HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-First Parliament, Third Session (51-3)
2008-10-15 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SPEED DETECTION DEVICES

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:02): I move:

That this house establish a select committee to inquire into the effectiveness of radar cameras, hand-held laser guns and other speed detection devices in reducing accidents, injuries and fatalities on South Australian roads; and in particular, whether—

(a) these devices are being used for revenue raising or for road safety purposes;

(b) these devices are accurate, calibrated and tested according to national and international standards;

(c) road users are treated fairly as a result of the use of these devices;

(d) the policies and guidelines governing the use of speed detection devices are appropriate;

(e) there is new improved technology that could be used to assist in the detection of speeding motorists and red-light offenders; and

(f) any other relevant matter.

The first point I want to make quite clear is that this is not a criticism of the South Australian police force, for whom I have high regard. In my view, we have the best police force in the nation. From time to time, we will get the occasional police officer who might not do what he or she should, but I think that South Australians, rightly, respect our police force. We have high regard for the Commissioner and those who serve under him.

The reason for this motion is to tackle a matter often raised in the community: are these speed detection devices being used to raise revenue, are they being used for road safety purposes or (the other option) are they being used for both? I do not want to prejudge what our select committee might find, but I think that those are fair and reasonable questions to ask.

Members may say that it is not easy to prove or disprove the assertion that they are used for revenue raising or for road safety purposes, but this is such an important issue in terms of lives on our roads that it is worth exploring to see whether or not, as part of the inquiry, the devices, if they are appropriate, could be used more effectively and whether new technology is available.

I know, for example, that with the hand-held laser guns there is new technology coming which will provide a photograph of the offending vehicle or motorist. That is something that would be welcomed by the community. There is new technology happening. There are issues relating to the location of speed cameras in fixed positions on highways and freeways. Members who have travelled interstate will be well aware that there are fixed cameras in position on interstate highways. I am not aware if we have many that are fixed on our highways and freeways here but I am aware that we have the technology to check the speed, for example, of heavy vehicles travelling between point A and point B. That is a very common use of technology interstate.

There is a question about the calibration of these instruments. I was interested to hear, via a radio interview recently, that the assistant commissioner (I think it was) made the point that the laboratory for testing this equipment here is not accredited by the national Australian testing authority. I believe the answer that was given on radio by the assistant commissioner was that the personnel are accredited. I have, residing in my electorate, the former head of weights and measures in Queensland (I forget what the correct title is but that was effectively his role) who is now retired. He put to me that a lot of the equipment used here by the police is not properly tested and is not subject to the accreditation criteria that it should be.

I am not in a position to say whether or not that allegation is correct. However, his argument to me is that if the equipment does not conform to certain federal standards, as overseen by the national Australian testing authority, then the consequence of using that equipment renders it invalid. I do not know whether or not that is correct but that is one of the issues that could be looked at.

I have had put to me by a professor of physics at Adelaide University (Professor Jesper Munch, who is a laser expert and has been involved in developing lasers for guided missiles) that the current practice of the South Australia Police, in relation to testing laser guns before the motorcycle officer heads out for daily duties is deficient. The practice is to measure a fixed distance of, say, 50 metres behind a police station, which is deficient in the sense that it does not measure the velocity of a vehicle. As the professor put it to me, 'Fences don't travel very quickly.'

To measure a distance of 50 metres behind a police station with a laser gun means that the distance might be registering correctly but it is not measuring the velocity, which is what the offending motorist will be charged with. That is the view that has been put to me by the professor at Adelaide University. He has queried whether or not the hand-held laser guns are appropriately tested before they are used during the day. It will be interesting (and useful) to explore that situation.

For those who are mathematically inclined, velocity or speed is distance over time and, I guess, the police are focusing on getting the distance aspect correct. However, it does raise the issue of whether or not the device is measuring velocity accurately. As I understand it (and I do not profess to be an expert in this area) it is very difficult to test a laser gun with regard to the accuracy of velocity—very difficult indeed; certainly in an operational sense—and that, presumably, is why the police do not do it.

I have read the manuals produced by the manufacturers of laser guns, and it is interesting that they caution against carrying them on motorbikes, because they bounce around a bit more than in motor cars. Therefore, such a delicate instrument is subject to quite a bit of movement if it is carried on a motorcycle, and it is the motorcycle police who, not always, but often carry hand-held laser guns.

Another interesting aspect of laser guns is that they will give an inaccurate reading when a vehicle is detected on a bend. I am not a mathematician in the league of the Hon. Rob Lucas but, as I understand, it has to do with the cosine. If the laser gun is pointed at a vehicle coming round a corner, it will give a reading which is different from the actual speed at which the vehicle is travelling. The police and, I guess, the technical people will argue that that goes in favour of the motorist. That is one of the things that I think should be explored.

The use and the consequence of the use of a laser gun is essentially at the discretion of the police officer. The police officer has significant discretion in terms of whether or not he or she wants to charge someone with breaking traffic rules; whereas a fixed radar camera on a car takes a very objective picture of a vehicle. A set tolerance is built into it so that the motorist gets the benefit of a margin, and a margin is normally built in for technical error. I am told by police that none of their equipment is 100 per cent perfect—and one would not expect it to be.

As we have recently observed in relation to the Qantas Airbus incident, technology is not perfect, but with the laser gun, it is largely at the discretion of an officer whether or not he or she decides to issue a speeding expiation notice to an offender.

I mentioned earlier that there are new laser guns coming onto the market which take photographs. At the moment, the motorist is confronted with an allegation of a speed on a screen. We know from basic research that there can be a query about whether the image on the screen is actually of that particular vehicle or the driver confronted with an allegation of speeding. As I understand it, the visual on the laser gun could come from a different vehicle. Certainly if other vehicles are present, there are difficulties in terms of that procedure.

With the laser gun, the officer has to zero in with a guiding light on the numberplate and hold it there for a minimum of two seconds, maybe longer. There are issues about the accuracy of that, particularly in a situation where there are strong winds, or other factors, that could influence the accuracy and therefore the legality of the ticket issued to the driver.

I am not suggesting that laser technology is inaccurate: if it is properly calibrated, designed and used, lasers are extremely accurate. But what we have at the moment is a degree of variability because, as I said earlier, a lot of it comes down to the integrity of the officer and the ability of the officer to use the laser gun correctly.

The guidelines issued by the Commissioner in relation to the use of speed camera devices and laser guns are quite explicit and are to be deployed where the Traffic Intelligence Section has identified a road safety risk. I would recommend that all members have a look at the guidelines from the Commissioner about the location of speed cameras and the use of laser guns because, amongst other points, they state:

Speed cameras would generally not be commonly positioned within several hundred metres of changes in speed zone, although they can be so positioned in high-risk type zones, such as school zones.

Multiple speed detection devices would not operate within 1 kilometre of each other in the same direction on the same stretch of road.

Speed cameras are not to be located to operate on the down slope or foot of a hill, unless there is an identified road safety risk associated with that section of the hill.

When I have queried this aspect with the police minister, suggesting that particular officers do target motorists on the down slope or the foot of the hill, the answer that comes back is that they are doing it for safety reasons. That may be valid but it also may not.

Those are some of the things that ought to be looked at: the calibration and the positioning. This select committee is not about questioning whether or not some roads have an inappropriate speed limit. I think some of them have, I think some of the 50 km/h default limits are inappropriate, but that is a different issue, not related specifically to this select committee; although, by having the motherhood clause at the end, members of the select committee could raise that issue.

In summary, as I said at the outset, this is not an attempt to attack the police: this is an attempt to clarify, in the public interest, whether the radar cameras and speed detection devices are appropriate, whether they are being used appropriately, whether they are accurate and whether motorists and other vehicle users are being treated fairly in the use of those devices. I commend this motion to the house. I trust the government, the opposition and my fellow Independents will support it.

Dr McFETRIDGE (Morphett) (11:17): I indicate that the opposition supports the member for Fisher in this move to establish a select committee to inquire into the effectiveness of radar cameras, handheld laser guns and other speed detection devices in reducing accidents, injuries and fatalities on South Australian roads and, in particular, whether these devices are being used for revenue raising or other road safety purposes and a number of other issues raised by the member for Fisher.

I had the opportunity—and I thank the police—to have a full briefing on the operation of speed detection devices. I was able to visit the Thebarton barracks, and I thank the Minister for Police for organising that for me. I was given a complete briefing on how these devices work: how they are calibrated and how the officers are trained in using them. I have complete faith in the South Australian police to make sure that they are using these devices according to their training and advice from the manufacturers and those testing the devices.

Having said that, it is always required in such cases, not only for openness and transparency, that we protect our South Australian police officers who are using this equipment every day out there as a speed detection device and road safety device. I think there is a real issue here. We need to protect them so that they are never put in an embarrassing position where this equipment is held to question.

I, for one, have been critical of the police for not having National Association of Testing Authority (NATA) accreditation on their equipment, and they still do not have it. But having spoken to the police about this, they are in constant discussion with NATA, and I understand that they will be achieving some accreditation within a very short time frame, and I commend the police for that. They have had it in the past; they have it in place for a number of their forensic testing facilities and they are aware that NATA accreditation is required in many areas. Certainly, it adds confidence—and that is probably what it really is—the perception of extra confidence that they are doing what they are required to do and that it is backed up by highly qualified technicians with well-calibrated equipment.

The problem we still have though is that, no matter how well the police are looking after equipment and how diligent they are in their testing and their protocols, there still is the issue that motorists in Australia today are driving cars (2008 models) that still have a level of uncertainty in their speedos, and in 2008 I would have thought that is just amazing. The scientifically provable uncertainties in speed calibration are incredible.

I have been working with Mr Les Felix, who is a metrologist. Metrology is the science of determining the accuracy of measurement. Mr Felix is a world authority in this area. We are lucky to have him in South Australia. He has been involved in training police forces in South Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and, I believe, Queensland as well, in making sure that they are using the equipment as it is designed to be used and that they are interpreting the results of the equipment within reasonable levels of accuracy that need to be in place. Certainly, we have seen issues being raised about the tolerances that are accepted by police forces in South Australia and interstate.

I was told that the tolerances in Victoria were reduced by half, and the levels of fines went up exponentially. The problem I have is that if you are going to reduce those tolerances you have to make sure that the drivers who are driving these cars and who are trying everything possible to do their very best to make sure they are not speeding are not being pinged because their speedo or their equipment (in other words, their motor vehicle) is putting levels of uncertainty into their speed determination that are unavoidable.

For example, you can be sitting in your car and, according to your interpretation of what is going on, looking at your speedo, you could think you were doing 50 km/h but, by the time you take in the inaccuracy of the actual speedo itself, variation in tyre pressure, tyre wear, the loading of the car, the wind speed—and there are number of other factors that you add in—the levels of uncertainty are such that you could actually be doing between 42 km/h and 58 km/h but you are, in your mind, 100 per cent sure that you are doing 50 km/h.

Unfortunately, this uncertainty does get larger the faster you go. That is a scientifically provable range of uncertainties in speed measurement. To overcome that I think people like Les Felix have to be involved in establishing protocols and looking at the tolerances that are being put in place when speed detection equipment is used and quite heavy fines for speeding imposed.

Nobody in this place, particularly I, would ever condone people who deliberately speed, but if you are inadvertently speeding—because you have no intention of speeding; you are just unaware of the fact that your car is actually going faster than the speed that you recognise that it is doing from your interpretation of the information being given to you—innocently, I suppose, for want of a better description, and you are booked for speeding, then there should be some opportunity for you to have that looked at and adjudicated on.

I know it would be a cumbersome process, but because this scientifically provable level of uncertainty is there, I think, for openness and justice, there needs to be a panel or some review process that you can go to. You might have to pay the fine first as a surety or some sort of deposit but then be able to appeal to see what is going on. Certainly, if you are deliberately speeding you need to be penalised in a way that is going to make you realise that it is one of the most stupid things you can possibly do.

There would be nobody in this place or out on the streets who has not, as the current speeding campaign says, crept up over the speed limit. You do it going down hills; you do it around town when you are overtaking. It is a dangerous place to be, on the roads.

Certainly, combine that with the fact that AAMI insurance company's recent report on road accidents revealed that 44 per cent of road accidents were caused by inattentive driving. It is a bad combination. Speed and inattention is a real killer, in every sense of the term. It is very important, though, that, if they are to be driving on our roads in modern cars, people are able to have confidence in the fact not only that our police department is doing what it wants to do (that is, enforcing the law without any chance of being embarrassed because its equipment and protocols are not those that should be in place) but also that if drivers are put in a position whereby they know they are being pinged for speeding it is something they must face up to.

As I say, anyone who has been deliberately speeding should be treated quite harshly by the courts, because it is just intolerable. Having said that, I refer to another issue relating to the levels of speed limits. If you go from my place down at Somerton Park past the Marion Shopping Centre on Sturt Road, there are bus interchanges, pedestrian crossings, traffic lights and numerous commercial centres, and it is a 60 km/h zone. If you drive through the hills down to Clarendon, sleepy little Clarendon has a speed limit of 50 km/h. If you then go down into Meadows (and Meadows is just the same as Clarendon) it is 60 km/h. If you go to Macclesfield, about a kilometre out of Macclesfield, the limit is 50 km/h again.

There is a real need to examine the speed limits. The other one I find really quite an issue is Military Road, at West Beach, where it is 50 km/h. You are going from a 70 km/h zone to 50 km/h and 60 km/h zones. It goes all over the place. We need to look at the inconsistencies in setting speed limits around the place. We need to be sure that what we are doing is the right thing, not just what seems to be right or what gets a good media splash. We need to make sure that this committee is supported. Certainly, I will be more than happy to be a part of the committee or to put submissions to it.

Mrs REDMOND (Heysen) (11:27): It is my pleasure also to rise in support of the member for Fisher's motion this morning to establish a select committee to inquire into the effectiveness of radar cameras, hand-held laser guns and other speed detection devices in reducing accidents, injuries and fatalities on South Australian roads. Members may be aware that I spent some 10 years on the Road Safety Advisory Council in this state. Indeed, I was removed from that council only by a Liberal government when it came into power. The minister came through with a new broom, swept clean and virtually everyone was off the Road Safety Advisory Council.

I did spend some years on that advisory council and I therefore gained a bit of knowledge about road safety; and, of course, in the nature of the practice that I formerly ran I did a fair bit of personal injuries work with people who sustained quite significant and dramatic injuries as a result of road accidents. I had a fair bit of work in terms of understanding some of the impacts, and so on. I come to the debate with a strong interest in issues of road safety, and I want to make a couple of comments about the issue generally. I start with the issues that were touched on by the member for Morphett, that is, this idea of when it is appropriate to be apprehending people under our road speed limit regime.

I have a strong suspicion that, in the last week or so, the government began a campaign about motorists creeping over the speed limit which is not aimed at road safety: I think it is aimed at revenue raising. I have a strong suspicion that this government is trying to soften up the electorate ready to introduce some lower tolerances in terms of at what point the speed detection devices will be imposing fines on people.

I know that in Victoria they went to a position where, if you were travelling in a 50 km/h zone at anything like 53 km/h, even three km/h over the limit, you would be fined for any breach. I have a problem with that because, as other members may have mentioned—and certainly the member for Morphett may have touched on it—in this country car speedometers are only required to be accurate to within a 10 per cent tolerance. That means that, if you are the most conscientious driver in the world and drive down the road in your brand-new car, you could be driving with the speedo clearly saying that you are doing exactly 50 km/h but, because the Australian design rules have that 10 per cent tolerance, in reality you may in fact be doing anything between 45 and 55 km/h.

So, I have a real problem with any government that decides to start imposing fines at less than that tolerance. Beyond that tolerance, I am prepared to accept that you need to be aware that, even when you are driving at 50 km/h, you may be doing 55 km/h and, if you were fined for doing beyond 55 km/h, so be it.

The reality is that, if you are doing 50 km/h in your brand-new car and you are an extremely conscientious driver who touches the brake even if you start to speed up a little as you drift down a hill, you could be doing 55 km/h and I believe the government is introducing this new series of 'creeping' advertisements simply to prepare us for a new and less tolerant regime, one to which I object, simply because it is not fair to have fines imposed on people who are doing exactly what they think is the right thing, namely, driving at 50 km/h but potentially driving up to 55 km/h without their knowing it.

As the member for Morphett said, we all tend to creep over the limit not because we are trying to hedge a little or go a little bit faster, but if you are going down a slope the weight of your car is likely to increase your speed and take you marginally over the limit. It might be only 1 or 2 km/h over the limit, but you can get over the limit before you recognise it and touch the brake and bring the car back to the required speed limit.

I have no objection to the idea that reduction in speed has been a major factor in reducing the number and severity of accidents. I supported the change to a 50 km/h limit. I specifically remember the minister talking about it when we debated it in this chamber—although it was regulation and not legislation—and the minister assured this house that the 50 km/h zone was to apply in the back streets, that the arterial roads would still be 60 km/h, but once the regime was introduced we are getting 50 km/h zones all over the place, not just in back streets but also on main streets.

The idea originally was that arterial roads would remain at 60 km/h. I have had many letters, to both the council and the department, asking why arterial roads have been signposted at 50 km/h rather than 60 km/h. Eventually I reached the conclusion that we will gradually lower the speed limit everywhere and not just on the back roads. Worldwide research supports the idea that we have fewer accidents and they are less severe if people are travelling at 50 km/h rather than at 60 km/h. I have no objection to that aspect.

I believe the current indication, where the government is heading towards having lower tolerances on the speed limit, is all about revenue raising and not about saving more lives on our roads. If they really wanted to save more lives on our roads—and anyone working in road safety will verify it—you will find that basically there are three elements. One of them is driver behaviour—things like wearing a seat belt, driving at a lower speed, not drinking and driving or not taking drugs and driving. We have had a massive impact on those aspects of driver behaviour. Most people wear seatbelts most of the time and most people do not drink and drive, and we have seen a decline in road injuries and fatalities.

The next element is the safety of the vehicles themselves. We have done enormous things with retractor seatbelts, baby capsules and airbags. All sorts of things have been introduced into cars, notably a sort of cage in which we are protected so the car crumples but leaves intact the essential part where the passengers are located. All those things have helped.

The third element—and the one which the government should be addressing if it really wants to have an impact on road safety—is what is called the roadside furniture, for example, the shoulders of the road. Sadly, this government has been lacking in paying any attention to the shoulders of the road or any of the other things that are likely to cause harm to people when they accidentally run off the road and so on. It is that third element that needs attention.

I support the idea that we need to look at this issue. Therefore, I support the motion that we look at the impact of radar guns and other speed detection devices, because, at the end of the day, I do not think that this is now anything more than revenue raising for a lot of the time. We should be concentrating on how we address the issue of the ongoing number of injuries and fatalities—which still number far too many. I suspect that we need to look at things such as pedestrian behaviour and the interaction of cyclists and pedestrians with car users.

There is no doubt that cars are a lethal weapon in terms of any impact with a pedestrian or cyclist who is unprotected. We need to look at a range of issues beyond the use of speed detection devices as a mechanism for road safety. Quite frankly, I do not think that is where the real problem with road safety lies, so I support the motion.

Mr HANNA (Mitchell) (11:37): I support the motion to establish a parliamentary committee into the effectiveness of radar cameras in reducing accidents, injuries and fatalities on South Australian roads. The motion moved by the honourable member specifies that the committee, if established, should look at whether these devices are being used for revenue raising or road safety purposes. Without foreshadowing what a considered response might be to that proposition, we would probably conclude that there is an element of revenue raising, as well as genuine road safety purposes, in terms of the deployment of speed cameras.

The community is concerned about it. If we go any further towards a revenue-raising motivation for speed camera deployment, then there is a risk of public confidence in SAPOL being eroded because the community sees the government wanting to raise more revenue and that some speed cameras are placed in places which are not particularly relevant in terms of road danger, so there is a conclusion that the police in some way are doing the revenue-raising work of government. That perception needs to be put right out of people's minds in order for us to retain full confidence in SAPOL.

It is natural that the cynicism is there when the deployment of cameras is not always in places which clearly show there is a danger of collision or harm to pedestrians and so on. I think it is high time that we as a parliament looked at this issue to put to rest once and for all the assertion that speed cameras are there for revenue raising. If they are, then they should not be used in that way. If there is nothing to this widespread cynical belief about speed cameras, so be it; it would be good for a parliamentary committee to find that. So, I commend the motion of the member for Fisher. I hope that the government will see that there is no harm in simply examining this issue and coming out with an objective response.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:40): I will briefly speak to the motion without repeating what has already been said. Certainly, we support this motion and the setting up of the select committee, and we commend the member for Fisher for his motion. I should declare that I have transgressed in a certain way and paid the ultimate price, I would say. As a person doing approximately 60,000 kilometres a year, and often running late, I do run that risk. I think the consistency of speed limits, as mentioned by the member for Heysen, is my single biggest problem. When discussing this with the Police Commissioner just a couple of days ago, he admitted that there has been a problem with people guessing the limit and not knowing.

So, I certainly welcome this. I think it is time that we in this house took time out and looked at this issue. I am happy to offer my services to this select committee, should there be a vacancy, because I think a lot can be done. There is a broad accusation by people out there that this is used as a revenue raiser as well as a deterrent to speeding and a measure to save lives. At the moment we are seeing an increase in the road toll. It seems to be, some would say, a statistical aberration—it seems to go up and down—but, certainly, in my experience, I believe that I drive according to my judgment about the safety of the road and my motor vehicle, and what the road conditions allow safely.

After all, I believe the bottom line is that we are all responsible for our own safety on the roads because, if you are not, you will kill yourself—as long as you do not kill other people at the same time. We are responsible to some degree. We have all heard the comments about South Australia being a nanny state. We cannot protect people from themselves, but we do have to put down guidelines to protect people who do not know the road and put down speed limits to ensure that they can travel on our roads safely.

I have heard the discussion from the member for Morphett many times in relation to the devices being used and whether they are accredited and regularly checked. I use a GPS in my vehicle to give me an exact reading, because speedometers in cars do vary. It worries me to hear that the tolerances will be changed, and also the current advertising program about the creeping driver (the person who creeps over the speed limit). All I can say is that, if we had consistency, there would be a lot less of it.

I am happy to drive on all major roads within cities and towns at 60 km/h an hour. I have no problem whatsoever with that, and never have had. When you are driving on a major road like King William Street down past this building to the cathedral it is 50 km/h. Why? I cannot understand why that is the case; there are no houses there. In some of the other areas where you would think it is 60 km/h it is 80 km/h. It is inconsistent.

My big problem has been that, in many areas—not always—local government constituents write to their council complaining about speeds, and I have personal information that people write in because they want everyone to drive slowly past their place and then speed past everyone else's. Isn't that human nature? I think it is high time councils were more responsible and make a decision there and then and say no, they should should not necessarily then pass it on to the road safety board, the police, or both, and the decision be made then, because the council did not make that decision in the first instance.

I am saying councils have to be more proactive. The member for Goyder would know this. They know their areas. I think it is a nonsense that we have 80 km/h speed limits all the way from Nuriootpa to Greenock—it is 80 km/h all the way. Sorry; I transgress again. I am going to be in trouble there one day, because I just do not think it is reasonable on an open road to have an 80 km/h speed limit all the way. The same applies to Gomersal Road, the road for which I pushed so hard. I know a 90 km/h speed limit was put on that road for those people who did not want the extra traffic because of noise and everything else. Well, I think it is time.

I have seen two speed cameras on that road at the same time and just a few kilometres apart—and I know there is a recommendation—three, four or five kilometres apart. However, if you happen not to see either of them, you could lose your licence in one afternoon. Yes, there have been some fatalities on Gomersal Road, but I would say to the government that, before increasing the speed limit, the intersections need to be upgraded so that there are some turning off lanes. It is those intersections: it is nothing to do with the road itself, it is the intersections. Upgrade the intersections and I would take the road, say, to 100 km/h, which I think on a road such as that is reasonable and most people would expect that.

I welcome this motion for a select committee to look at this. As most people in this house would know, if someone was to put up a party, particularly in the upper house, and call it a single issue party on this issue—for example, just like the No Pokies, a single issue—I think that party would do very well, because people are sick and tired of this. I was talking to a police officer who told me that, last year, his family paid $1,000 in speeding fines; that is, him, his wife and two kids—and that is a police officer. I do not think it is fair to make people law breakers if they did not see a sign. I do not think it is fair or just—and you know that the man in blue is waiting on the corner to catch you because he knows jolly well that this is a good spot to catch a few people. He has had a quiet week and he needs to push the revenue levels up a bit, he knows the right spots, particularly on the Gomersal Road at the bottom of the hill.

I have said in the house previously that I set my cruise control on 90 on that road, but, at the bottom of the hill, my car gets to 105, 108, if you let it, because it will run on. Cars will not hold; you have to watch that. You just cannot set the cruise control and forget it. All I can say is that, in the old days, we had two speed limits: the speed limit for towns and the speed limit for open roads. Why can we not go back to that? There was no problem with that; you knew exactly where you were. I believe the proliferation of the 50 kilometre speed limit is far in excess of the original idea. The minister of the day who brought that in was Diana Laidlaw.

The 50 kilometre zone, I think, was implemented for the suburb of Unley—they were having 40 and 50 kilometre zones. That is where it started and now look where it is—we have major roads at 50 km/h. I believe that all arterial roads—that is, all through roads, major roads in towns—should be 60 km/h and all suburban streets with houses at least on one side of the road should be 50 kilometres. Easy—but, no, we have these 50 kilometre speed limits all over the place. Coming in this morning, there was a 60 to an 80 to a 70 to a 50—and there was even a 40.

The Hon. I.F. Evans: Bingo.

Mr VENNING: That is right, it is. He is exactly right. It is Russian roulette. It is ridiculous, totally ridiculous. You only need to drive around our own city terraces—North, South, East and West terraces. You can drive along West Terrace at 60 km/h, but when you come around the corner, its being a busy intersection, you do not see the 50 kilometre sign, boom, they are waiting for you. Just around the corner it is 50. Now why is that? I note the motion states 'any other relevant matter'. I am sure there will be many other relevant matters and I look forward to the house supporting this motion. Certainly, if I am not able to be on the select committee, I look forward to giving evidence. I support the motion.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS (Davenport) (11:48): I rise to support the member for Fisher's motion to establish a select committee into radar cameras, laser guns, other speed detection devices and, as the member for Schubert said, any other relevant matter—I will not go through all the terms of reference. I rise to support it because, of late, a number of constituents have raised with me individual matters concerning speed camera offences, and I have taken them to the media to bring to the public's attention some of the injustices occurring within the system.

Having dealt with those matters, I have come to the view that there needs to be a stand-alone office separate from the police, possibly in the police complaints department, although not necessarily, that deals with the challenges to the speeding offences issued by speed cameras and the like. I have come to this conclusion for these reasons. If you look at what happened to one of my constituents who had his licence for 44 years and not had a speeding offence, any traffic offence at all—

Mrs Redmond: He should be very proud of it, I think.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: He was proud of it. He got picked up going through a red-light camera on the corner of Doctors and South roads (from memory) in the southern suburbs. He was not reported for going through a red-light but for speeding through the intersection. As luck would have it, when you go through a red-light speed camera system two photos are taken one second apart. We know that because we asked for the photos from the police department, and you actually get the photos, and they say, 'These are taken one second apart.'

On the first photo, which showed the light was orange, the back wheels of the car are on the white line of the intersection that he is leaving. The second photo, taken a second later, shows that the car has not made it across the intersection. The good thing about the two photos at that junction is that there are so many lines and other infrastructure, such as concrete plinths, that you can actually measure how far the car has travelled. So, my constituent went down there with a measuring wheel and a tape and he measured the distance.

From memory, he was booked for doing 69 in a 60 zone. If you measure the distance, even between the two white lines right across the junction, had he made it right across the junction, the most he could have been doing was 64 km/h in that second. So we wrote to the Commissioner of Police saying, 'Look, there's something wrong here. Physically he could not have been going 69; the photos clearly show that.' This went through a bit of a tennis match between my office and the police Expiation Notice Branch, which eventually said, 'Well, if you want to test it, you go to court.' I will come to that point in a minute.

The second constituent was out north. Of course, I wrote to the Commissioner and the police minister, and what we got back was the police minister saying that the camera was in a totally different spot to what the fine said. The fine said the camera was placed X metres from a change in speed sign, and the minister's letter said it was some 500 metres somewhere else. When we took that up with the Expiation Notice Branch—the fact that there were two speed cameras in two different places at the same time—it said, 'Well, bad luck; you take that up with the court'.

I suspect that the Expiation Notice Branch and some of the colourful personalities who serve the public in that branch are simply using the tactic of, 'You go to court if you want', knowing that a lot of people who are probably innocent cannot afford it in either money or time or are intimidated about taking on the police in the court system. Therefore, they reluctantly pay out $300, $400, or whatever it is, in fines rather than go to court. I think it is almost a tactic by some in the Expiation Notice Branch to get the fines paid.

I have come to the conclusion that what should happen is that, on those contested fines, there should be someone outside of the police that judges them and makes the decision as to whether or not the fine stands. I think that would be a far better system than having the police judge their own fines. I think the public will lose confidence in the system if the police Expiation Notice Branch deals with complaints as it has my constituents' complaints.

I will not go through all of the other reasons why I support this motion, but the matters put before the house by the members for Fisher, Schubert and others about a whole range of issues, about where, how and why they are placed, whether there are quotas required of the police, and all those sorts of questions that might be asked through the select committee, I think have been in place now for 10 or 15 years, and I think it is time for a review.

I see no harm in it. I think it can only be good, and I will certainly encourage constituents of mine who have these complaints to put their case before the committee so that it can call in the police officers and have them explain how a car could possibly be doing 69 km/h when the photo shows it could not be any more than 64.

Mr PENGILLY (Finniss) (11:55): I also rise to support the motion moved by the Hon. Bob Such, and concur with many of the remarks made in this place this morning as well as many of the examples. Indeed, I have any number of constituents who come into my office or who write to me regularly about the whole issue of speed guns and speeding offences in general, as well as about the tactics used (as indicated by the previous speaker) in the collection of these fees. It has got to the stage where one starts to wonder just what they are for: are they pre-programmed, is there a monthly award for whichever police officer or speed camera operator raises the most revenue? On many occasions it would appear that way.

In the country, more so than in the city, we have some unique methods of informing people of where these speed cameras or radar guns are located. Of course, the old flashing of lights is always good, but in the Fleurieu part of my electorate we also have some citizens who put up signs on the road to say that they are ahead so that everyone slows down. I, for one, have been very wary of these devices and their operators and where they locate themselves.

I am not in any way, shape or form supporting stupidity on the road or speeding. In fact, I have just been through a process where I was very keen to get a speed limit reduction on the Victor Harbor Road just out of Victor Harbor, where there have been a number of tragic accidents. That is not the issue. As the member for Davenport said, these cameras and guns have been in place for a number of years now, and I believe it is an opportune time for a parliamentary committee to have a good look at this, call for evidence, and find out just what is what.

I think the member for Morphett talked earlier about the need for the devices to be properly calibrated or the error factored into them, and in some cases I do not think people are fairly treated. If someone is doing 140 or 150 in a 100 km/h zone they do not get any sympathy from me whatsoever, but the issue is also that driving in the country is substantially different from driving in the metropolitan area. I do 60,000 kilometres a year driving around my electorate and I need to get there in reasonable time. I know that members who have large outback electorates, like the members for Stuart and Flinders, have to drive for many kilometres, and they want to get on with it; they do not want to be driving along in a 100 km/h zone when they could be in a 110 km/h zone.

I think it has gone a bit overboard. One of the issues here with people getting caught regularly is that we are seeing an increasing number of signs with speed limits being changed. People are not aware of it and they are getting stung. I do not know whether or not the councils are always informed—in fact, I am sure they are not—but, lo and behold, the limit will be changed from 80 to 60 km/h or from 100 to 80 km/h and you can almost guarantee that the next week the police are sitting there with a radar gun or cameras are set up to trap the unwary.

These people might have driven down that stretch of road for 10 or 20 years and the speed limit has been reduced from 80 to 60 km/h, or from 100 to 80 km/h, but they are unaware of it and they get pinged straight away. There does not seem to be any means of informing the public in a fair and equitable manner that the speed limit has changed. Picking up on the member's motion as to whether the policies and guidelines governing the use of speed detection devices are appropriate, I think that is something a select committee could well look into in fairness to the community.

Referring again to their revenue-raising potential, the revenue that comes in from these things must be enormous. I suppose I could find out, if I cared to do some work on it, but the manner in which some of these speed detection devices are set up does cause concern.

Debate adjourned.

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