HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2009-03-26 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SPEED LIMITS

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (12:01): I move:

That this house—

(a) notes that the wide variation of speed limits is creating confusion for South Australian motorists;

(b) supports a comprehensive review of all speed limits across the state with the aim of creating some uniformity; and

(c) supports the installation of extra speed limit signage and other markers to aid motorists in gauging what speed zone they are driving in.

This is an issue that is dear to my heart, for all sorts of reasons, before the Attorney states the obvious. The confusing range of speed limits in South Australia has been the subject of many debates in this house, the honourable member for Fisher is but one, and we heard the motion put forward in the house earlier by the honourable member for Stuart.

This issue has some momentum; it is really quite serious, and particularly since the introduction of the 50 km/h default speed limit in built up areas. Extra speed limit signage or markers must be implemented to eliminate the confusion that the wide range of speed limit zones causes to motorists. In December last year the RAA called for the Rann state Labor government to conduct a review of all speed limits and for more speed limit signage to be constructed across the state.

The traffic and safety manager for the RAA, Rita Excell, stated that a recent survey of its members showed that up to one in five fatal road crashes this year could have been avoided if more money had been spent on upgrading roads. Ms Excell stated that drivers were also confused because often speed signs could not be seen.

I believe that the proliferation of the 50 km/h speed limit is far in excess of the original idea or concept. All arterial roads were supposed to remain at 60 km/h and all roads within urban and built up areas were to be 50. That is definitely not the case now. Motorists are being told that the default speed limit in built up areas is 50 km/h, but there does not seem to be an accurate definition of what constitutes an arterial road.

There are roads that I can think of that I would say are arterial roads; for instance, North Terrace, yet they are speed-limited at 50 km/h. No wonder motorists are confused. As you drive around the four terraces of Adelaide the speed limit changes five times on the same terrace. It is quite a nonsense—absolute nonsense. Coming from West Terrace onto North Terrace there is a change.

The number of expiation notices issued for speeding in the 50 km/h zones around Adelaide has more than doubled in less than a year, increasing from 18,165 to, this year, 43,835. Work that out. At approximately $275 per ticket, that is a lot of money—millions. Has the road toll decreased in the same period? No, it has increased. The road toll is higher this year at this point in time than it was last year—fact. It is in this morning's press.

I am not against safety, but does the Rann state Labor government really and truly believe that there are 25,000 more people driving recklessly than there were a year ago? Is this program working? Also, in the same period the road toll has increased. So, how can the government justify what it is doing? It is ripping people off. It is a revenue raiser. These figures—

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: The member for Torrens says that I am only complaining because I got caught. I am happy to put that on the record. I know that is now on the record. I wonder how many members of this house can say to me—I think the member for Stuart might be one—that they have never been picked up by a speed camera? If we go back 30 years ago to when we had speed zones across this state of, I think, 60 mph on the outside roads and 30 mph on the inside roads, how many of us got picked up in those days? The police are out there—

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: But look what has happened now.

Mr Kenyon interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Yes, as the member has highlighted, there were no cameras. What it has done is it has made us all petty criminals. You would think that the incidence of speeding would decrease, but it has not. These figures highlight that there is a huge problem, particularly with the 50 km/h and 60 km/h regime in this state. Perhaps the government's true motive is to use innocent motorists as cash cows.

I have raised this at the highest level, even with the police commissioner. I have spoken to him privately about this matter and he just said that it is a police matter and we cannot discuss that. I would not be surprised if he himself has been picked up for speeding. I do not know, he did not say so. I know that many senior police officers have said to me off the record, 'Ivan, our families are all affected by this confusion.'

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: They do not know what the speed limit is.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Can the member for Torrens tell me why West Terrace is 60 km/h and North Terrace is 50 km/h?

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

Mr VENNING: Why is it that, when you are driving across the southern Parklands, some of the roads are zoned 60 and some 50? If you do not see the sign, if you forget or if you are concentrating on the road in front of you: boom—especially now that tolerance is reduced. When it is clear that motorists are obviously confused about whether a particular road is zoned 50 or 60 km/h, surely the logical answer would be to install more signs, but the state Rann Labor government seems to be reluctant to do so, because its revenue from fines was up nearly $8 million in the past year—up from $3.196 million in the previous 12 months. That is a big increase.

The fact that the number of drivers fined for speeding between 60 and 69 km/h—as reported in The Advertiser in June last year—rose from 76,536 in 2006 to 100,866 in 2007 is a further illustration that motorists are confused, particularly with the wide range of zones that we have—50, 60 and 70. More speed limit signs are necessary, particularly after hearing what the member for Stuart said this morning on his bill—and we will hear more on that—that police officers are given quotas to collect. It is a proven revenue raiser, and most police officers will agree with you off the record.

A few constituents contacted me following my calls last year for more speed limit signs to be erected. One had recently been driving in Hawaii for two weeks and noted up to three reminders of the speed limit per mile. They also had a minimum speed limit on fast roads—a great idea. I reckon there is more of a problem with slow drivers than with fast drivers. They are a damn nuisance. People try to get around them, they toot their horns and it can cause road rage.

My constituent's comment was that, overall, the signage in Hawaii leaves us for dead here in South Australia—pardon the pun. He further advised that, in the UK, there are constant reminders of the prevailing speed limit, and only four speed limits: 30, 40, 50 and 70 miles per hour. Remember when we had only two: 35 and 60?

Another constituent, living in Nuriootpa, sought my help to have an extra speed limit sign put up near his home. He lives on a busy section of road where the speed limit is 50km/h but, because it is a main road leading into the town, many drivers assume it is 80km/h, and he has trucks and cars speeding past his home on a regular basis. I note that that is always where the speed detectors wait. I can almost guarantee that they will be there because, for some reason, people do not see the sign. They are still doing it, particularly now since the tolerance has dropped.

Mr Hanna: It's not about raising money.

Mr VENNING: No, I'm sure. The Attorney has not interjected. He is sitting silent, but he does not drive, so I suppose it does not affect him. Transport SA would not support the installation of any reminder or extra speed limit signs along this stretch of road. Furthermore, my constituent was advised by one regional Transport SA representative that there was already a reminder speed limit sign in Nuriootpa in another location that would have to be removed, because it was not Transport SA policy to have reminder signs. He arrogantly advised my constituent that drivers should know what the speed limits were and that no reminders were needed. That includes the member for Torrens. What about visitors who come to the town who do not know the roads and the speed limits? They only have to not see that sign and you are done.

Even some Transport SA road workers do not know the speed limit in some areas. In the case of this particular constituent, SA road workers passed by his house installing dust-settling bitumen. They put out witches' hats on one side of the road, plus speed reduction signs. Upon asking the foreman why he had put out those particular speed reduction signs, the worker replied that he wanted the traffic to slow down for safety reasons, as he had workers close to the traffic. He had put 50 km/h signs out. When my constituent told him that the speed limit on that section of road was already 50 km/h, the worker was surprised, and said that he thought it was 80. Well, if the state road working teams do not know the speed limit in some areas, what hope is there for the everyday motorist, particularly a visiting motorist?

The contacts I have had from these two constituents regarding speed limits are not isolated. I have received many phone calls from constituents—good, honest, law-abiding citizens—who had been penalised because they were innocently travelling at what they thought was the speed limit and because speed zone signs are infrequent. They did not realise they were driving too fast until they received a fine.

I am aware of a few locations where reminder speed limit signs have been put up, so the transport department obviously can install these if it wants to. It is not a criminal offence. Why the reluctance to install more signs? I have heard and read that it is to keep the clutter of signs to a minimum, but that does not wash with me.

As members in this house would be aware, I have been vocal over the past few years about having extra signage: either coloured markings on the road or on the side of the road to indicate or delineate the limits, more frequent signage or marking the speed limit on the road are all measures that can be taken to reduce confusion. They ought to at least be trialled on some sections of road.

It was revealed recently on TV that the speed camera near the Adelaide Oval, on Sir Edmund Smith Drive, saw approximately 15,000 drivers get pinged, delivering to the government $2.5 million in revenue. This is from one camera. In relation to this, Rita Excell from the RAA said:

We've got cameras that are reaping a lot of money. Let's have a look at those locations and see whether we can reinforce what the speed limit is...cameras are a road safety device but if people are not travelling at the right speed then there is no road safety benefit to pedestrians or other road users. So we need to try and get the travelling speeds commensurate with the speed limit.

Hello? She is talking to the community, and she is dead right—exactly right. I wholeheartedly agree that better signage is definitely needed to alert motorists. However, in this case, the government is probably reluctant to install extra speed signs because it is gaining so much revenue. GST payments are down, so this increase is filling the void.

When you are driving, you are supposed to concentrate on the road, on what is in front of you, not on what is happening on the side of the road. So, if there is a contradiction in regards to road safety—if you are too busy looking around for speed limit signs because you are not sure—that is when you could have a rear end collision or, worse, run over a pedestrian.

Reminder speed limit signs at regular intervals would be simple and enable drivers to feel more confident about the speed they should not be exceeding. It could also prevent some road rage where cautious people have kept at the default 50 km/h speed limit because they do not realise they are in a 60 km/h or 80 km/h speed zone due to a lack of regular signage while other drivers sit on their tail urging them to go faster. Road rage in this state is on the increase and driver behaviour has deteriorated.

This issue could be easily fixed, firstly by reviewing all the speed limit zones to try to put in place some uniformity and, secondly, by installing more speed limit signs or markers. I urge the government and members to support this motion, and I note that my shadow minister will be following me. I think it is high time now that we invest in this problem. This is going to be an issue at the next state election. If somebody did a Xenophon on this and stood on this issue, it would belt the heck out of both of our parties, because people are feeling it. They are cross, and that goes across political boundaries.

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: No-one in the opposition is a patch on Xenophon.

Mr VENNING: I heard the interjection; the record speaks for itself, doesn't it? I urge the house to support this motion. It is time, because it is not fair. I have spoken to Sir Eric Neal at length about this matter, because he heads up the committee, and he just says it is a directive of the government whether or not they put up these signs. He is just looking into the road safety side of it.

It is not working and, whatever way you look at it, the road toll continues to increase at an alarming rate, and this is only causing frustration. I think a lot of these fatalities are caused by bad driver attitude, and all this is going to do is make it worse. I urge the house to support the motion.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS (West Torrens—Minister for Correctional Services, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Gambling, Minister for Youth, Minister for Volunteers, Minister Assisting the Minister for Multicultural Affairs) (12:17): The attitude of the opposition never ceases to amaze me. It never ceases to amaze me that reasonable people like the member for Schubert, who I have a great deal of admiration and respect for—

The Hon. M.J. Atkinson: You know he's only winding up when he says that.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: No; I mean it sincerely. I have a great deal of affection for the member for Schubert. I think he is one of the most decent people in the house. However, he comes into this house and says that speed cameras are merely revenue raising. I was listening to the member for Mitchell's remarks earlier about compulsory testing of drivers over the age of 85 and how it is a road safety issue, yet he thinks that speed cameras are revenue raising. I am not sure how he holds those two opposing thoughts in his head at the same time, but I am sure he will explain it to us one day.

The member for Schubert made some very interesting points. He said that it is just revenue raising and the money goes straight into consolidated revenue. The truth is that it goes into the road safety account. We spend that money on road safety and enforcement. If the member for Schubert cannot understand that the default speed limit in South Australia is 50 km/h unless otherwise signed, I am not sure that anyone can help him.

Given the member for Schubert is an advocate for driver issues and often speaks in the house about driver safety and related issues, it surprises me that a man of his intellect could come in here today and say that enforcing speed limits does not help reduce the road toll. The two go hand in hand. The truth is that the more you enforce the speed limit, the more people will obey the speed limit.

Does the member for Schubert really expect us to believe that, if police were not out enforcing the speed limit, we would have a reduction in the road toll? I will admit that you cannot legislate to stop stupidity, but you can legislate to give police a stronger arm in enforcement. The member for Schubert—

The Hon. R.B. Such: It has to be fair and reasonable.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: And I think it is fair and reasonable, member for Fisher. I understand that a number of members in this house have been personally touched by speed cameras and enforcement. I know we are held to a higher standard than the rest of the community and I know that is unfair, but these are the rules we impose on South Australians, not because we want to raise money and not because we want to be cruel, but because we want to save their lives.

In February, a close friend of mine died in a road accident and, until then, it had never really occurred to me how senseless and futile a death is in a road accident. We should be jumping at anything we can do to reduce the death toll. The opposition asserts the idea that we are simply trying to raise money and then makes a correlation between that and a drop in GST revenue. Does the opposition really believe that we are trying to make up the shortfall in GST revenue by using speed cameras?

We do not get that money to spend on hospitals and schools; we spend it on road safety and policing. It does not go anywhere else.

Mr Hanna: It depends whether less money comes out of Treasury for those things.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, member for Mitchell. That is right. We have more money to spend on hospitals and schools because we are spending more money on road safety through people who speed. There is a very easy way to avoid a speeding fine, and that is not to speed. I am guilty of speeding just as much as everyone else; I have been caught speeding. It amazes me, and I meet people all the time who say they have never had a speeding fine.

Mrs Geraghty interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Torrens has never been caught speeding.

Mrs Geraghty: Once.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The member for Kavel said he had been caught once—and he lives in the Hills—

Mr Goldsworthy: When I was 17.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: —when he was 17. There is no reason to be speeding, but I cannot understand why the member for Schubert does not see a correlation between high speeds and road deaths. What is it about the member for Schubert that he does not understand this? I know that he is well-intentioned and that he is trying to do the right thing; he thinks that there is confusion on this, but there is confusion because the default speed limit now is 50 km/h, not 60 km/h—50 km/h unless otherwise signed.

If the member for Schubert says that there is a sign on West Terrace denoting a 60 km/h limit, but there is no sign on North Terrace that denotes a 50 km/h zone, that is because the default speed limit is 50 km/h unless otherwise signed. So, it is signed on West Terrace that it is a speed limit of 60 km/h but it is not signed on North Terrace; therefore, it is 50 km/h. It is a pretty easy concept, member for Schubert.

Mr Venning: When it says 60—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is 60 km/h; but if it does not say anything, it is 50 km/h.

Mr Venning: If you go round the corner and there is nothing, what is it?

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is 50 km/h. The default speed limit is 50 km/h. Member for Schubert, if there is no sign, it is a 50 km/h speed limit. I would like the member for Schubert to visit some of the families of victims who have been killed in high-speed crashes and explain to them why he thinks speeding fines and enforcement are just revenue matters and that they do not really do anything to discourage speeding.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: The motion is about signs, but the entire speech was about revenue raising.

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: It is interesting that the motion talks about signage, but the entire speech is about revenue raising.

Mr Venning: Some of the speech.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: About nine minutes of it. I know the shadow minister will not agree with him, because he wants to see the road toll reduced. I know he is a man of integrity. I know he can rise above the petty politics of members in marginal seats in the country, who are sick and tired of having constituents blame them for their speeding fines. I know he will rise above it.

The member for Schubert should show political leadership and courage. When people come to his office and say that they got caught doing 60 km/h in the main street, instead of saying, 'Yes, Mr Constituent, this is a terrible thing, I will draft a letter immediately about there being more signage,' perhaps he should say, 'Our road toll is too high and there is irrefutable evidence that suggests that speeding causes an increase in the number of crashes and, therefore, an increase in the number of road deaths, so don't speed.'

Mr Venning interjecting:

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I am glad he admits that point.

Mr Venning: So make it 40 km/h.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Now he is saying, 'Make it 40 km/h.' The Liberal opposition is now saying that it wants to drop the default speed limit from 60 km/h to 40 km/h. I congratulate the honourable member on his courage.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The minister is going into areas of debate that are irrelevant and not reflecting the true position of this side of the house. I ask you to rule on the comments of the minister, who is taking the whole scenario far too far.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! That is sufficient. A point of order is not a time for debate. There is no point of order. I remind members that there was a bit of straying on the other side, too.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I take the member for Kavel's point. The renegade in the ranks—the member for Schubert—wants to see the speed limit decreased to 40 km/h.

Mr Venning: I didn't say that at all.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: He said that he wanted it—

Mr VENNING: I have a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is a deliberate misrepresentation. I never said we should do that. I said it if we did it that is what would happen.

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order, member for Schubert! It is not a point of order. After the Minister for Road Safety has finished his remarks, you will have the opportunity to make a personal explanation.

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I will be writing to everyone in his electorate letting them know that he wants the speed limit changed to 40 km/h. It is a courageous move by a country member. I congratulate the honourable member on his courage. He is an example to us all in this house to speak our mind without fear. The honourable member is doing a great job, and I am sure the shadow road safety minister will applaud his backbencher for vomiting out that policy in the middle of a motion.

I just say this: speeding fines do not go into general revenue or into our pockets but, rather, into a road safety fund. The member for Schubert should know that. He should know that we are trying to save lives, not raise revenue. It is appalling to suggest that the commissioner may have had speeding fines; that may be a bit below the belt.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (12:27): I congratulate the new Minister for Road Safety on his appointment, and also his efforts in reinforcing road safety with school students in recent days. There is nothing more vivid or graphic than seeing a road crash simulation to reinforce the fact that serious accidents have long-term consequences. Many—but not all—accidents are caused by speeding. In fact, an insurance company survey showed that a minority of accidents were caused by speeding and drink drinking—which I think is an amazing result—but the vast majority were caused by inattentive driving—and that is one of the biggest issues we face—whether it be using the phone, drinking tea or coffee, conducting a conversation, or telling the kids off in the back seat.

It is the issue on which we need to focus. We need to make people aware of the consequences of inattentive driving, as well as all the other issues with speeding, drink driving, drug driving and driving cars that are defective in some way. It is an extremely important issue, and not one member in this house would not be 100 per cent behind reinforcing road safety as an important issue. Certainly, reducing speed limits has contributed to that. The question is: how far do we go? If there is confusion about the speed limit, it is easy to say, 'If there is no signage, do 50 km/h.'

Another question is whether the speed limits are appropriate for a location. I will give two examples of what I consider to be some unusual circumstances in setting speed limits, one of which is in the minister's own electorate on Military Road, West Beach. It is a long, straight road. There is an entrance off the sailing club and the boat harbour, and there are entrances off the caravan park and the golf course. It is a wide road, and you can see the entrances from a long way back, and the speed limit is 50 km/h. I am not saying that it is too slow or too fast, but I compare it with Sturt Road near Marion Shopping Centre where it is 60 km/h.

Someone said that it is the biggest shopping centre in the Southern Hemisphere; and it may be. It is a big shopping centre, which is extremely busy, and there are lots of driveways for ingress and egress of traffic. There are traffic lights, pedestrian crossings, bus interchanges and commercial premises on both sides of the road. It is a busy section of the road and it is 60 km/h. I do not comprehend how those two different speed limits are set under the same protocols.

Last year I went to Singapore to look at what its Land Transport Authority is doing. They use the 85 percentile rule in setting initial speed limits. They went back and looked at how fast people were travelling on the roads. They judged the speed at which 85 per cent of the people were travelling as a safe speed. That is an old method which is being used all over the world. I do not think it is used in South Australia any more, according to information I was given during last year's estimates committees. The Singapore government raised the speed limit on some roads because it realised that motorists were able to understand the issues involved in travelling on those roads. They are very good roads, I should say, and that is another important point to make.

I read somewhere that up to 40 per cent of road crashes are caused because of poor road design and poor road maintenance. I am pleased that the minister says that all this revenue that is being raised by speeding fines is going into road safety measures, and, hopefully, some is going into road maintenance. We would like to see a lot more black spot road funding. There is more in the budget and there is more in the federal budget, I understand; but, like Oliver Twist, we want more. There is a real need for that to happen.

The issue of speed limits, though, is genuine. An article appearing in The Advertiser in January under the headline 'Speed zone insanity', stated:

The RAA is calling upon the state government to conduct a comprehensive review of speed limits to cut confusion and promote consistency.

Two days later (5 January), an Advertiser article stated:

More than 90 per cent of respondents to an Adelaidenow poll have backed a call from the RAA for the state government to clarify changes in speed limits.

It is confusing at times. I do not think that you should have to force people to reduce their speeds to the absolute minimum if the end result is that an area has been designated a high speed for genuine reasons. You could be clogging up the roads, causing a back-up (the concertina effect, I think they call it), if people are confused. Every night when I go home down Anzac Highway (when I am not catching the tram) people are not travelling at 60 km/h. I am not saying that that is unsafe but that is because they are unsure. We need to be very certain that people are clear about the speed zone for that area, not just the default speed zone.

The other issue that comes into this is that, when those speed zones are set, because you do have this mindset, 'Well, that is not a suitable speed for the area', people do tend to go faster—perhaps you should be looking at the 85th percentile rule there. There is also the big issue for those people who are trying their very best to do the right thing and stay at that speed or below that speed—and it is a speed limit, we should remember that. It is the upper speed limit. You do not have to drive at that speed. You can go slower if the circumstances prevail, and that should be the prima facie consideration.

The Hon. R.B. Such interjecting:

Dr McFETRIDGE: As the member for Fisher says, you can be booked for going too slow, and this is the point I make. If you are not sure of the speed limit and you are going too slow you could be causing further problems. America has a law that certainly penalises that. There is also a law that if you are going slow and more than five vehicles are behind you, you have to pull over when it is deemed safe to allow those vehicles to go past because driving at a slow speed is recognised as a significant, dangerous issue.

The big issue I have, which I have raised a number of times, is the accuracy of speed-measuring equipment. I know that another motion is before the house to look into this. I suggest that the Minister for Road Safety also talk to the metrologists (the people who determine the accuracy of measurement) about the accuracy of speed-detection equipment—whether that is a speedo in a car or the speed-detection equipment used by the police. It is very difficult, despite the very best efforts of the police and motoring engineers, to design and maintain equipment that is 100 per cent accurate.

It is a scientifically provable fact that, at the indicated speeds of 50, 60, 70, 80, 100 and 110, your variation can be from 8 km/h at about 50 km/h, right up to 13 km/h when you are doing 110 km/h. You could be doing 97 km/h or 123 km/h, but you might think that you are actually doing 110 km/h. It is scientifically provable that the uncertainties in there compound and can cause real issues. We need to set fair speed tolerances when pinging people for speeding. I guarantee that the people of South Australia are good people. They do not knowingly and recklessly disobey speed limits and they do not drive dangerously so that they are causing problems on the road, yet each year we see the number of speed detection figures going up.

Just yesterday I got back the speed detection figures for the postcodes in and around my electorate, and the number of speeding tickets that have been issued, particularly when you look at those issued between 50 km/h and 60 km/h, is quite amazing. There is a genuine issue out there. It would not take a lot to review the public's perceptions and to make sure that, if those perceptions are a reality, something is done about it. If there is a perception then an education program has to be put in place to break down that perception. There is nothing more important than making sure that everyone, whether they are a new learner driver or an 85 year old senior citizen, is driving to the best of their ability, paying attention all the time and driving within the speed limit. We must ensure that people are driving as safely as possible.

As the minister has said, the outcomes of inattentive driving—speeding, drink driving, drug driving and driving unroadworthy cars—can be life changing and life shattering and we should never treat them in a trivial fashion. Driving slower and slower may not be the answer. We need to make sure that in 2009 we are driving as safely as possible—whether that is because we are aware of the speed limits, we have safe cars or we are paying attention.

This is a very important issue and I ask the government to consider it and to look at what the RAA has said and the response to the Adelaide Newspoll. I also ask the government to have a look at the identification issue. It is not an adequate answer to say that it is the default system. We need to make sure that people are aware of the speed at which they are travelling and the speed they should be doing.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:36): I support this motion. I make it clear that I have a traffic matter before the court and I will not be talking about anything relating to that. This motion does not relate specifically to my issue, anyway. I support this motion for a range of reasons. I also have on the Notice Paper a motion scheduled for 30 April calling for a review of speed limits, but I am more than happy to support the member for Schubert in this motion.

The motion has three component parts. The first is about creating confusion for South Australian motorists. I think there is a significant degree of truth in that. I accept what the Minister for Road Safety said: the default system is very clear. I think some of the streets that have been designated as 50 km/h are designated inappropriately. I argued strongly for the 50 km/h default system, if members recall, but in its application I think it was not the fault of the department of transport; I think it was partly the fault of some of the councils. They left their recommendations until the last minute, and some roads have become default roads that should not have come into that category. I think that is one of the elements that the government needs to look at.

I do not think there are many of them, because the original concept of the default was that it would apply to residential streets where people are driving their cars in and out of their house. There could be a child on a tricycle, and all that sort of thing, and it makes sense to have a 50 km/h limit in a residential street.

I will give only a couple of examples. In town, Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue in the Parklands has a default speed limit. No-one lives in Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue (there might be a couple of magpies or plovers or other creatures like that) but that is 50 km/h by default. If one goes east, one will find that the first part of Unley Road through the Parklands is 60 km/h. No-one lives there. Peacock Road is 50 km/h. So, parallel roads in similar situations have different speed limits. I do not see that as being logical and sensible. I think that is part of the issue to which the member for Schubert is alluding.

As I said, I do not believe there are many of these instances, and if the government asked members of parliament to identify those anomalies I believe they could do it literally off the top of their head. I could certainly do it for my electorate. There are some streets in my electorate that I would classify as collector roads that are 50 km/h that should never have become 50 km/h because, by definition, they are not purely residential streets; they are collector roads. We have some roads which are collector roads and which are 60 and then, not far away, a stone's throw away, you have some which are 50, and that does create problems for motorists.

The other issue is that some of them change so frequently, and I think it particularly applies in the Adelaide Hills. Generally I support what the government has done there in lowering many of the speed limits, but some of them change so frequently that that can be an issue. I think that relates to the third point the member for Schubert makes. I have just written to the minister on this issue and received a response. I suggested that, certainly not in the default areas but in areas on arterial roads, the speed limit be painted on the road. The answer was that that could be dangerous. I do not accept that because we do it at railway crossings and schools. If it is dangerous, why does the government do it there?

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis: Schools are 25 km/h, that's why. It is a big difference.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: On a highway, if it is so dangerous, why have a painted centre line? I do not think the logic is there. You can use special paints which do not create false traction or slippage, particularly for motorcyclists—and I am very aware of the issues they face. I think the government should have a closer look at that question. As I say, not everywhere, but certainly in some areas. For example, going through Nairne, or approaching Nairne, the speed limit changes literally within every few hundred metres.

Mr Goldsworthy: How do you know about Nairne, Suchy?

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: I take an interest in speed limits there and the local member, who is still on probation in parliament, but he is doing well. As the member—

Mr Goldsworthy: Get out of it, I've been here for nearly seven years.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH: Well, you have to be in here about 15 years before you get off probation. For some of those hills' towns the speed limit does change frequently, and I am sure the member for Schubert would back me up on that—and the member for Kavel. You want people to be focussing on their driving (which they should be), but they are trying to watch the road ahead, they have to keep a distance from the vehicle in front, and they are looking for speed limit signs. In some places they have one sign—that is the standard—in others they have two.

I think you are probably putting a requirement on a driver which is beyond a reasonable requirement. You are putting so many responsibilities on them that I think you are testing the limit of reasonable human capability. In some areas where the speed limit changes suddenly or changes dramatically, for example, as you approach Old Noarlunga, it has to be made quite clear that you are going from an 80 km/h zone to a 60 km/h zone. You have trees and all sorts of things there and you are concentrating because you have a road going off to Victor Harbor. You need something more than the standard sign on the side saying that the speed limit is now not just different but significantly different and incurs a very hefty penalty if you breach it.

In terms of the member for Schubert's second point, I think there can be a review of speed limits across the state so that they follow proper standards. The member for Morphett mentioned the 85 per cent percentile. I was talking to a traffic engineer who used to work for the Department for Transport. His allegation is that many speed limits are now determined on the basis of political considerations, not on the basis of proper standards which used to be followed by the Department for Transport. I do not think he is simply someone who has retired and has sour grapes, but he is saying that, in his judgment, the speed limits are being set on the basis of political considerations rather than on the basis of proper technology, science and so on. I think that is an issue to look at and maybe the minister may want to raise that one day in the house in terms of outlining the procedures used in determining speed limits now; that is, whether or not they follow the proper standards and whether or not they follow things such as the 85 percentile method.

I am not one to argue that the changes in speed limits are simply to raise money. They do raise money, and that is fair enough, and it goes into issues such as reducing speed and promoting road safety. However, I do not think there is enough regard being given to the fact that modern cars can go up and down in speed very quickly and, in terms of people breaching speed limits, there has to be a reasonable tolerance for people to change their speed as they come into a new zone.

People are telling me that is not the case, that people are being caught just entering a new speed zone when, as I say, with today's technology, a car is so responsive both up and down in speed that there needs to be an allowance for that situation. You can go quickly from, say, 70 km/h down to 50 km/h in a matter or seconds or, likewise, you can go up.

Finally, regarding the point about marking the roads, someone put a suggestion to me the other day that the centre line could have a coloured dot, or something, in it to indicate a change of speed also. I have written to the new minister—I have already congratulated him on becoming a minister—and I have passed on that suggestion. I do not know whether it has merit—I am not the expert—but someone has suggested to me that maybe the centre line could have a coloured indicator to indicate that you are going from a 100 km/h zone to an 80 km/h zone, or whatever. Anyway, I pass that on to the minister for what it is worth.

Time expired.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (12:46): I also am pleased to make a contribution to the motion moved by the member for Schubert. I think he raises some very important and relevant issues, particularly in paragraph (b) which talks about aiming to create some uniformity. During the last state election campaign in 2006, I campaigned on that specific issue—that we need some uniformity in speed limits in and around the Hills district, particularly in my electorate, and the member for Fisher has touched on a couple of points in some specific areas in my electorate where there is some confusion caused for motorists in relation to the setting of speed limits.

Before I go on to the detail of the motion, I want to raise an issue in the contribution made by the Minister for Road Safety. I, too, congratulate the minister on his promotion, but it has been my observation over the seven years that I have been here that members' conduct in the house should and does change when they receive promotion from the backbench. When a backbencher is promoted to the ministry, their behaviour in the house should change, but I have not seen that occur in the recent promotion of the minister. He is still acting—

The Hon. A. KOUTSANTONIS: I have a point of order, sir. The member is making a personal reflection on me, and I take great offence at it.

The SPEAKER: I do not think he is making a personal reflection, but I understand the motion refers to speed limits not the behaviour of the minister for corrections. The member for Kavel might want to refer to the motion.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Thank you for that direction, Mr Speaker, but it does relate to the motion because it is commenting on issues raised in the debate on the motion. However, I certainly take your point, Mr Speaker. The minister is no longer a backbencher, recklessly casting around, as is the case with some backbenchers' contributions to the house. He has some quite serious responsibilities in his portfolio in this state and no doubt he does take that very seriously, but I raise the issue that he has really misrepresented what I think the member for Schubert was speaking about in his contribution.

The member for Schubert gave some examples of the community's concerns and the opinions of sections of the community on the placement of speed cameras and red-light cameras. I think I have said enough about that issue.

Speaking specifically about where I believe there is some inconsistency in the application of speed limits in my electorate—and I have raised these issues in correspondence with the relevant ministers, and received a pretty bland bureaucratic response. Obviously, officers of DTEI have drafted the response.

I sincerely hope that we see an improvement in the performance within government of the newly appointed Minister for Road Safety because the performance of the previous minister for road safety left a lot to be desired. I could raise some issues in relation to that, and I have raised those issues previously.

I have not hidden the fact that I have been frustrated and concerned with the performance of the previous minister for road safety. That person has left that office and I trust that the newly appointed Minister for Road Safety will do a better job.

The Hon. A. Koutsantonis interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: All of that, Tom. I have raised these issues relating to specific areas of inconsistency of speed limits in my electorate with the previous minister and received a pretty bland response, obviously drafted by DTEI officers, without much strength in the argument to support why those speed limits are in place.

I raise again in the house that there are some real anomalies in the application of speed limits. There is one example in particular, and I have highlighted this before but it continues to go unaddressed—to put it in plain terms, it still needs fixing. It is the road from Woodside to Nairne. It is a DTEI managed road corridor.

The 80 km/h speed zone on the way out from Woodside heading to Nairne commences further out of the town than the 50 km/h zone commences when you are coming from Nairne into Woodside. On the same section of road, one side of the road (travelling south) has a speed limit of 50 km/h and the other side of the road (travelling north) is 80 km/h. It is absurd and bizarre.

I have written to the minister and, as I said, received a response supporting the application of those speed limits. How can you have a section of road where one side is a different—

Mr Piccolo interjecting:

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: I will get the answer if you like. The next time this matter comes before the house I will read it out. It was a difficult reasoning to understand, but it was something like: that should be the speed limit as you approach the town but the other speed limit is applicable as you are going out of the town.

What happens when you do a U-turn on that section of the road? You are going 50 km/h, you do a U-turn and then you can go 80 km/h. It is really quite bizarre. I am happy to take it up with the newly appointed minister and hopefully we will get a bit more sense out of the issue.

The other matter is on Beasley Road, Oakbank. This is a relatively newly upgraded road. It is a local council administered road. For a fair length, I would say 500 metres, it is 50 km/h and then it goes to 80 km/h. It is a nice big road, resealed, wide, with new culverts put over the creeks, and so on. For the life of me, I cannot understand why it is 50 km/h. There are rural living areas, so homes are built on land of some hectareage—two or three hectares of land. It is rural living. The Oakbank Golf Course is on the other side of the road, so it is open country.

You tootle along there at 50 km/h for no real reason, apart from the fact that the council, I think, cannot get a lot of sense out of DTEI about having the speed limit changed to at least 60. There is no reason why we have to tootle along there at 50 km/h when it should be at least 60, or even 70. I am not aware of any accidents occurring on that section of road. Most of the road is straight, apart from when you turn off Onkaparinga Valley Road. There are a couple of minor turns which can be taken quite safely at 60 km/h.

So, they are a couple of specific issues in my electorate that I think need to be addressed. I am happy to take them up with the new minister. I even put a DTEI officer in my car and drove him around the district where these anomalies were.

Time expired.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT