HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-03-09 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SPEED CAMERAS

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:46): By leave—and with the support of the member for Fisher—I move my motion in a slightly amended form:

That this house establishes—

Members interjecting:

The DEPUTY SPEAKER: Order! I am sorry, member for Schubert, but I am finding it hard to hear you. Can members either return to their places or perhaps go outside for a lovely beverage?

Mr VENNING: I move:

That this house establishes a select committee to examine the use and effectiveness of speed cameras and other speed measuring devices used by South Australia Police in South Australia.

Speed cameras were introduced into South Australia in 1990 as an intended road safety initiative to reduce the number of fatalities and serious injuries caused by road accidents. There are currently 18 mobile and 78 fixed speed cameras within South Australia, and other speed devices operated by the Traffic Camera Unit of the South Australia Police.

Since speed cameras commenced operation, there has been much debate regarding their effectiveness to reduce road fatalities and injuries. There have been claims against the government that speed cameras are merely used as a revenue raising measure. Much of this debate has arisen as a result of the placement and location of such cameras being on roads that have no significant accident history. The Traffic Camera Unit does not have any input with regard to where speed cameras are used, instead a general order approved by the Commissioner of Police governs where cameras are placed.

Road safety is a serious issue, especially as the number of vehicles and road users increases, but we need to ensure that the state's resources are targeted at the most effective safety measures, and that motorists do not become victims of the tax collector. A number of factors other than speed are likely to cause fatalities or serious injuries in road accidents: driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, fatigue, inattention and road conditions. The Minister for Road Safety said in a recent interview on the ABC that:

Out of the 119 fatalities last year, there were only three that weren't caused by one of the major five, which is drinking and drugs, not wearing a seatbelt, fatigue, inattention or speed—

He does not mention roads—

...all of these factors can apply to anyone on our roads today.

I ask the question, are effective measures being used to try to combat all of these five causes of fatal crashes, or is speed disproportionately being focused on?

Figures released last year under a freedom of information request by a member in another place show that in 2009 just two of the top 10 revenue raising speed camera sites were located in South Australia's worst blackspots—only two. The police data for 2009 showed blackspots were throughout the metropolitan area on main arterial roads, and the roads which generated major revenue were in the CBD and the eastern suburbs—60s and 50s.

The member who made this FOI request said the records for 2008 and 2007 also showed that in most cases the top earning speeding camera locations were not in the worst places for speed related accidents. Positioning cameras where the risk of a serious accident causing injury or death is low, makes people resistant to the anti-speed message that we are trying to get out because they are cynical of the real motives behind that message.

There is also concern within the community regarding the pressure that police officers have placed on them to meet detection target numbers; in other words, quotas. The Rann Labor government has indicated that it wants to raise an extra $44.8 million from speeding fines over the next three years, which indicates that it views speed cameras as a source of revenue and not necessarily a road safety device. It makes a lie to the statement when an MP is crossed on the matter, to say, 'These matters are under the purvey of the police commissioner, he makes the decisions.' When you see that the government wants him to raise $44.8 million it certainly puts a lie to that fact.

An issue that causes angst for motorists is inconsistent speed zones, particularly the confusion that exists between 50 and 60 speed zones, and the placement of cameras in these speed zones. There are many cases where cameras have been placed in, say, a 50 kilometre zone on a road that appears to have a relatively low level risk with regard to serious injury or fatalities, but because it results in a larger number of fines being issued the camera remains and it becomes a frequent spot. King William Road, outside Parliament House down to Adelaide Oval, is just one example: a major road, 50 kilometres.

Cameras are placed where there is a higher level of motorists who would not have the local knowledge of what the speed limit is, and country people are certainly victims of that. You would just assume that it is a 60 zone and if you do not see the sign then you are gone. A fact that I find rather interesting is that if you are caught speeding over the limit anything up to, but not including, 15 kilometres per hour, you get a fine of over $200 but only lose one demerit point. Does this make sense? Basically, it is saying that we will give you 12 opportunities to speed before we take away your licence. Does that not send the message that catching you speeding is more about the fine paid than losing your licence? That is up for public debate, and I would not necessarily always agree with that.

As a result of the endless debate regarding whether or not speed cameras are revenue raisers or life savers, I requested my 2009 Adelaide University intern, Ms Jasmin Weatherly, to investigate the subject, and, again, I received an excellent report. The report she produced is extremely comprehensive and cites many case studies from other states and countries about the effectiveness of speed cameras. These case studies demonstrate that speed cameras are certainly causing problems to people out there and need to come under some scrutiny as to whether they are revenue raisers or not.

She recommends that a select committee be established to examine their impact on reducing fatalities and serious injuries caused by road accidents. I am happy to supply a copy of the report to those who would like further information on this subject. Much of the detail included in this speech is taken from that report. I would like to take this opportunity to commend Jasmin for her work, it has been very useful. I will also comment on how much value I get out of this university scheme, and I know that other members participate in it. I pay credit to the organisers of that scheme, particularly Professor Clem Macintyre.

The research included in this report shows that the introduction of advanced speed cameras in 1999 had no significant effect on the road toll. In fact, the road toll actually increased by 13 the following year, even though the revenue generated from speed cameras increased by over $1 million from 1999 to 2000. I would not necessarily agree with that, but I think that a select committee could certainly have a good look at this research and examine it in detail, because that is a fairly controversial thing to say.

Reports show that other measures aimed at curbing causes of serious injury and fatal crashes have produced far better results. In 2005, 24-hour mobile random breath testing units, anti-hoon legislation and immediate loss of licence if you were found to be drink driving were introduced. This saw the road toll reduce significantly in 2006 from 147 to 117. The introduction of drug-driving testing in 2007—something that I personally lobbied hard for a long time to see introduced; I was the first to introduce a drug-driving bill into this place—resulted in the road toll for 2008 reducing from 125 to 99: a good move. Comparing the same two years (2007 to 2008), the percentage of speed related fatalities remained almost unchanged, causing 37 per cent in 2007 and 36 per cent in 2008, respectively.

These figures motivated me to move this motion. It makes you think about whether more drug driving, more random breath testing stations and road upgrades at blackspots would have made a better impact on reducing the road toll than, say, a speed camera on King William Street. I think this would be the case.

However, the first step is to investigate the effectiveness of speed cameras, examining the placement of the cameras, the operation of those cameras—I have no doubt the member for Fisher will have a fair bit to say about not just cameras but also the speed detection devices—and the correlation with serious and fatal accidents in relation to blackspots and the impact they have on reducing the road toll. Comparisons could then be made and examined regarding the different road safety measures—drug-driver testing, random breath testing, etc.—to see which initiatives are most effective in reducing the road toll. Funds and efforts can then be targeted at those measures.

Also, the recent removal of the 'speed camera in use' sign has upset many people. Why were they removed? I know. We passed the legislation on the condition that those signs would be used. Minister Brokenshire, who was a minister in our government at that time, insisted that that be part of the legislation. Now, they have been removed. Well, we know why: policemen were being intimidated and harassed. Maybe that was highlighting a problem that could have been addressed in another way.

Now, without those signs there, a person could go through two or three cameras within an hour, particularly in relation to the distance they are apart in some cases—and the member for Fisher will probably talk about that—and you have lost your licence without realising you have even been past a camera. So, as I said, I raised this personally with the police commissioner and that was the reason, but I do not agree with it. In my opinion, dangerous driving and drink or drug driving are more likely to cause a serious or fatal accident compared to motorists who slightly exceed the speed limit. I say that I have no problem with speed cameras on the open road; no problem at all on the open speed limit. I am happy with that.

According to the statistics published on the South Australia Police website, in South Australia in 2009, 36 per cent of people who died in road accidents had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of .05 per cent or higher. I say that again: 36 per cent of them. Now, what is the message when 36 per cent of them had a blood alcohol concentration of higher than .05? Isn't there a message there? No wonder a backbencher for the opposition pushed this issue six years ago. I will repeat that, in 2009, 36 per cent of the people who died in road accidents had a blood alcohol concentration of .05 per cent or higher.

Inattention was also reported as a contributing cause in 52 per cent of fatal accidents and 40 per cent of serious injury accidents, from July 2009 to June 2010. We know that we can all be victims of this. We all get very blasé. I do 60,000 kilometres a year and I probably do things in that car that I should not. You take your eyes off the road. You have just got to continually remind yourself and pay attention because, a few seconds, and you have an accident.

Mrs Geraghty: Keep your hands on the wheel.

Mr VENNING: Keep your hands on the wheel; exactly right, as the member for Torrens reminds me. Absolutely. We are out there for hours and hours—and the member for Goyder would be the same. You are out there and become very blasé about these matters? No, you are driving a deadly machine.

As I said, I particularly support the use of speed cameras on the open road policing the 110 km/h speed limit. Members of the public are getting very concerned about getting large fines—more than $200 for doing 58 in a 50 km/h zone. They thought it was 60 because it was a busy main road and simply did not see the sign.

I think the practices of some police officers should also be assessed in the way they operate the machines, where they place them and their attitude to some of the people. It is sad because our police have enjoyed a very good reputation, probably one of the world's best. It is sad to see these cameras used to belittle our police force.

An investigation into the effectiveness of speed cameras is warranted in order to try to determine whether they have an impact on reducing road toll accidents causing injury and death or whether these cameras simply generate revenue for the government. If for nothing more than to improve public perception and reiterate the road safety message, I ask the house to support this motion.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:59): I strongly support this motion and seek leave to continue my remarks.

Leave granted; debate adjourned.

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