finniss is still in a state of shock. I will try to be brief; I do not want to hog the show. This motion calls on the state government to implement better and clearer road signage. If people break the law they deserve what they get, but I believe you have to have a system of informing people fairly and in an open way about what is required in a particular situation. That is not just a state government responsibility but a local government one as well.

I think we need a complete review by the government of signage in the state. We know that under the Australian Road Rules there are certain specified signs, size and shape and so on, and I do not have a problem with that. However, what I find is inadequate signage, and I will give some examples. On Upper Sturt Road the speed limit was recently reduced from 80 to 60 km/h. I think that reduction to 60 was unnecessary, it should have been 70; but that is a different issue. However, when people come off Upper Sturt Road into Hawthorndene Drive there is one small sign that indicates that it is then 50, and it is in amongst the trees.

If you come into a 50 zone and you are over the speed limit, you cop a whopping fine in South Australia. Now, if you deliberately speed in that zone then you deserve it, but in many situations—as on Hawthorndene Drive—if you are going down to 50 you need to give people fair and adequate warning. I believe that when the speed limit reduces—which can incur a very high penalty—there should be signage on both sides of the road, and they should be large enough and distinctive enough to inform the motorist.

That should particularly apply when you go from 110 down to a lower speed, 80 to 60 and whatever. I notice other states do it, but we do not: for example, they will say '60 speed limit ahead' or '50km speed limit ahead'. We do not do it here, and I do not know why the government does not do it. If you are forewarned you are forearmed and more likely to obey the law. There are a few idiots out there, but I do not believe that most people go out there with the intention of breaking the law, but they get caught out because of inadequate and inappropriate signage.

To give other examples: with the main road at Blackwood they have confirmed part of it is a cycleway, which is fine, it is good. But at the start of the cycleway it says 'Cycleway at all times', but it does not say that the whole length of the cycleway. Further down you have a cycleway that operates on a restricted time basis. People may think that they will pull up in front of the hardware store, not realising that it is a cycleway 24 hours a day and there is a very heavy penalty if you park or stop in it. If you park in it, knowing that it is a cycleway 24 hours a day, you are an idiot and deserve the penalty. But it is unfair to tell people at the start of a cycleway that it is at all times because people may enter that road further down and not know that it is a 24-hour cycleway. It should be on each of the signs 'Cycleway at all times'.

That extends to parking provisions, and the Holdfast Bay council is one offender, but not the only one. They have signs that do not indicate clearly that the sign applies 24 hours a day. It is not unreasonable to expect that the council would have one hour and that it would indicate when that applies. To ping people at two o'clock in the morning when they think the sign might have applied 9 to 5 or was a limited loading zone is a sneaky practice by councils, and it comes back to the basic point of not adequately informing people. I urge the government to have a complete look at this issue and also to look at the question of painting speed limits on the roads in some situations, not all.

The argument trotted out here is that it is dangerous for motorcyclists and cyclists, but that is not supported by evidence from around the world or from New South Wales, where they have been doing it for 20 years. We have across the road painting before a railway crossing. If that is dangerous, why do it there? If it is so dangerous having paint on the road, why have a centre line because someone will skid or whatever. It is an absolute unsubstantiated bit of nonsense trotted out here.

The reason the government does not want to do it is because it does not want to spend money telling people what the speed limit is. You do not have to do it in all situations. You do it particularly where you are coming down, for example, from 80 to 60 or coming into a shopping zone where it might be a lower limit. A motorist is trying to judge distances behind the car in front. They are trying to look at all sorts of things and there can be a sign on the side of the road, if you are lucky, maybe on both sides if you are even luckier, but why not, in situations where there can be ambiguity or vagueness, paint the speed limit on the road?

I have ridden a motorbike and I know they are dangerous machines, but if you have a numeral painted on the road that will not contribute to a motorcyclist having a crash—that is absolute, utter nonsense. We have markings in the lead-up to schools and in the lead-up to railway crossings. We also have other issues in terms of signage that need to be addressed. I am not, as I emphasised at the beginning, trying to encourage speeding or breaking the law, but trying to bring about the opposite. If you do not give people adequate information well in advance of the situation, then I think that is not being fair and reasonable to the public.

The other aspect, which is not related to speed, is adequate information leading into major road intersections. At many intersections in the South Australian metropolitan area there is not enough adequate warning. I do not know how a tourist would get on. I do not go out to the northern suburbs and north-eastern area very often and you can get caught out because at some intersections you need to get into a particular lane if you are going to turn left or right, or whatever. You need advance warning.

As I say, a motorist is trying to do the right thing and obey the speed limit and not get too close to the car in front, and all those sorts of things, but they need to know in advance whether to get into the right or left lane, or whatever. There are plenty of examples around town, and I am surprised the traffic engineers have not cottoned onto this. How a tourist would get around Adelaide, I do not know, but if you do not have early warning you are likely to increase the accident risk because people will be making inappropriate decisions at the last minute because they are not sure whether to go right or left.

I have mentioned before that if you are on South Road and want to go up Shepherds Hill Road, there are two right-turn lanes and, if you get into the one that is closest to the kerb, you will end up in Flinders University. It does not tell you beforehand. It should say something like 'Flinders University, right lane'. I know because I live in the south, but people get in that lane and think, 'I want to go up to Blackwood and I have to get in the left lane,' so they cut across and that increases the risk of an accident.

In terms of some signs that I think need to be removed, the government has offended against Don Dunstan's legacy because it keeps putting up signs on railway land so it can breach the Road Traffic Act which does not allow billboards on highways and freeways. It gets around that by putting them on railway land. Oaklands Park railway crossing is a classic example, as is Tonsley opposite the police station. They used to be advocating longer lasting sex. That seems to have gone out of fashion and is no longer popular, for some reason—I do not know why. People seem to be going for shorter sex, maybe.

Those signs have been a distraction. I raised on radio this morning that the City of Onkaparinga is fining people for trying to sell their car on the side of the road. They are up to their old tricks again. They have fined 300 people—$29,000—because people park in a parking bay on a Sunday with a little sign on their car. They claim that is because that is distracting, yet the same council, and others, put up big signs advocating their functions and other things and somehow that is not distracting. I do not follow the logic.

We have these big billboards at Oaklands and on other railway property in breach of the Dunstan legacy. It surprises me that this Labor government continues to stick it up what was one of Don Dunstan's great things, that is, not to turn us into Hollywood. We have these huge signs at railway crossings, where you would think you would want people concentrating on the railway crossing and the bells, and so on, being distracted by huge signs on both sides of the crossing advocating all sorts of miracle cures, and whatever. They are signs that I think we could get rid of and, in return, have some sensible and clearer road signage that is quite explicit.

The final point I make concerns roadworks. A lot of the time you enter an area where presumably there are roadworks and then there is no sign either saying 'end of roadworks' or telling you what the speed limit is after you have been through the roadworks. If the department of transport and councils are giving out contracts, they should insist that whoever is doing the work follows proper procedures and indicates clearly that the roadwork has ended and the speed limit has changed back again.

The penalty for breaching the speed limit in one of those work zones—and they are designed to protect the road workers, and I agree with that—is very severe. One of the senior staff in this parliament (I will not say who) got caught out on Anzac Highway by turning into a work zone. There was nothing to tell you it is a work zone. They turned in and, bang, 'You are doing more than 25.'

It comes back to the point I made before: if you want people to obey the law and not be tricked and trapped then you need better and adequate signage. I would like the Minister for Road Safety to have a serious look at this and not simply trot out the mantra of, 'Everything is fine. We are not changing anything.' It is time that South Australia had a look at signage and at least bring it in line with what happens in many of the other states. I commend the motion to the house.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Chapman.