Page 1652 - Week 06 - Tuesday, 3 June 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
Firstly, I want to speak in relation to his amendment to clause 10, which proposes to provide for the aggravating fact of driving at a speed that exceeds the speed limit by 45 kilometres an hour or more instead of the provision in the bill, which provides the aggravating factor as to whether the person drove furiously, recklessly or dangerously at 30 per cent over the limit.
As the government has previously outlined, in relation to this aggravating circumstance the use of a threshold based on the percentage over the speed limit rather than a set number of kilometres per hour has been proposed because the flat rate approach, such as that outlined in Mr Hanson’s 45-kilometre-per-hour model, does not recognise the potentially higher risks posed by exceeding the speed limit by that level in more pedestrian and urban areas than those posed by exceeding the speed limit by the amount on roads rated for much higher speeds. For example, a driver driving recklessly through a 40-kilometre-an-hour speed zone at 60 kilometres an hour potentially poses more of a risk than a driver driving at 140 kilometres an hour on a 100-kilometre-an-hour freeway. The risks are different. This is a proportionate measure rather than a flat rate one.
The 30 per cent threshold would see the threshold applied at above 52 kilometres an hour in a 40-kilometre-an-hour zone, above 65 kilometres an hour in a 50-kilometre-an-hour zone, above 78 kilometres an hour in a 60-kilometre-an-hour zone and above 104 kilometres an hour in an 80-kilometre-an-hour zone. As I outlined in my earlier speech, research demonstrates that if a pedestrian is hit by a vehicle at 50 kilometres an hour, the pedestrian has less than a 40 per cent chance of being killed, while at 60 kilometres an hour they have a 70 per cent chance of being killed. So even at relatively low speeds every extra kilometre an hour that a vehicle is travelling can literally be the difference between life and death. Therefore a percentage measure rather than a flat rate is the best way to address this issue.
The selection of 30 per cent as the threshold rather than some other percentage or a sliding scale took into account these considerations, but it is worth emphasising as well that this is not just a penalty if you are driving 30 per cent over the limit. The basic elements of the offence still need to be made out. That is, the driving must be furious, reckless or dangerous. That is the threshold the prosecution must demonstrate—that the driving was furious, reckless or dangerous. And then the aggravating factor potentially comes into play. The driver is not liable for either the basic offence or the aggravating offence if the basic elements of the offence—furious, reckless or dangerous driving—are not made out.
Secondly, I want to speak in relation to Mr Hanson’s amendments to omit proposed sections 7A(1)(a)(vi) and 7A(4) to remove the aggravating factor of driving in a way that puts at risk the safety of a vulnerable road user. The opposition suggests that it is not sufficiently clear when this offence would be committed. However, the term “vulnerable road user” is clearly defined in the bill and several examples are given. These include the types of road users who are generally well understood to be vulnerable—cyclists, pedestrians, motorcyclists.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video