HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, First Session (52-1)
2010-07-22 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

SPEED LIMITS

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (11:29): I move:

That this house calls on the state government to conduct a review of speed limits, with a view to—

(a) obtaining greater consistency in application;

(b) improving speed limit signage, including additional painted speed limits on roads where appropriate; and

(c) allowing greater demerit point loss in lieu of a heavy fine.

At the outset I should make it clear that this has nothing to do specifically with my court case, which is now before the Supreme Court, and I will not be commenting on that—not at this stage.

I notice the former minister for road safety is here (Hon. Michael O'Brien). He helped advance this issue, and I will come to that in a moment. I think you would have to be getting around with your eyes shut not to be aware that we have speed limits that seem to change very quickly, and the vast majority of people do not intend to break the law but unwittingly do break the law because the speed limits change very frequently.

There are some examples through the Adelaide Hills, and I am sure the member for Kavel would have something to say about this. Someone was telling me the other day they have a property at Mannum and they no longer drive through the Adelaide Hills towns because they are always in fear of breaking the speed limit and they are up and down with the speed limit, so now they go up the freeway. What happens is that those small towns in the Adelaide Hills miss out on passing trade.

We have a lot of other inconsistencies, and I know the former minister was in the process of looking at this, and I met this week with the current minister (Hon. Jack Snelling) and I urge him to continue the work done by his predecessor. In the parklands, for example, Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue is 50km/h. There is no-one living there whatsoever and there are only parked cars. That has a limit of 50km/h. Then you go to Unley Road, which is in virtually an identical situation in the same southern part of the parklands and that is 60km/h. You can think of other examples where the surrounding environment is virtually identical. In my electorate Reynell Road is 50km/h and parallel to that is Kenihans Road which is 60km/h, even though the two roads have houses on both sides. Obviously you have to have speed limits and they need to be enforced, but the arrangement—the display, and so on—has to be fair and reasonable so that people are not unwittingly breaking the law.

New South Wales has a practice where, when you leave, say, an arterial road and enter a side road which is 50km/h, it is signposted at that point. It does not undermine the default system because, when you enter that 50km/h default zone once you have come off the arterial road where there is a sign, you no longer have to signpost each and every residential street because people know they have entered a zone which is 50km/h. So, you still have the default system. I invite people next time they go to New South Wales to hire a car and go for a drive. When you come off the Great Western Highway through the Blue Mountains, as soon as you turn off that highway there will be a sign saying 50km/h, and once you are in the zone there are no more signs because that is a 50km/h zone.

The other practice (which I understand is also applied in Queensland) is that the New South Wales Road and Traffic Authority will not approve a road being less than 60km/h (unless it is a school zone, or something like that) unless the road is designed for that speed. I met with Michael de Roos, the general manager for safer roads in the Roads and Traffic Authority in New South Wales. He said he will not approve any speed limit less than 60km/h (unless, as I say, it is a school or some special situation) if the road is not designed and constructed in a way that requires people to drive at that lower speed. Yet, what we have had here, and what we have had for a long time, is that councils have just whacked up signs that have been approved by the department of transport on roads that are collector roads which are not within the normal definition of what should be a 50km/h zone.

I think just putting up a sign saying it is 40km/h is not warranted. What we have had is blatant pork-barrelling in councils such as Mitcham where certain areas have been given 40km/h and others have not. When I raised this with one of the councillors she said to me, 'If you don't live there or don't work there, don't go there.' That is ridiculous. We live in a community. This is Adelaide, which is one city. To the credit of the City of Onkaparinga, it got rid of its 40km/h zones once we had the standardised default 50km/h system.

There are also some other issues that need to be tightened. One is road works signs. Some contractors, whether they be government or private, indicate road works and, often, you are puzzled as to when the road works end. I will not name the person but I know a senior and respected person who works in this place who entered a road works zone on South Road and immediately got fined and there was nothing to tell them it was a road works area. Once again, you need proper signage. It has to be fair and reasonable, and it has to be fairly transparent.

There are some other issues that I think need to be addressed also in relation to reviewing speed limits. New South Wales has for 20 years painted speed limit information on its roads, particularly its arterial roads. That costs, according to Michael de Roos, $1,000 each and they last seven or eight years. He said that, contrary to what is trotted out here by the department of transport, they have not had a problem with motorcyclists. He said the motorcyclists do not like complete road coverage at school crossings or railway crossings because they pose a problem for them. It is hard to do much about that because my argument is that motorcyclists should be slowing down at those points, anyway.

When you paint the numbers on the road for whatever the speed is—80 or 100, or whatever—you are not covering the whole road. They use a special paint. Other countries do it. They do it in parts of Europe. For the life of me I cannot understand why the Department of Transport here will not consider it. You do not have to do it everywhere. You do it where there is some ambiguity.

For example, one used to exist—it has now been rectified for other reasons—at Old Noarlunga, where you went from 80 to 60 and the signs were hidden amongst the trees. What you need is for the reduced speed limit to be painted on the road. I do not think you need to paint it when the speed limit goes up because people are less likely to offend unwittingly in that situation. When it goes from 80 to 60 that is a substantial fine if you get caught not adhering to the lower speed limit. You don't have to do it everywhere. You have to apply a bit of commonsense in its application.

Some other points which relate to this whole issue need to be considered. I will pursue this issue over time. When people are handed an expiation notice, they do not get the detail they need unless and until they go to court. What you get is information that says you were apprehended speeding, for example, on South Road. Well, South Road is a long road. If you challenge it and go to court they have to supply page 2. My argument is that at the same time you get page 1 you should get page 2, which tells you where the officer was and other detail. Some seven months later witnesses, and whatever, have flown and it is difficult. Once again, the system needs to be fair.

I have raised this issue before and the government has said it is always difficult: I cannot see why pensioners and other people on low incomes, with necessary proof cannot get a reduced penalty. We seem to be able to do it for a whole lot of things. Currently, the fines payment unit is owed in excess of $100 million. I am not surprised. If you impose a heavy penalty on a pensioner, you basically wipe out their whole weekly or fortnightly income. I think that is blatantly unfair.

As we know, under our system if you own a business you do not even cop a demerit point loss because, if you are prepared to pay the fine, the business camouflages your behaviour. The current system is blatantly unfair. It also means that if you are rich and you are happy to pay fines, and so on, you are in a lot better position than a pensioner or someone on a disability benefit. Those people are struggling anyway, and with computerisation I cannot understand why they cannot be given a concession. We do it in other areas. I do not think there would be a sudden outbreak of speeding by grey power. What you will get is an outbreak of fairness.

Another point I want to make relates to heavy fines. The minister might respond by saying, 'Well, people can do community work.' Some of that is a farce. One of my constituents has racked over $1,000 worth of community work orders, but she claims that she was told, 'Look, it will never be enforced so don't worry about it.' Another character who is a serial traffic offender said that he was given community work which involved sitting at desk but he now says that his shoulder does not allow him to do even that. In many of these cases no consequence is followed through or applied.

It is only people who follow traditional values of being accountable who pay up and get penalised. As an option we should consider greater demerit point loss in lieu of a heavy fine, particularly for people on low incomes. People have come to me and said that they have never had a speeding fine in their life but they have inadvertently copped one. The fine is very heavy for them but, because they are not serial offenders, it would not matter if they lost five demerit points because they are not likely to offend again. Rather than impose a huge financial burden on them, why not have a greater demerit point option or something like that?

Another point (which has not been picked up here) is that our penalties are a lot higher than many other places. Talking on a mobile here is a fine of $240, in New Zealand it is $NZ90 and in California it is $US50. I do not encourage people to talk on the phone while driving because it is dangerous. The fact is that our penalties are very high. Given that, in general, the income level in South Australia is lower than most other states it is another example of unfairness.

In conclusion, I urge the government, particularly the Minister for Road Safety, to look at these issues and the Minister for Transport to bring about greater fairness and transparency. I think they would win a lot of support in the community because we do not want to encourage or promote speeding, but we want fairness and people to be held accountable. If they transgress when the signs are up and the information is there, then they have to wear the consequences. I commend this motion to the house.

The Hon. J.J. SNELLING (Playford—Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education, Minister for Science and Information Economy, Minister for Road Safety, Minister for Veterans' Affairs) (11:44): I sat down and had quite a long and fruitful discussion with the member for Fisher about a number of these matters, and I have looked at a number of the things he has raised in his speech and during the course of our meeting. Nonetheless, I rise to indicate that the government is opposed to the motion. Essentially, in terms of a review of speed limits, this is something that happens all the time anyway. The government does not sit down one day and decide that it will review speed limits. We are constantly reviewing speed limits.

I you look at the correspondence I receive, both from members of the public and from members of parliament, you will see that a fair chunk of it, maybe even as much as of half of it, is from people wanting me to review speed limits for particular areas and particular roads where they think that the speed limit is either too high or too low. My department is constantly going out, looking at roads, looking at the various safety factors, looking at the incidence of casualty crashes on those roads and making decisions about whether or not the speed limits are appropriate.

We do aim for and try to get consistency, but consistency is just one of a number of factors that we must take into account when we are setting speed limits. Managing speed limits within South Australia is and will continue to be an ongoing process and needs to reflect the changing nature of the road, the volume and type of traffic, the presence of vulnerable road users, the crash rates and, importantly, the community's understanding of the relationship between speed and crash risk.

Mean travel speeds in both urban and rural South Australia have been gradually reducing in the last few years, which I think is a good sign. The benefits of reducing travel speeds and better aligning speed limits to infrastructure and the road and traffic environment are gaining greater understanding and momentum within the community. The recent changes in the Barossa Valley and the Onkaparinga are evidence of this.

The member for Fisher has raised the issue of the possibility of having painted speed limits on the road surface. It has been considered by my department from time to time and by councils and, to date, they have not been implemented for a number of reasons. There is a concern. I know that the member for Fisher assures me that painted speed limits are not a concern for motorcyclists in terms of providing a skidding risk. I know that he is quite passionate that that is not the case. My department, however, is of a different opinion.

I will continue to have a look at the matter, but at the moment my thinking is that I do not think that any increased safety benefit of having the painted speed limits on the road will be enough to outweigh the additional risk posed to motorcyclists by having the painting on the roads. Nonetheless, it is something that I remain open-minded about; and, if there is more information on that issue, I am happy to have a look at it.

In relation to the speeding penalties, issues for consideration include the mix of demerit points and expiation fees, the relationship between the penalty mix and the risk imposed by the speeding behaviour and the relativity of speeding penalties with other types of offences for which the risk relationship is known, such as drink driving.

All those things are taken into account in their totality when we are making a decision about penalties and about the mix between the fine and the loss of demerit points. It is a mix of the two, and the aim is to create an overall deterrent to prevent people from engaging in risky, dangerous driving behaviour. In conclusion, I thank the member for Fisher for the motion. I assure him that all the matters he has raised are constantly being looked at by both me and by my department on an ongoing basis. Therefore, the house calling for a one-off review into all these issues is superfluous and, for that reason, the government is opposed to the motion.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY (Kavel) (11:49): Surprise, surprise! The government is not prepared to support the motion put forward by the member for Fisher in relation to a review. All the member for Fisher is calling for is a review. This government is not prepared for any form of scrutiny. It is out of touch and disengaged from the community. The Premier said after the election that he wanted to re-engage with the community; he wanted to start listening again. Well, that is an admission that he had stopped listening, and that was highlighted after the election campaign.

Mr Pengilly: He's never here to listen.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: That's right. The member for Finniss raises an important point. This is a mechanism by which the government can re-engage with the community, so members on this side of the house support the member for Fisher's motion. We have some reservations about some aspects of it; however, in general, we are prepared to support the intent of the motion concerning a review.

Some aspects of the member for Fisher's motion are consistent with the state Liberals' road safety policy, and I refer to page five of our policy document, under the heading 'A Transparent Approach to Enforcement', which states:

A Liberal government will:

...

Review the current speed zone settings and develop a consistent approach supported by clearer signage, and the use of repeater signs. We will work to deal with special zone problems at known sites.

There it is, in black and white. It is almost as if the member for Fisher has looked at the Liberal Party's policy and copied it word for word, but that is good work by the member for Fisher if that is what has actually taken place. This motion comes from a similar motion moved by the member for Fisher back on 30 April last year (previous to the election we just had in March), which really raised similar issues, but he has added the third dot point in terms of allowing greater demerit point loss in lieu of a heavy fine.

As I said, it is no surprise that the government would not support this. I note the minister's comments that the department and the government review these speed limits as an ongoing process, but it is catch-up. They are playing a catch-up game, because this policy was rushed in, from memory, in 2003. The then minister for transport, the member for Lee, I think it was at the time, had been elected for only a year or so and he rushed that policy in.

He went out to local government and said, 'Tell us which roads you want to keep at 60 km/h and 80 km/h. The rest will be a blanket change to 50 km/h.' We are eight years down the track and still playing catch-up, because I can tell members that, in electorate of Kavel in the Adelaide Hills, people are confused about the speed limit signposting on those roads.

Mr Hamilton-Smith: And in Waite.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: And in Waite. The member for Waite pre-empts my argument, because if there is confusion in the Kavel about the speed limits on roads in the Adelaide Hills, then there would be confusion right across the state; that is, in every one of the 47 electorates which comprise the state of South Australia. I can tell members that a couple of roads have two different speed limits on the same section of road. It is 80 km/h for traffic travelling in one direction and 50 km/h for traffic travelling in the opposite direction. How can you have two separate speed limits on the same section of road?

I have written to DTEI about this and they say that is acceptable. I can tell members that it is not acceptable to the local community because they are very confused. When they are leaving the particular town it is 50 km/h, but when they are entering the town it is 80 km/h. If that is not an example of inconsistency I do not what is and it also creates confusion within the community. When you question speed limit settings on council-administered roads, the council says, 'We have to get approval from DTEI to change the speed limit.' When you go to DTEI, the minister, the information we get back is that the council has to make the submission. Confusion reigns supreme between local government and state government.

The member for Fisher has handed me a note saying that the RAA supports a comprehensive review. Not only is it in our road safety policy but the RAA and the member for Fisher support it, but, guess what, the government does not. As I said, the government is bereft of any scrutiny; it is out of touch; it is not interested; it is lazy. We have seen many an example of how this government operates. We see confusion on the other side of the house when ministers are dealing with a whole range of issues. The Treasurer is confused about how the Adelaide Oval redevelopment is taking place and the like.

This goes to the broader issue of road safety as a whole. I have said this in the house before and I will keep on saying it: the government's road safety strategy is not working. You only have to look at the road fatality statistics to prove that. There have been 75 road fatalities on our roads to date. If my information is correct, that is one more than at the same time last year, so it is about the same. However, if you look at the three-year average, year to date it is 61. So, we have a 25 per cent increase on this year's road toll compared with the three-year average. If that is not a—

Mrs Geraghty: I think you are misleading the house. Our road toll has actually gone down—

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: You look at the statistics.

Mrs Geraghty: I have looked at the statistics.

Mr GOLDSWORTHY: Go on the website and look at the statistics. I am certainly not misleading the house. It is my understanding that those statistics are correct. In my opinion, the government's road safety strategy is not working because the road toll is not coming down and it is 25 per cent above the three-year average, so that is a clear indication.

Yesterday we debated some legislation in the house and the minister was talking about wanting to ramp up the penalties for street racing, and we agreed to that. He was adamant that the new offences had to be in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, so that, if someone was convicted of offences under those new provisions, then that person would have that on their criminal history. That crime would be listed under criminal history matters. I have done some checking over the last 24 hours, and it is my understanding that, if anyone is convicted of an indictable offence, no matter what act it is in, whether it is the Road Traffic Act or the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, then that person has a criminal history.

I think the minister's argument is pretty flimsy in saying that the provisions have to be in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act—this is my understanding of what the minister was stating yesterday. The majority of indictable offences are in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act, but that does not mean they have to be. The majority of offences concerning hoon driving and other very dangerous driving behaviour are in the Road Traffic Act. I make the point that it is not essential that the offences are in the Criminal Law Consolidation Act.

We do have some reservations in relation to some aspects of the member for Fisher's motion; namely, the painting of speed limits on the roads and allowing greater demerit point loss in lieu of a heavy fine. However, as I stated earlier, it is about a review. The member is not asking the government to implement these measures, it is purely a review. I think the motion has merit, hence our support on this side of the house for the motion.

Mr VENNING (Schubert) (11:59): I certainly support the first two paragraphs of this motion moved by the member for Fisher. The confusing range of speed limits in South Australia has been the subject of many debates in this house, Madam, as you would be aware. I moved a motion in early 2009 calling for a statewide review of speed limits due to the confusion being experienced by motorists and calling for extra signage. This motion is very similar, and so I am happy to support it. I understand and note the personal fight the member has taken on and I fully support him in that.

Just last night, when driving to my home in the city at quarter to 12, I went through the lights at the intersection of Cowandilla Road and Sir Donald Bradman Drive and the car in front of me set off the camera. I looked at my speed: 59. Guess what? The camera went off again. How come? It is 60 kilometres all the way down there, so I am going to be very interested to see what happens and whether I get a letter. I looked down—59 on the hold, it is digital, and I know my speedo reads high anyway. It will be interesting to see what happens, member for Fisher. I put that on notice because I looked down and there it was, exactly.

This issue is definitely gaining some momentum. It is really quite serious and particularly since the introduction of 50 km/h default speed limits in built-up areas. It is giving our police a very bad name. I am surprised that the police commissioner has not more to say about this. I know that we do not interfere with the commissioner's work; that is part of the act of the parliament. I am amazed that the commissioner has not said, 'Hang on, we need better guidelines than this. We need to sort this area out.'

Why is it that, when you are driving across the Southern Parklands, some of the roads are zoned at 60 and some are 50? If you do not see the sign, or if you forget, or if you are concentrating on the road in front of you—bang, you're pinged, especially now that tolerance is also being reduced. It really is a revenue-raising exercise.

I wholeheartedly agree that a review of the speed limit should take place across the state, as the member for Fisher's motion states. Extra speed limit signage or markers, such as painting the zones on the road, as in the member for Fisher's motion, must be implemented to eliminate the confusion that the wide range of speed limit zones causes to motorists across the state. The argument has been put that painting on the road is dangerous. I am a motorcyclist. I used to drive a Harley-Davidson, as people know, and a Harley certainly does react to slippery paint. I can recall driving around the city with the member for Waite on the back. Even better than that, I had former premier Hon. John Olsen on the rear of the motorcycle, driving from Glenelg to Hahndorf for the annual bike push for the children.

Mr Goldsworthy: The Toy Run.

Mr VENNING: The Toy Run. And yes, you do feel the white line, you do feel the bike skid a bit when the road is wet. That is correct. Today, however, you can use a different sort of paint. You do not have to use shiny paint; you can use aggregated paints and also you can use coloured grout. This is not new. Other states paint their roads, particularly as the member for Fisher said. We do not want them all over the road, but certainly on the areas where you know people are going to get confused you put it on the road. Better than that, why do we not have coloured guideposts? It is not very hard to put a coloured band around the guidepost. In a casual look to the side of the road, you will see a colour and think, 'Oops, this is a 50.' If you do not happen to see that sign, if you miss it once, you're gone.

The RAA in the past couple of years has called on 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 survey of its members showed drivers were also confused because often speed signs could not be seen or were hidden by a high, slow-moving vehicle. 'Why not have different coloured guideposts?' was my comment at the time.

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

There are roads that I can think of that one would think 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 at least—that's if there are no road works, and if there are there's a lot more.

When it is clear that motorists are obviously confused about whether a particular road is zoned 50 or 60, surely the logical answer would be to install more signs, paint the road or something to remind them. But the state Rann Labor government seems to be reluctant to do so. I believe it is because of the revenue generated from speeding fines. It is a sizeable amount of money. It is now a key budgetary item

I have received many phone calls from constituents—good, honest, law-abiding citizens—who have 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 have even had contact from police officers who have been caught like this. A large proportion of the population has been affected. They are not criminals. People automatically assume what the speed limit is and they do not see the sign—ping, they're gone. Some of these fines really hurt, particularly if you are a country person and you accumulate points. You can lose your licence extremely quickly. The amount of money certainly hurts a lot of people.

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

As members of 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 and 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. As has been said earlier, the RAA supports this, so why doesn't the government?

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—this is when you have a rear end collision or worse, run over a pedestrian.

Reminder speed limit signs at regular Intervals and painting the speed limits on the road would be simple and enable drivers to feel more confident about the speed that they should not be exceeding. It could also prevent some road rage where cautious people keep to the default 50 kilometre speed limit because they do not realise they are in a 60 kilometre zone or 80 kilometre speed zone, due to a lack of regular signage, while other drivers sit on their tail urging them to go faster. Road rage in the state is on the increase and driver behaviour has deteriorated. Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister one straight question and I would like an answer.

I want to ask the minister why the police have removed the 'speed camera in use' signs. When we brought this legislation in here I can clearly remember the government at the time saying, 'We will agree to this on one condition: that the warning signs go in.' The member for Mawson at the time, now a member of the other place, was the minister, and he agreed that they would always be there, so why have they been removed? It was never mentioned in this house. Were they removed by regulation? Some people can be picked up two or three times in one day. You can lose your licence in one day, if you do not know the cameras are there or are in use. They were a good deterrent.

I know there was an argument that some police officers felt worried about their security. Well, I am sorry. Fix the laws up and do not leave it like that. I want to find out from the minister why those signs have been removed, who made that decision and how he did it. You should not be able to do things like that by regulation. The 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 and painting the roads.

I urge government members to support this motion. I commend the member for Fisher. I do understand exactly the private stand he is making. I do not have a problem with him being an MP doing this. He is just doing what thousands and thousands of other South Australians would do if they could afford it or had the courage to do it. I wish the member good luck in his pursuit. I certainly support him, and I certainly support this motion.

Mr PEDERICK (Hammond) (12:08): I rise too to speak on this motion, and I think we do need a review of speed limits in this state. A lot of us in this place—I would say pretty well all of us—grew up with the default speed of 60 km/h.

Mr Hamilton-Smith interjecting:

Mr PEDERICK: Yes. It is confusing when you drive around Adelaide and in some of the suburbs you even have to get down to 40 km/h on all the connecting roads and, yes, they are signposted, but then you get out on the other roads and you have to look for the 60 on the main arterial routes. However, there are a lot of roads that look like major connectors that you think would be 60 km/h roads, but they are unmarked so they default to 50 km/h.

That is where some of the confusion comes in, and there are certainly plenty of reports from people I know driving around Adelaide where there are frequently used streets that, for whatever reason, are put back to 50 km/h and there does not seem to be a real reason why they are not signposted and kept at the not very much faster limit of 60 km/h. It does seem at times that revenue raising is the greater thought of the government here in regard to these speed limits.

I want to also reflect on country roads. There are issues down my way on the Dukes Highway, the main road between Melbourne and Adelaide, where most of the freight in and out of the state is carried. It is a very busy road. I believe it can be as high as 4,000 vehicle movements a day or more, and all the time we have these ongoing roadworks for extra parking bays and overtaking lanes—and they are good things. Let me lay that on the table: they are very good things, but why do they take so long?

It is just incredible, and I note that the same issues are at Port Wakefield. It just becomes a logjam as people run into roadworks. I note down our way before you get to Tailem Bend where the dual lane kicks in—obviously, I get on the road just before Coomandook and head up through Cooke Plains—parking bays are currently under construction and have been for months. Why do they take so long? I heard a member of the police force, I think, or perhaps someone from the Department of Transport, being asked a question on the radio one day and saying that there are time constraints on how long the contractors have to do these things—either overtaking lanes or parking bays.

Well, they are obviously getting a fair bit of lead time, because it is really confusing for people driving up these main arterial routes, especially when you have thousands of semitrailers and thousands of B-doubles trying to conduct their rightful business on these main arterial routes. You are driving along, and there is one just south-east of Cooke Plains, and they picked a really good spot to put a parking bay right amongst the salt swamp. I am sure it took a fair bit of work—

Mr Goldsworthy: Saltier than the sea.

Mr PEDERICK: Yes; it's just unbelievable—trying to find a decent place to build the road base in, because I know for a fact that when the high-voltage power line went through there several years ago they had to tip in so many loads of cement just trying to cement the poles in that they just had to keep going. I know when they tipped the first lot in, it just disappeared so they said, 'Right; just keep going.'

You have to wonder about the planning that goes into some of these things. Let me repeat: we do need these things. In the first instance, I would rather see dual lane all the way to the border, and let us hope we get there sooner rather than later, because not only will it improve traffic movement through to Bordertown and the Victorian border but it will also save a lot of lives, because we are losing too many people on that section of road.

These parking bays and overtaking lane extensions or new overtaking lanes get opened up and people get slowed down to 80 km/h coming into them, then 60 km/h, then sometimes there are even 40 km/h signs left there. You go through some of these areas at night and there are 60 km/h signs, and you think: what for? There is nothing going on; you can still quite easily go through this section of road. There are no roadworks happening overnight.

It is simply because, obviously, there is a standard, and I appreciate that, but the standard is that they need to have white posts in clearly marking the edge of the road. That is fair enough, but why are they not put in sooner? Then they would not be upsetting the thousands of users per day utilising these roads and upsetting the chain of traffic.

This is where problems happen, where people get upset about having to slow down and speed up and line haul operators having to back off. I am sure there have been times where the police could have had a field day with a camera at some of these locations and raise a lot of money for this government, because people just get sick and tired of these restrictions being there for so long because the white posts have not been put in so that we can get it back to a 110 km/h speed limit on those main arterial routes.

In my speech today, I wonder why it does take so long to get to the stage where the pavement can get put down so that these pieces can be finished. I know that at one stage last year several overtaking lane extensions were put in on the Dukes Highway, from Tailem Bend heading further south past Keith. One contractor was doing the lot and opening them up and just leaving them. You would think that it would be simpler perhaps to do one or two and complete them. It seems to me, coming from a small business background, to be the wrong way to do things. It certainly is frustrating, the number of speed limits we have. I know that at times on a main road you can go anywhere from 110 km/h through a 90 zone, an 80 zone and occasionally a 70 zone, a 60 zone, a 50 zone and a 25 km/h zone. You have to wonder why we need so many increments that are only 10 kilometres apart.

I know that interstate road train operators get frustrated. I believe the ruling in this state is that they can sit on only 90 km/h, yet I believe in the territory (and I stand to be corrected), they can do 100 km/h. The one piece of smart legislation we did approve in this house in relation to speeding and speed limits was letting learner permit drivers sit on 100 km/h. That is such a smart move for people, especially in the country. You only have to drive on the main arterial roads in the country to come across a lot of learner drivers. Yes, we all have to learn to drive, but sitting on 80 km/h with 60 tonne B-doubles swarming around you, you can appreciate the terror experienced by a learner driver at the time and especially the person helping them to drive. So, that was a smart move.

Before closing, I note that the Hon. Graham Gunn, the former member for Stuart, made some very wise comments about where he thought speed limits should go. I think that one of his infamous Gunn amendments was the 130 km/h speed limit north and west of Port Augusta. I really do think that needs to be looked at, because I think he was right on the money—there is nothing worse on country roads and distance roads, as long as they are capable of maintaining a decent speed, than going so slow that people fall asleep.

There are plenty of people who undertake long drives, and there are plenty of members on this side of the house who do upwards of 60,000 kilometres a year. In fact, I know the former member for Stuart, and probably the current member for Stuart, could do up to—

Mr Pengilly: A good member.

Mr PEDERICK: Hear, hear!—100,000 kilometres a year. We on this side of the house spend a lot of time on the road. We know the distances that have to be covered, and we know what you have to do to stay awake. It is a tough call.

In any other workplace, they would rule against people having to drive the kilometres and hours that members have do in their line of work. Let me just make that point here today. We legislate for everyone to have safe work practices. I certainly believe, and having talked to some of my colleagues about what can happen when you have a lot of meetings in a row, that people have a problem with fatigue, yet we are expected to do it. We do not mind doing it; we do it as our duty. However, I just lay that out there to let the house know that it does take all your concentration sometimes to keep making it to your destination.

The Hon. R.B. SUCH (Fisher) (12:19): In closing the debate, I will make the following points because they have been mentioned by some members. The RAA does support a comprehensive review of speed limits; I make that quite clear. I would like to see the RAA be more vigorous and aggressive in its campaigning on behalf of motorists. Sir Eric Neal, I understand, recommended as chair of the Road Safety Committee (I do not know whether he is still chair of the committee) that those roads through the Parklands have a consistent speed applied to them. That has already been recommended, so there is no need for a delay on that.

I have seen radar cars in Sir Lewis Cohen Avenue at 8 o'clock on a Saturday night trying to catch people travelling in excess of 50 km/h in a street that has a couple of magpies living in it; it does not have any houses and there is no pedestrian movement there. It is quite silly. For those who question the value of painted speed limit signs on the road, I invite them to go to New South Wales, where they have been doing it for 20 years. They should ask for someone to show them around, and I am sure members will come away convinced. If members want to travel further afield, they should go to Holland or the UK and other places. Everyone else in the world is not totally ignorant on this subject. There is no issue in terms of motorbike safety; it is a red herring.

I do not know why, but there seem to be some bureaucrats here who seem to push their own barrow on this issue rather than acting in the interests of the wider community. One of the reasons I think there has been little movement on this issue is that, as we know, ministers and others get chauffeured around; even the Police Commissioner gets a chauffeur. If they were driving every day, like the rest of the community, they would be in there supporting this review. So, whilst they are being insulated by having a driver, they are not going to experience what the rest of the community, the ordinary citizens, experience.

The fact that we have to have signs up saying 'Remember 50 km/h' is a tacit, if not more explicit, acknowledgment that the system of the default in some areas is not adequate. Why put up 'Remember 50 km/h' if people are not remembering it? What you need when you come off some of these arterials is a 50 km/h sign. The member for Schubert asked why we no longer have signs indicating that you have just passed a radar car. The reason is that the PSA kicked up because it said that its members were vulnerable. I can understand that there are idiots in the community.

People have told me that some of those cars are now unattended, which is puzzling, and I would be interested in a response on that. I wrote to the police minister saying, 'Why don't you have a sign in the general area? You don't have to nominate exactly where the car is, but you could indicate with a sign saying "Police targeting this area for speeding"' They do that in some country areas now with a fixed sign. The answer that came back was that people would steal the sign. I do not know whether they have heard about chains and locks, but I think they are still available at hardware stores.

The other thing—and this blew me away—the answer said: 'Motorists should be looking at the road, not distracted by signs.' Hello, hello! That is what the signs for speed limits currently tell people, and they are on the side of the road. The answer from the Minister for Police, presumably written by the police, says that motorists should be looking at the road not being distracted by signs. We know that police operate on a quota, which I think is outrageous. It violates basic principles in a democratic society that they have quotas, that they have to get so many people a day for traffic offences, and I think it is outrageous.

The other point is that people are not told, but in South Australia the margin for speeding, with radar camera, has been reduced down to about four, and in Victoria it is even less at two. Given that speedometers, particularly in cars made up until 2006—the tolerance on them is significant—the system currently in force is lacking. I urge members to support this motion. I think the government is being shortsighted by indicating that it will not support it, but the public opinion out there does support it, as does, as I said before, the RAA.

Motion negatived.

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