Page 775 - Week 03 - Wednesday, 29 March 2006
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
camera car. Yet this government fails to take into account what the NRMA’s research clearly shows—
Mr Mulcahy: It doesn’t make as much money, though.
MR PRATT: Correct, Mr Mulcahy. The government refuses to put more police on the roads. So, just as this government has ignored the NRMA Road Safety Trust’s concerns about a greater police presence on the roads, so too it ignored the NRMA when it came to consultations about on-road cycle lanes. In addition to concerns about the overall design of the on-road cycle lane system, particular concerns have been raised about the narrowing of roads such as Northbourne Avenue and Hindmarsh Drive to accommodate the cycle lane system. The NRMA feels that the system is fairly unsafe and this confirms the broad feedback that I have received that the system is impeding traffic flows and is highly dangerous. The opposition do not oppose the concept of an on-road cycle lane system per se but severely question the scope and the cost of the government’s current plan.
Ms MacDonald: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Mr Pratt is referring to the on-road cycle system. It has absolutely nothing to do with this motion whatsoever. It has absolutely nothing to do with road safety in terms of the wording of the motion, which is about driver inattention and driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol.
MR PRATT: Get to your point of order, Ms MacDonald. We are running out of time.
Ms MacDonald: It has nothing to do with the motion, Mr Speaker.
Mrs Dunne: I raise a point of order, Mr Speaker. Paragraph 4 refers specifically to drivers, riders, cyclists and pedestrians, so I think that—
MR SPEAKER: Well, just get on with the question.
MR PRATT: As a consequence, we do not support this motion, Mr Speaker. Thanks for the filibustering, Ms MacDonald!
MR MULCAHY (Molonglo) (3.36): I welcome the opportunity to speak today on Ms MacDonald’s motion. Although I do not have opposition responsibilities for road safety, it is an issue about which I am deeply concerned. Indeed, I have spoken in the Assembly only recently about the need for random drug testing to improve safety.
The motion does raise a couple of topical issues: first, the practice of driving under the influence of drugs and alcohol. It is clear that the use of illicit drugs affects driving ability. Laboratory studies have shown that cannabis compromises reaction time, affects an individual’s attention span, time and distance perception, short-term memory—a problem that many people seem to be afflicted with at times in this area—hand-eye coordination and the ability to concentrate.
The detrimental effect of drugs on driving is borne out by an examination of statistics. Of 3,398 driver fatalities investigated in Victoria, New South Wales and Western Australia for the period between 1990 and 1999, impairment drugs were present in 23.5 per cent of cases. A total of 12.6 per cent had cannabis or stimulants in their system.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .