HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Member Index
Legislative Council - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-11-12 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (TRANSPORT PORTFOLIO) BILL

Second Reading

Adjourned debate on second reading.

(Continued from 29 October 2013.)

The Hon. D.W. RIDGWAY (Leader of the Opposition) (17:09): I rise on behalf of the opposition to make a relatively small contribution on the Statutes Amendment (Transport Portfolio) Bill 2013. The opposition supports the bill, which is a collection of simple miscellaneous amendments, all of which are practical and sensible. It primarily affects pedelec users, those who use pedal electric cycles. As summarised by the shadow minister in the other place, on one of these bikes the rider's pedalling is assisted by a small electric motor. Apparently, other jurisdictions are considering similar legislation.

This bill, as it affects pedelecs, contains a set of amendments to the Road Traffic Act. Currently in South Australia, bikes with a power output of 200 watts and under are treated as bicycles; therefore, riders do not need to be licensed, insured or registered (as motorists would). These pedelecs, though, have a greater power output of some 250 watts. Therefore, under the current legislation, they would be treated as motor vehicles. However, they do not comply with Australian design rules so they cannot be registered or ultimately used at all. These amendments redefine the pedelec as a bicycle. Essentially, they do not need to be registered or licensed under the legislation. It is a common sense move which we support.

The rest of the bill fixes up anomalies in the Motor Vehicles Act. It perhaps would have been sensible to include these amendments in the recent graduated licensing scheme changes. As my colleague in the other place said, they are perhaps changes that have been saved up over a period of time waiting for a miscellaneous bill to wander past to rectify them.

The provisions double the time on a probationary licence when the licensee has been disqualified for a serious drinking offence but regained their licence (on medical grounds) through the mandatory alcohol interlock system. My colleague used the example of an asthma sufferer who is unable to participate in the system. The registrar is empowered to disqualify a probationary licence holder when they accrue two or more demerit points. At present, for a P-plater to be disqualified for a breach of licence, they must commit two subsequent offences. Therefore, sometimes a probationary licensee is not disqualified even though they have accrued demerit points.

The registrar will also be empowered to conduct investigations and refuse registration of a vehicle where the registrar believes part of the vehicle may be stolen. Currently, they must believe that the entire vehicle is stolen.

Another sensible change is that the ability is removed for a probationary licence holder to enter an SDA (which is a safer driver agreement) instead of a disqualification if they committed an offence while on their L-plates but were only notified of the offence once moving to their P-plates. Furthermore, people on probationary licences, whose application time for a safer driver agreement has lapsed, will not be able to appeal a disqualification anymore. Lastly, an explicit approval mechanism for photographic detection devices is introduced. This brings them into line with traffic control devices, which must be approved by the minister.

As you can see, Mr President, it is initially to licence the pedelecs and make them compliant so that people are not committing an offence when they are riding on more than 250 watts. As I have outlined, there is a range of smaller amendments to a range of acts that appear to have been scooped up, I guess, as we approach the end of the sitting year as a way to get them through and get them into the statute book. With those words, I indicate that the opposition will be supporting the bill.

The Hon. M. PARNELL (17:13): I rise to support the second reading of this bill. I want to comment particularly on that aspect of the bill that relates to electric bicycles. I will declare an interest. I am often declaring an interest here—not a conflict of interest. My wife owns an electric bicycle of 200 watts capacity, so it is a fully compliant electric bicycle in relation to the current rules. I note that the bill will in fact enable electric-assisted bicycles of up to 250 watts to be used on South Australian roads without the requirement for a licence, registration or insurance.

I also note that these 250-watt bicycles have been used on the streets of Adelaide for at least the last year or so that I have been paying attention. Not only did the federal government in I think the first half of 2012 regularise these bicycles, at least in relation to import, but certainly I know they are being sold in South Australia. I have seen them out there and they are being used.

I will just flag a couple of questions now and when we get into committee and there are some advisers present, we might get some answers. One question I would ask is: have there been any prosecutions or expiations issued to people riding 250-watt electric bicycles in South Australia? I just note, for the record, that one very popular brand is the Aseako, and all their bicycles are 250-watt bicycles. I have certainly seen them on the streets of Adelaide.

Why I think this is an important bill—and the Greens are happy to support it—is because these electric bicycles are a real boon to people who might have reached a stage in life where riding on a regular bicycle is a bit hard, but they still want to get some exercise. It is not like a motorbike, where the engine does all the work; you still have to pedal, but you can get up hills much more easily on an electric-assisted bike. For the record, the reason my wife uses one is because she was hit by a four-wheel drive while she was riding a regular bicycle, and the resulting damage to her knee means that the electric-assisted bike is a great help. We can still ride together.

The other issue I have in relation to this bill is that the regulations will provide certain limitations that need to be built into an electric bicycle before it can be lawfully ridden on South Australian roads. One is the question of the throttle. Anyone who has ridden a motorcycle will understand that, usually on the right-hand side, you have a twisting throttle which basically makes a motorcycle go. It is a throttle.

They have throttles on electric bicycles as well, but my understanding is that if there is to be a throttle on an electric bike that will be legal under this regime it must be speed limited to six km/h. Now, I do not think there is any electric bike with a throttle that is limited to six km/h. So my question would be: is there anything in this new regime that would make currently lawful bicycles unlawful by virtue of the fact that the throttle, when you put it on, would probably get you to perhaps 12 km/h?

Just so that people understand, normally it is a pedal-assist bicycle; when you pedal the motor kicks in and helps you along. However, if you are at a standing start—and especially if you are on a hill—giving the throttle a bit of a tweak actually gets you going; it helps you start riding again, especially if you are on a slope. The throttle is a really useful part, but my understanding is that most of the throttles currently on these bicycles would be unlawful under this regime.

The second aspect is the speed limiter. From memory, I am pretty sure that the electric bicycle we have is speed limited to 25 km/h, and I understand that is proposed to be the standard. It does not mean that you cannot go faster than that; it means that if you are going faster than 25 km/h the motor does not kick in, you do not get any assistance from the motor. The motor is designed to help you only when you are travelling more slowly than that. If you are rolling down a hill at 30 or 40 km/h, then that is fine.

These two things together—the throttle restriction and the speed limiting restriction—obviously only apply when a vehicle is being driven on a public road. What you find is that most of the importers of these pedelecs (as they have been called), these electric bicycles, will offer the advice to people that if they intend to use the bicycle off-road there are some simple adjustments that can be made: first, to insert a throttle where there was not one before; and, secondly, to disable the speed limiter.

My question to the minister, when we get to that point, would be: what effect does that have on the legality of a bicycle that might be used on the road? For example, if it has a throttle that is capable of speeding the bicycle to more than six km/h, would a police officer have to prove that the throttle was in use, or is the fact of the throttle being on the bicycle enough to make it noncompliant? Similarly with the speed limiter: if the speed limiter was disconnected so that you could get the power of the engine applying to your journey above the speed of 25 km/h, do you have to have been booked at travelling above that speed or is the fact that you have disabled the speed limiter enough to make the bicycle noncompliant?

I am sure there are simple answers to these questions. The issue has been around for some time. I am putting them on the record now to give the minister's advisers a chance to look up the answers. The next thing I wanted to say is that I did get an email from a colleague completely out of the blue who was unaware that this bill was before the parliament. The email commenced:

Hi Mark. As of tonight I have been stopped twice in two weeks by police who are apparently targeting electric bikes. I feel targeted for being green.

Now, I will accept no interjection on that point because that is exactly how I feel a lot of the time. It continues:

Targeting electric bikes seems counterproductive to encouraging new forms of transport. Can you ask the police minister why this is suddenly so important? After three years riding a compliant and environmentally friendly transport, I do not want to feel harassed and targeted.

'Surely they have better things to do' is summarising the rest of the email. A question I would ask is not just whether the police have been looking at bicycles that are currently noncompliant, specifically those that are 250 watts or more, but is there any other campaign looking at electric bicycles? I should say that I did receive a follow-up email from this constituent and, to balance the record, he said he was riding on Sydenham Road in Norwood:

Early Sunday morning I was riding to church and a guy was using a blower vac. The policeman apologised to me after he had pulled me over because he said he mistook the blower vac for my bike.

I make the point that this legislation does not legalise those shocking noisy mini petrol-powered bicycles that you hear before you see. I think they are not the way of a transport future. They are not very green at all. I think they are probably a 50 cc motor, but they make an absolute racket and this bill does not legalise those. I put on the record that the electric bicycles we are talking about are effectively silent. The puffing of the rider and the noise of the tyres on the road are about all you hear.

The final thing that I will say is to commend the government for their website. There is a section on the SA government website titled Riding a Power Assisted Bicycle. It is a useful website. It points out the current rules, including the 200-watt limit, but it also usefully points out that while petrol-powered bicycles are not covered, neither too are electric scooters. I do not know whether people have seen them. They look pretty much like a Vespa or a little step-through scooter, but they have got an electric motor and, in a vain attempt to be compliant, they have pedals. The pedals are spaced so far apart that, unless you have training as a clown in a circus, you could not possibly reach them given the height of the seat and the width of the pedals. They are put there to effectively pretend that it is an electric bicycle when, in fact, it is better classified as a motorcycle.

I think from a consumer point of view the government has done well to point out that those types of vehicles are not compliant. With those comments, the Greens will be supporting this legislation, and I look forward to the answers to those questions when we get into the committee stage.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:23): I do not believe that there are any further second reading contributions to this bill. I want to thank honourable members for their contributions and their indication of support and look forward to dealing with this expeditiously through the committee stage. I know there are questions that have been posed which we will answer during the committee stage.

Bill read a second time.

Committee Stage

In committee.

Clause 1.

The Hon. G.E. GAGO: I do have answers to some of the questions. In relation to the question about expiations, we have no statistics with us at the moment on that, so I will have to take that on notice. In relation to the issue about imports, it is legal to import these bikes into Australia, but in South Australia it is illegal to use them on roadways; this bill obviously seeks to address that. In relation to speed limiters and throttles, this bill does not change any existing arrangements or definitions; it just introduces pedelecs. So, whatever existing arrangements relate to the use of speed limiters and throttles will remain the same.

The Hon. M. PARNELL: I thank the minister for those answers. I should also say that I did take the opportunity to ring the distributors of one of these 250-watt bicycles, and their advice was that they had not been getting complaints about being pulled over by police and challenged about the capacity of their bicycle. I do not necessarily know all of the owners of these bicycles, so maybe those electric bicycle riding readers of Hansard will get back in touch, but I am hoping that is right. I look forward to the minister's answer about whether people have been prosecuted, which I am happy to receive after we have concluded the debate on this bill.

The minister's answer in relation to the throttle and the speed limiter, again, if the minister is able to get additional information, I would appreciate seeing it. It strikes me that a police officer would have to be able to inspect the electrics and determine that the speed limiter had been disabled. It would be much the same as someone who has illegally modified a motor car or a motorcycle, I imagine, because people can easily get the instructions for disabling the speed limiter for off-road use, which is entirely legal.

Presumably, unless they reactivate the speed limiter, they are not supposed to ride it on the road again. I do not imagine that anyone who has gone to the trouble of deactivating the speed limiter is going to reactivate it because all of a sudden they are on a public road. The throttle is a little bit different. Presumably the test is quite simple. A police officer would test the throttle and, if it takes you faster than 6 km/h, which is brisk walking pace, presumably you are in breach of the law. If the minister does have any additional information, I am happy to accept that after the conclusion of the debate.

Clause passed.

Remaining clauses (2 to 16) and title passed.

Bill reported without amendment.

Third Reading

The Hon. G.E. GAGO (Minister for Agriculture, Food and Fisheries, Minister for Forests, Minister for Regional Development, Minister for the Status of Women, Minister for State/Local Government Relations) (17:30): I move:

That this bill be now read a third time.

Bill read a third time and passed.

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