Motions

Speed Detection

Adjourned debate on motion of Mr Wingard:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into and report upon—

(a) the operation of speed cameras and speed detection devices in South Australia;

(b) the relationship between the location of speed cameras and the incidence of road accidents;

(c) the impact of constantly changing speed limits and the effectiveness of speed limit signage;

(d) the effectiveness and appropriateness of current penalties for speeding offences, including a review of fines imposed;

(e) the operation of the Community Road Safety Fund; and

(f) any related matters.

(Continued from 13 May 2015.)

The Hon. T.R. KENYON (Newland) (11:41): I am continuing my remarks. We were talking about the member for Mitchell's motion seeking to establish a select committee into speed cameras and speed detection devices, the relationship between speed cameras and the incidence of road accidents, their effectiveness and so on. I started by outlining that there is quite a clear relationship between speed and accidents; in fact, there is a proven history.

Investigation of accidents over a long period of time in South Australia has shown that the involvement of speed as a cause of an accident is in the 30 per cent range, which is quite a high percentage. In terms of contributing to serious accidents and death, it is similar, up in that 30 per cent range as a contributing factor, to those involving seatbelts, drugs and alcohol and other things.

As I mentioned previously, we are very lucky to have the University of Adelaide's Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR), which has done quite a lot of research in the area. It is a world-class research institution focusing specifically on this area of automotive safety. It estimates that the risk of a casualty crash doubles for every five km/h over the 60 km/h speed limit in urban areas.

The crash risk also doubles with every 10 km/h that a vehicle travels over the speed limit on rural roads where that speed limit is 80 km/h or greater. Where a motorist is travelling 10 km/h over the speed limit in a 60 km/h speed zone, drivers are approximately four times more likely to be involved in a casualty crash, which is a similar risk increase to having a blood alcohol concentration of around .1 per cent, which is double the legal limit.

Past speed limit reductions on South Australian roads have proven to be effective in reducing road trauma. CASR has also shown that the introduction of the default 50 km/h urban speed limit in 2003 is estimated to have saved five fatalities and 69 serious injuries per year, every year, since it was introduced. That is an estimated total of 60 fatalities and 828 serious injuries over that 12-year period.

It is interesting to look at the year-by-year numbers for the road toll, that is, deaths on the road. From 2003, the number of fatalities per year up until that point had pretty much flatlined to around 150 per year, which is obviously significantly down on the peak of the over 300 in 1972. It had flatlined for a little while. In 2003, there was a step change, so we introduced that 50 km/h limit. It was one of the first things the government did. Almost immediately, the road toll reduced, from about 150 over the previous few years to about 120 for the next few years, so it is a step change, straight down.

CASR is saying that they think that five of the fatalities out of the approximately 30 per year can be put down to speed. I suspect it is a little more than that, but that is my suspicion and not research, so you have to trust CASR on that one. However, you can see clearly that, combined with a whole lot of other things—probably development in vehicle safety and everything else at the same time—those reductions in speed have a direct correlation with road safety outcomes.

My argument is very simple: unless you enforce speed limits, people will not obey them. There is also research to show that the more enforcement there is, the more people actually obey the speed limit because they do not want to be fined or lose points. The loss of points is often more motivating than the fines themselves, but certainly that enforcement is having an effect, and it includes cameras, laser guns, red light speed cameras—all the speed enforcement devices—and they have an effect.

The effect is to slow down the traffic. When you slow down traffic, the effect is a reduction in casualty crashes. People have more time, and there is less vehicle energy involved in those crashes. Therefore, if they have an accident, they go into that accident with significantly less kinetic energy, and that results in lower casualty and death rates. Every person who drives a vehicle has a responsibility to be completely in control of that vehicle at all times.

Everyone here and in our society is human, and that means we make mistakes and occasionally we lose concentration. If we are travelling at a faster speed, it means that we are more likely to be involved in a crash, and that crash, when it occurs, is more likely to cause a casualty or be a dangerous crash. The suggestion that we should reduce the level of enforcement and deterrence is, in my view, ridiculous. If anything, we should be increasing the level of enforcement of speeding and increasing the level of compliance amongst the population, not only with speeding but also with wearing seatbelts.

The number of people who do not wear a seatbelt while driving a car is far fewer than 10 per cent of the driving population, but they make up 38 per cent of deaths on the road. That small group of less than 10 per cent makes up more than one-third of the number of people who die on our roads. You can see the relationship between wearing a seatbelt, for instance, and being involved in an accident. It is the same with speed: there is a direct relationship between speeding and the likelihood of being involved in an accident and the severity of the accident as it occurs.

All the equipment that police use in their enforcement, the fixed and still cameras, is well maintained and calibrated according to the National Measurement Act 1960 and its various regulations. Fixed speed cameras are placed in the areas where people are most likely to speed, remembering that speeding is a decision that people make. If it is not a decision that they are making, if they are letting it happen by accident, then that is probably even more dangerous because it means that they are not paying appropriate attention and they are not appropriately in control of their vehicle. I indicate that the government will be opposing the motion.

Time expired.