Motions

Speed Limits

Debate resumed.

Mr KNOLL (Schubert) (12:13): I rise to briefly discuss this very beautiful and well-worded motion brought by the member for Hammond.

Members interjecting:

Mr KNOLL: There is no fitting superlative that we have not tried to use. I know this is an issue we have discussed in this house before, but it bears repeating because it seems that the government is not listening. It does seem that, as often as we stand up here and try to quote stupid things like statistics, common sense or logic, the government is still very willing to go down the path of providing blanket reductions in speed limits for country road users. It does nothing to dispel the notion that the Labor Party is very city centric. It does nothing to dispel the notion that the government does not believe anything exists beyond—I used to say Gepps Cross, but I suppose Curtis Road is probably about where we are at these days with suburban Adelaide to the north.

An honourable member: Gawler.

Mr KNOLL: Gawler is a separate township, separate from Adelaide, and it is not considered part of suburban Adelaide. That is the way the people of Gawler like it to be, that is the way Mayor Karen Redman would like it to be—and long may it be so. The government, I believe, is taking the cheap way out when it comes to this, because the alternative to just a blanket reduction in speed limits would actually be to invest in country roads, and that is obviously not something they want to countenance.

I find it quite interesting that in this place we have discussed the Transforming Health review and the fact that the government said, 'We are not going to do a review into regional hospitals,' which people in my community are quite thankful for because they are worried that a review of country hospitals would mean closing country hospitals, but they say, 'Actually, people from the country come and use hospitals in Adelaide.' That is true but, by the same token, people in Adelaide also drive into the country. I think it is short-sighted of this government to write off country South Australia in the way that they have when it comes to road funding, because every time a city person drives to visit their friends or family in the country, they realise that there is a lack of investment in regional road funding that needs to be dealt with.

My electorate has huge inconsistencies when it comes to speed limits, and I have spoken quite a lot about that before, especially the beautiful Gomersal Road which has an angelic title and should have, I believe, a more angelic speed limit. It is rated to be a 100 km/h road instead of a 90 km/h road, and I think that sounds eminently sensible, especially when I consider other roads in my electorate that are either 100 or 110.

The thing I think that really bugs country people in this instance is that we get slapped in the face because we do not get a fair shake when it comes to regional road funding when we are dealing with the maintenance backlog, so that is one thing. We in the country develop a bit of an inferiority complex, and we sit there thinking, 'Hang on, why is it that we keep getting forgotten?' That is the first point. The second point is not only do we not get the roads that we deserve but we also get smacked with lower speed limits making our lives a lot less convenient. The point is you are not just smacking us around the head once, you are doing it twice, and that really is unfair to country South Australia.

There is good reason why and good evidence to suggest that simply lowering speed limits is not the complete answer when it comes to road safety. Mid Murray Council is a council that has a lot of roads in my electorate and not much of a rate base to try to maintain them with, and they try to do the best job that they can. In their previous submission on reducing speed limits, they said:

It is strongly considered that information on the contributory factors to the casualties, including fatal serious injuries or minor injuries on all roads listed in the Mid Murray Council for review of speed limits, should be provided prior to any decision on the application of the default speed limit of 100 kilometres on such roads.

This is their way of saying that speed is a factor, speeding is probably a bigger factor, maintenance of the roads is a factor as is fatigue, inattentive driving, and drivers not understanding the terrain that is around. All these factors come into it but, instead of dealing with all of these things, we are just going to focus on speed limits.

The other thing that I do not think ever gets taken into account when looking at reduction of deaths is we look at what the government has done to intervene, and speed limits is obviously the blunt instrument that they are willing to use in this case, but we never consider whether or not factors such as crumple zones in cars, mandatory seatbelts or the greater provision of airbags within cars are also factors. I think, once again, we are focusing on a very short, very blunt instrument instead of considering all the factors that go into crash statistics and issues around that. On that basis, I support the member for Hammond's motion.

Mr TRELOAR (Flinders) (12:18): I rise to support the member for Hammond's motion today, and that is:

That this house—

(a) opposes mandatory maximum speed limit reductions on country roads when there is no safety-based evidence to support the change;

(b) calls on the state government to—

(i) make public its review into maximum speed limits on regional roads in South Australia;

It goes on to talk about addressing the road funding backlog which has been quoted at $400 million, but I see in the last few weeks that the RAA has upped that identified backlog to as much as $1 billion. It is an absolute disgrace, and I can tell you that country roads are showing signs of that. Quite simply, infrastructure spend in country areas is most critically spent on our roads because that is our transport corridor. We need that transport corridor to conduct our business and our social activities. It is just so critical that our roads are in good condition, and that we are able to drive effectively and efficiently on them.

I would be very interested to see the review made public because I know full well that every single local government area on Eyre Peninsula—and there are nine—has opposed any reduction in the open road speed limit from 110 km/h to 100 km/h. Thus far, there has been no reduction on the open road speed limit on Eyre Peninsula. I am grateful for that, but I am also not expecting one. Why would the government do it, for goodness sake? There is no good reason, no valid reason to reduce the open road speed limits by 10 km/h where the distances are vast, the populations are sparse and we rely so critically on our cars.

The member for Stuart mentioned the big five: fatigue, seatbelts, drugs and alcohol, speed and inattention which can all contribute to road accidents, road crashes. All are identified as safety issues. The single most important thing any driver can do is drive to the conditions. That is what we should be educating our drivers to do, particularly our young drivers—teaching them to drive to the conditions. If people are able to do that, to pay attention and stay free of drugs and alcohol, then they will drive safely.

My constituents—aside from the local governments—are overwhelmingly in favour of retaining the 110 speed limit. In all the contacts I have had regarding this issue, I have had just one constituent suggesting it should be reduced to 100. My response to that was that there is no obligation to drive at 110; that a person can, indeed, drive at 100 quite safely. There are many caravaners driving around Australia at 80, and they are able to do that quite legitimately.

I must declare an interest in this matter, a selfish interest. As the member for a large regional electorate in the west of the state, I drive at least 50,000 kilometres a year, and that is not counting my drives to Adelaide. I spend a lot of time on the road, as do many of my constituents, going to church, conducting their business and going to sport. I have a theory about that. I think people will drive about an hour and a half to play sport on a Saturday. If that distance is reduced by the time factor, they are not going to go, and some of my constituents are already driving an hour and a half just to play football or netball. So, that needs to be a consideration as well.

It is very important that our businesses can stay competitive, and I think by slowing us down, having us spend more time travelling is actually making us less competitive. I also note that in the states of New South Wales and Queensland in particular, having reduced state highways to 100 km/h, they are actually increasing them again back up to 110 because roads are safe and cars are good. Cars are much better than they ever were; we no longer drive V8 Holdens. There was a time when one could take the top off a bottle with the buckle of the lap belt, but you can no longer do that. You are surrounded by safety arrangements and highly technical and engineered cars. They are safe.

I close by saying that I support this excellent motion. I asked the government to consider very seriously what they are considering doing here. As I said, I am not expecting them to lower the speed limit on Eyre Peninsula. Why would they? But then again, we have ministers making decisions; ministers who are metropolitan based and actually have somebody else to drive them around.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (12:23): I rise to support the motion of the member for Hammond. I think many of the points that have been made this morning will be reiterated but, quite simply, people need to get from A to B in the country. The speed limits on the Fleurieu are all 100 km/h. Speed limits in other parts of my electorate are 110, and more often than not the fact is that I sit on cruise control on 102 or 103, or whatever, and everybody passes me. That is the ridiculous situation we face today.

There is one member of government and an Independent minister who both live in the country, and I would hope that their constituents speak to them in the same way mine speak to me. They say, 'Tell the government to leave the 110 alone. Leave it alone. We have long distances to travel.'

I know that the government talks about the carnage on the roads and the road deaths, but if you start to analyse even this year what has happened, and look at some of the facts to do with some of those accidents, you will see that in a number of cases there are other causes. I think on the long weekend two deaths were caused by not wearing seatbelts. That is not the speed of the vehicle. Modern vehicles are very safe and cars have improved out of sight. I used to drive a 1971 XY V8 Falcon, and compared with what we have today that was like driving something off the ark. I would say to the government, through this motion: if you wonder why country people do not like you, it is because they are sick of being told what to do on everything, of being controlled and of being treated badly and taken for fools.

I am sure that members opposite go out in the country from time to time and drive from place to place; accidents will always happen, but the answer is not to go around dropping speed limits. Indeed, in the Northern Territory they have just put back the open speed limit in a number of places, including north of Alice Springs. A couple of members of our family, my daughter and son-in-law, left the state last week because there was nothing here for them—it is clapped out—and they have gone to Darwin where they have walked into high-paying jobs. They have had a gutful of South Australia, and they talked about this. They had the kids on board and sat on 120 or 130; a lot of the speed limits in the Northern Territory are 130, and there are open sections.

I know others want to speak on this issue, but I make the point on behalf of my constituents that we do not like being told how fast we can drive or having the speed limit reduced. It is a ridiculous assertion. Those of us who drive on the roads at night particularly adapt to the conditions. I drive regularly on roads that have more than their fair share of kangaroos, deer, sheep and cows; there are heaps of them. We drive according to the conditions—you just have to or otherwise you will end up in the scrub or something worse. With those few words, I support the member for Hammond.

Mr GRIFFITHS (Goyder) (12:27): I have lived this for 10 years. I was the CEO of the Yorke Peninsula council and a candidate for election in parliament in 2005 when 1,100 kilometres of road were actually reduced from 110 to 100 km/h, with about half of that on Yorke Peninsula and half in the South-East. There was great frustration and it was exemplified by one simple fact. I do not remember his seat, but Michael Wright, when he was the Minister for Transport, he authorised—

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: Lee.

Mr GRIFFITHS: Lee, was it, sorry?

The Hon. T.R. Kenyon: The member for Lee, yes, Michael Wright.

Mr GRIFFITHS: The member for Lee, Michael Wright, authorised expenditure on the upgrade of the coast road from Ardrossan towards the Port Wakefield intersection. It was a fantastic bit of road then and it still is now. The speed limit dropped to 100 km/h before that, but even with the improved road, with the shoulders being much better, the pavement width and overtaking lanes, there was still no increase in speed, which is just madness to me.

Late in 2011, we were advised that additional reductions were intended to occur within 100 kilometres north of Adelaide, as I understand it, but I still saw no validity in many of the suggestions on that. I am aware of significant pressure brought by the Department of Transport on local government to reduce the speed limit on their roads from 110 to 100. In one council, I think it took three meetings before agreement was finally reached, with a lot of frustration from the council in that case for it to occur, but in early 2012 they were implemented. People contact me continuously about this. They are not happy about it.

I read a quite extensive submission provided by the Minister for Road Safety, minister Piccolo, to the eight councils in the Mid North about the reduction the member for Stuart referred to. It provides a lot of factual evidence but, as I understand it, only one of those eight councils has agreed to support the reduction, and I think that is Wakefield Regional Council; the others are not supportive of it. I read the Port Pirie Regional Council minutes, where the member for Frome is based, which say they do not support it, so it will be rather interesting to see how the member for Frome actually votes because overwhelmingly the councils within his electorate do not support the change occurring.

In 2015 we come to it again. When we had a motion in this house about regional impact assessment statements, I asked the question: is this part of the review being undertaken, because it has a significant effect upon regional people? It is not on the list published on the PIRSA website about whether the impact statements have been undertaken.

The level of frustration that we feel is a real one, and we express it on behalf of the people who speak to us. No matter where we go, this issue is raised with us. It is not from crazy people out there who just want to speed. These are responsible people who want to obey the law, but they want those whom they elect to represent them in parliament to understand the frustration they feel about the implementation of some of these rules.

As I said to the member for Wright when she was the minister for road safety in late 2011 proposing these changes—and I met with the minister then—and as the member for Stuart referred to, it is not speed limits that kill people: it is speeding. That is the key thing and that is attitudinal stuff, and all of society has a responsibility to bring in the control of those who sometimes choose to do crazy things.

I have had terrible accidents in my electorate. We had the tragedy on the June long weekend of three people who died in an accident at an intersection. It was not caused by the infrastructure itself—which is why I have said nothing derogatory about the condition of the road, although I want the infrastructure to be upgraded—but by one person who, it appears, has been charged with crossing the intersection and causing others to deviate to try to avoid an accident but which resulted in terrible fatalities. I support the motion of the member for Hammond. It is an important issue. It reflects what the community expects of us, and I beg the house to support it also.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (12:31): Any time we have a road safety debate of any description in this house, it always attracts a lot of speakers—and that is good thing. My experience as minister for road safety for a happy nine months—I say happy, because it may not have been happy for others but I enjoyed it—was that every time I opened my mouth or put out any sort of press release at all about road safety, it caused some sort of debate. That is because people have an interest in road safety, a deep interest in road safety.

We are talking today, of course, about rural roads, and it is a very good thing to be talking about, because 62 per cent of all road deaths in South Australia happen on rural roads. Everyone here knows that 62 per cent of the population of South Australia does not live in rural areas. We are getting a disproportionate number of our road accidents, our road deaths, occurring in rural areas.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: I do not have the numbers here, but one thing I can tell you is that that is not all city people. In fact, the great majority of those fatalities are regional people, people who live in the local area and die on local roads. It is not city people who cannot drive and come over and drive around the road.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! Sit down. We have all listened to everyone on my left in silence, and I would ask members to adhere to standing order 142 and provide all members with the same opportunity to speak and to be heard. The member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: Thank you, ma'am. A huge factor in this statistic of people dying—mainly rural people dying on rural roads—is speed. It is a factor in approximately 30 to 35 per cent of fatalities across the state. There are a number of reasons for that and a lot of it is just physics, in that if you are travelling at 110 km/h in a 2,000-kilogram car—I have had to do some calculations, so I have assumed a 2,000-kilogram car—you have a kinetic energy of 950,000 kilojoules. If you are travelling at 100 km/h in the same car, you have a kinetic energy of 773,000 kilojoules, which is a difference of 177,000 kilojoules. There is a 9 per cent reduction in speed, so you are travelling 9 per cent slower; there is an 18 per cent reduction in energy—and of course, you double the amount of energy involved in a crash if it is a head-on collision of two cars, so that is approximately 1.5 million kilojoules if two cars are travelling at 100 km/h.

You also have the accepted reaction time for a driver on a country road travelling at a steady speed of around 100 or 110 km/h of about half a second. It can be longer; it can be up to two seconds, in fact, before they react to an incident, but the average and the accepted time is half a second. The difference between how far you travel at 110 and 100 km/h before anything happens—so this is before you start slowing the vehicle down; this is before you hit the brakes, anything like that; before you even take your foot off the accelerator—is 1.7 metres. You travel 15.6 metres at 110 and you travel 13.9 metres at 100: the difference is 1.7 metres. When two vehicles are approaching head on, that is 3.4 metres before anything happens, before you start braking.

Also, and I have not done the calculations for this, when you brake, you do not slow down at a linear rate. You do not slow down evenly. You slow down more slowly to start with and then the rate of slowing accelerates, if that is not a tautology, as you get closer to zero. A reduction of 10 km/h effectively extends your braking time, and it is an exponential change, not a linear change.

One of the reasons that reducing speed limits is effective is that you take energy out of the accident if it occurs. You improve reaction distance, because you are reducing the speed, and you are also able to take more energy more quickly out of the situation, because you are able to brake more quickly and slow down more quickly.

The effect of reducing speeds has been recorded and we have the evidence. A formal study conducted in Victoria in 1992 shows that, when speed limits were increased from 100 to 110 on a number of Victorian regional highways, the result was a 24.6 per cent increase in the crash rate. After two years, the speed limits were reduced back to 100.

When the limit went from 100 to 110, crashes went up 24.6 per cent, but when they reduced them back to 100 after two years, the crash rate decreased by 19.3 per cent—not the same amount, because you are going down instead of up, which, I am sure, members understand. We have a classic study in Australian conditions of an increase and then a reduction on the same roads, and we have seen a massive increase and then a massive decrease in the number of crashes that occurred on those roads.

On 27 May 2015, the Centre for Automotive Safety Research released a report entitled 'Reduction of speed limit from 110 km/h to 100 km/h on certain roads in South Australia: a follow-up evaluation'. It found a 27 per cent reduction in injury crashes on roads where the speed limit was reduced—a 27 per cent reduction for doing nothing other than reducing the road speed limit.

I like driving. I particularly like driving in the country. I find it very relaxing. I very much enjoy going over to see my sister, for instance, who lives on Yorke Peninsula.

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order!

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: She regularly abuses me—

Mr Pederick: Do you get some lizard races going?

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: We did once.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Member for Hammond, I know it is your motion, but I would ask you to observe 142 and I would ask all other members to observe 142.

Mr van Holst Pellekaan: There is enthusiastic support for this.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: It doesn't matter, and I don't need any assistance—142 means you do not interject. Member for Newland.

The Hon. T.R. KENYON: As recently as last weekend, in fact, we drove to Victoria. I find it as frustrating as anyone suddenly going from 110 km/h on the South Australian side of the border to 100 km/h, but it is no accident—forgive the pun—that the Victorian road safety statistics are the best in the country.

The number of deaths per 100,000 citizens is around 4.4 or 4.5: ours was in the sevens until recently. I do not have the most recent number with me. They have two things that I think are highly important: one is that they have lower road speed limits and the second is that they have 18 as their driving age. That is a debate for another day, but I urge members to oppose this motion.

Mr WINGARD (Mitchell) (12:39): I too rise today to speak in support of the motion put forward by the member for Hammond:

That this house—

(a) opposes mandatory maximum speed limit reductions on country roads when there is no safety-based evidence to support the change;

(b) calls on the state government to—

(i) make public its review into maximum speed limits on regional roads in South Australia;

(ii) undertake a comprehensive safety audit of all country roads where the speed limit has been reduced from 110 km/h to 100 km/h in the past four years and, where there is no evidence to support improved road safety outcomes, immediately change the speed limit back;

(iii) commit funding to upgrade regional council and arterial roads currently posted at 110 km/h rather than further reduce speed limits; and

(iv) prioritise regional road maintenance when addressing the $400 million road maintenance backlog.

The road maintenance backlog has now blown out to $1 billion, as was pointed out by the Civil Contractors Federation only a few weeks ago.

We know that country roads play a big part in road safety, as do all our roads. We have talked about a number of issues. Speed was mentioned as a factor along with drink driving, seatbelts, fatigue and, as we pointed out, the conditions of the road. A number of factors play into road safety, and the rise again this year in the death toll on our roads is very alarming for South Australia. It is a big concern. I think it sits at 44 as of today, up on the same time last year, and last year was another high which is not great. I think both sides of this chamber agree that road safety is vitally important.

One thing I want to point out here, which has been raised here by the member for Hammond, I think is a very fair and reasonable assessment which is about why this evaluation of our roads needs to be done. I am sure even the member for Newland would agree—he alluded to it in his speech—that conditions are a factor, and making our roads safer can help reduce the number of incidents on the road. I have been out recently on our roads in the rural regions and, interestingly, I drove from Meningie to Salt Creek on the one section of road that had road shoulders and had been improved, but the speed limit had been kept at 100 km/h. Speaking to the locals in the South-East, they cannot work out why this is the case, given that the roads either side of this stretch of road were arguably in worse condition but the speed limit was higher.

I read in the Stock Journal recently where Michael Lamont pointed out that, up in Booleroo Centre on the way to Jamestown, he found a stretch of road where the speed limits varied. When driving to Hallett, he drove through Burra on the Barrier Highway and found the speed limits around Booleroo Centre to Jamestown varied again. It was the good stretch of road which had the speed limits at 100 km/h and then stretches beyond, which were not as safe, were up at 110 km/h. It is really hard to fathom why roads with good conditions are at 100 km/h and roads with conditions that are not so good are at 110 km/h.

I want to make two more points. On the road from Port Augusta to Port Lincoln, there are no overtaking lanes. A number of our roads need to be improved. I know that we need to get on to other business, so I will sit down, other than to say I support the motion and concur that an overview of all our country roads needs to be done so that they can be assessed and so that we can make that decision on which roads should be at which speed limits because at the moment it is a bit of a dog's breakfast.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:42): A couple of brief comments before I close the debate on this motion, and that is the simple fact that you cannot analyse all deaths on the road just due to one attribute as the member for Newland just did in recognising speed. He did not talk about seatbelts, inattention, fatigue, drugs or alcohol.

Mr Treloar: Or road conditions.

Mr PEDERICK: Or road conditions. In saying that, this is a sensible motion. It is a motion that affects the whole state of South Australia, especially country drivers, and there should not be a blanket 100 km/h speed limit on South Australian country roads. I commend the motion.

The house divided on the motion:

Ayes 20

Noes 20

Majority 0

The SPEAKER: The result of the division is that there are 20 ayes and 20 noes and I cast my vote with the status quo, the noes.

Motion thus negatived.