Bills

Motor Vehicles (Nominal Defendant) Amendment Bill

Introduction and First Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:31): Obtained leave and introduced a bill for an Act to amend the Motor Vehicles Act 1959. Read a first time.

Second Reading

Mr PISONI (Unley) (10:31): I move:

That this bill be now read a second time.

I am introducing this bill to amend the Motor Vehicles Act 1959 because it is clear that, in the wake of changes to regulations allowing bicycles full access to footpaths, some safeguards need to be put in place to ensure that pedestrians have some financial security in the case of an injury should they be hit by a cyclist who cannot for whatever reason be identified.

This is an issue that has been raised with me as the shadow minister for transport and road safety and by many of my Liberal colleagues, and I am sure that members of the government would have also received correspondence at their offices from people concerned about the notion of being hit by a cyclist and being left to their own devices.

The vulnerable situation pedestrians can find themselves in was recently illustrated by the hit-and-run collision in which a young female pedestrian on a city footpath, struck by a bicycle at some speed, suffered a broken rib and internal bleeding. The cyclist did not leave details and, despite some of the media commentary on this case, did not stay long enough to render any form of assistance.

I met with Ms Bedford, who was the victim of the incident, who ran through the details of that case and her frustration with police when, after reporting the incident, they said there was nothing that they could do about it. She then went to the media and the media ran that story and, all of a sudden, CCTV footage popped up and SAPOL were then able to put out an alert and the cyclist turned themselves in.

Had that not happened, Ms Bedford would have been left with the hospital bills to cover for her own situation, and that is on top of the fact that she was not able to work during the recovery period. Being a person who had just finished university and entered the workforce for the first time, it was a very distressing time for her.

We cannot rely on media coverage for every incident where somebody is the victim of a hit-and-run with a cyclist here in South Australia. This bill expands the definition of 'nominal defendant' in the Motor Vehicles Act to include cyclists. In the event that a pedestrian is hit by a cyclist and there are no details for civil action, either directly or through insurance companies, this aims to ensure the recovery of medical costs.

The law states that pedestrians have right of way on the footpath. We are not seeking to change civil law in any way; we are enabling the process that is available when the identity of the rider is known to also encompass unknown riders. This is only for the very few cases where people are irresponsible. If you compare the rate with the nominal defendant when it comes to irresponsible drivers of registered motor vehicles, it is less than 2 per cent—75 hit and runs out of a total of nearly 4,000 claims that were lodged last year. It is a very small proportion of South Australians who do the wrong thing.

Generally, South Australians will do the right thing and stop to exchange details to make sure that the person they have hit, whether in a motor vehicle or on a bike, are rendered assistance. If there are other implications such as medical bills, this process ensures the innocent victims of a collision will not be left to deal with that situation. I think we also need to bear in mind that more than 90 per cent of bicycle riders own registered motor vehicles, so they already pay for CTP insurance. It just so happens that they are on their bicycles, rather than in their cars, when an accident occurs.

I was a bit concerned when I heard the minister respond to this proposal. He said that it would see extra fees for one million motorists in South Australia. I point him to his own figures from the Department of Planning, Transport and Infrastructure. According to a table provided to the South Australian Parliament Research Library by the department in relation to the number of pedestrians hit by cyclists, there have only been five serious injuries in the past five years, and 41 minor injuries.

We also have to understand how the CTP insurance system works. There are no more pain and suffering payments, so we are not going to see a whole lot of ambulance chasers, by way of lawyers, looking for business. You cannot actually claim lawyer fees unless the amount awarded is more than $25,000, and it is only for medical bills unless you are permanently disabled. The chances of that happening from being hit by a cyclist are very minimal. What is likely to happen is what happened to Ms Bedford back in March: a broken rib, severe bruising—

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: This is spooky. Ms Bedford?

Mr PISONI: Ms Bedford, the victim of the—not you, Deputy Speaker.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: No, I know, but it's scary.

Mr PISONI: The 24-year-old victim—you could be mistaken for a 24 year old; I do understand that, Deputy Speaker—Ms Bedford, was on the footpath and was the victim of a hit and run. She would have her medical bills covered under this proposal.

I also have a graph provided by the department on the nominal defendant system for registered motor vehicles. It shows that the number of CTP claims lodged in 2014-15 was 3,926. That same table will show us that the number of uninsured vehicle claims lodged was 75 and the number of hit and runs was 150. So, you can see that hit and runs are a very small proportion of motorists who behave in that manner.

I would argue that the vast majority of cyclists are very responsible and also that this is a rare event. We understand that, but we do know that there is a lot of anxiety out there in the community about the what-if situation. I think that is why we all have insurance. We hope that we do not use insurance, but we all have it for that what-if situation. Insurance simply would not work if those what-if situations were a regular occurrence, which they are not. I thank the Royal Society for the Blind for coming out today and supporting these amendments. I quote from their news release that was circulated this morning:

[Royal Society for the Blind] Government Relations and Accessibility spokesperson, Tony Starkey, commends the proposed solutions; noting that they are likely to reduce the number of accidents involving pedestrians—and most importantly—pedestrians who are vision impaired.

Of course, that is what this is all about. This is the first of two amendments that I am bringing to the parliament today, so that we can truly share the footpaths. I do not think it is acceptable that people are left to their own devices if they are the victim of a hit and run by a cyclist, which is the case at the moment, when we do not accept that when it comes to registered motor vehicles. We have a scheme there that can be expanded through these amendments that I am bringing forward to the parliament today at, I would argue, virtually no cost whatsoever to motorists. I would be interested for the government, if they do not support these amendments, to bring back information that suggests there would be a significant, or any, increase in the insurance that motorists pay when they register their motor vehicles. With that, I conclude my remarks.

Debate adjourned on motion of Ms Hildyard.