HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2011-09-29 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

RESIDENTIAL SPEED LIMITS

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:36): I move:

That this House requests the State Government in conjunction with the relevant Councils to implement a 50kph speed limit in lieu of the 40kph speed limit which still exists in some residential precincts.

I was a supporter of the 50 km/h default scheme, even though, in my view, with the way it has been introduced there have been some—and they still exist—anomalies in some of the streets that have been designated as 50 km/h. Some people may think I am a speedster. I point out for the record that, prior to the allegation of speeding in January 2008, which I still dispute, I have never had a speeding ticket, a camera fine or an accident in my life, and I have been driving since the day I turned 16.

What we have at the moment is an unnecessary mixture of speed limits across the metropolitan area. We have the City of Unley with its 40 km/h zone, and parts of Charles Sturt and Mitcham. There may be others, but they are the ones I know about. I think it is no longer acceptable to have those precinct-wide 40 km/h zones. We have an established Australian Road Rules standard relating to the 50 km/h default system. Yet, in South Australia, because the department of transport and the government have been unable to bring about that standard approach, what we have is a mixture of these speed zones.

You can travel from one side of Cross Road to the other and go from an identical situation where it is 50 km/h, cross the road (60 metres or whatever it is) and then you have 40 km/h. I do not believe it is warranted. In parts of Blackwood we have 40 km/h zones, and that was done at the behest of some of those residents who wanted a special speed zone in their area. When I raised it with one of the councillors I said, 'Look, I'd like to have a 10 km/h speed limit in my street.' She said to me, 'Look, if you don't work in that 40 km/h zone and you don't have to visit there, don't go there.' Well, that's a silly answer.

I think what we have is a very unsatisfactory situation. We have a standard which applies to genuinely residential areas and streets, which is designed to protect people reversing out of their driveways, kids on bikes coming out and all that sort of thing, which I think we should stick to as a general principle. I don't have a problem with exceptions for shopping centres or community events, and obviously there will be provisions in car parks, etc., where it is signposted, but why not have the standard which applies and should apply as a result of the Australian Road Rules?

In the City of Unley, when they analysed the offenders—people who were exceeding the 40 km/h limit—the figure that came up was that 40 per cent of the speeding notices issued by police in Unley were from people who lived in Unley. So the main offenders—if you like, the largest single group of offenders—were the actual local residents offending against their own 40 km/h limit.

What we have now is the City of Adelaide wanting to introduce 40 km/h speed limits in streets in the city. As I say, I think you can make a case for certain shopping areas where there is higher pedestrian traffic, but the City of Adelaide wanted to put a 40 km/h speed limit in Hutt Street and it has also recently raised the possibility of putting it in other streets. I think it is absolutely unacceptable. It leads to confusion.

Motorists are trying to drive safely and are watching the car in front to keep a safe distance from it, and they also have to look for signs. What we have now is this mishmash. In fact, in 2004, minister Trish White (and I think she was the minister at the time that the 50 km/h default system came in) stated: 'There is a view that there is a reduced need for 40 km/h speed limited areas.' She made that comment after the introduction of the 50 km/h urban limit in March 2003.

I put this challenge to the government: does it have the spine to insist, through the Department for Transport, Energy and Infrastructure, that councils get rid of these blanket 40 km/h zones which are done for local parochial political reasons and have little to do with much else? If the 40 km/h is so good in residential areas, why do we not have them in all residential areas? No: what we have is privileged treatment for some people, special treatment for some people and not others. I do not believe that is acceptable. What we have, as I said at the start, is a mishmash of speed limits which are confusing and lead to unnecessary problems for drivers and others.

I think it is time that the government moved, in conjunction with those councils, and do what a responsible sensible council like the City of Onkaparinga did; that is, get rid of the 40 km/h zones and only have those zones lower than the 50 km/h where there is a demonstrated and justifiable need—for example, in car parks. I do not know whether members realise that in car parks the speed limit is 50 km/h unless there is a sign to the contrary; likewise on a cycleway or anywhere like that it is 50 km/h unless there is a sign to the contrary.

What we need is clarity, simplicity and consistency across the board and not this plethora of speed zones and speed limits which does not do anything other than confuse the motorist and boost the state government's coffers.

Debate adjourned on motion of Mrs Geraghty.

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