Page 4399 - Week 10 - Thursday, 22 September 2011
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
The same signs would also be able to alert motorists to the impending implementation of the cameras. This would serve to alert motorists, including regular users of this road, about the imminent use of the cameras, as well as alert them to the speeds at which they are travelling so that they can adjust their driving practices, if required, to achieve speed compliance and before the cameras begin to be used to enforce the law. The government will not be supporting this amendment.
MS BRESNAN (Brindabella) (6.21): The Greens will not support this amendment which would require point-to-point cameras to operate for a trial period during which people would initially receive a warning of their speeding rather than receiving an infringement notice. I believe to put in place a trial period during which people would speed and not receive a fine would undermine road safety and our road laws. Point-to-point cameras are being set up in the areas of Canberra where speed reduction measures are most important. Hindmarsh Drive, for example, where the first cameras are being installed, has been the scene of numerous accidents and it has some of the worse death and injury statistics in Canberra.
Mr Coe’s proposed section 21B(4) would mean an infringement notice could not be served on a person for a speeding offence unless the person had already received a warning notice at some other time during the trial period. I think we need to question what will happen in this instance when the speeding offence is a very serious offence and one that is reckless and unsafe.
I also note in relation to this particular amendment that the Greens are uncomfortable with the line of argument that speed cameras are about revenue raising. I think that this politicises the issue of speed cameras. I would point out that the recent comprehensive studies from the Victorian Auditor-General as well as the Monash University Accident Research Centre conclude that the speed camera system in Victoria was not about revenue raising and that evidence clearly demonstrates that speed cameras improve road safety and reduce road trauma.
I also pointed out in my in-principle speech a variety of evidence from around the world about the positive effect that speed cameras and point-to-point cameras have had on road safety. Despite this, the recent Victorian research also found that more than half of people believe the primary purpose of speed cameras is revenue raising. I think this stems from the politicisation of the issue. Again, I would ask all parties not to politicise road safety and to look at the evidence that speed cameras do reduce serious or fatal crashes. We need to do what we can to reduce the terrible costs of road accidents in the ACT. I will just quickly note too that I think the amendment Mr Coe proposed, which has been passed, around the signs in point-to-point camera areas will provide good information to people so that they know they are there. Also, as Mr Corbell has just mentioned, having the variable speed signs will provide sufficient information to people.
Amendment negatived.
Remainder of bill, as a whole, agreed to.
Bill, as amended, agreed to.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video