Page 3268 - Week 10 - Thursday, 25 September 2014
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video
vulnerable road users from a vehicle. This is an issue I have raised several times before, and unfortunately it is something that happens all too often on our roads.
Another issue I want to particularly mention is the government’s agreement to review the existing driver competencies that a driver must pass to receive their provisional licence, with a view to introducing a new competency highlighting driver responsibilities towards vulnerable road users.
I think this is a key change, as it begins to entrench the concept that some road users have a special responsibility to other road users. It will begin to educate a new generation of drivers. This kind of training is one of the reasons European countries have successfully adopted the reverse onus of proof for accidents involving vulnerable road users, and it will help our jurisdiction to lay the foundation for future positive changes.
The government is also laying further groundwork for these types of changes by agreeing to examine the case for introducing changes to the law which would place a rebuttable presumption on heavier vehicles if they are in an accident with a vulnerable road user.
I also mention the agreement in the report to move towards slower speed areas in our city. Firstly, through TAMS, I am looking at the extension of 40-kilometre-an-hour zones to group centres. This work is already underway. TAMS will also undertake consultation on the use of 30-kilometre-an-hour zones to gauge community attitudes. Further consideration will be given to 30-kilometre-an-hour zones as part of an overarching policy on school traffic safety. That will be a strong partnership between the Education and Training Directorate and TAMS. TAMS has already completed work in this area. Future urban areas will be more conducive to slower, safer speeds, and this will be examined through a reworking of estate development codes and a new urban design hierarchy, as I mentioned earlier.
Sometimes motorcycle riders are overlooked—in general, but also people forget that they are a category of vulnerable road user. I am pleased to note that the report takes several initiatives that will help motorcycle riders. As the Attorney-General mentioned, this includes a lane filtering trial, and it also includes a review of licence requirements. I want to emphasise that several of the broader policy reforms, such as reviewing estate development codes and the urban design hierarchy, need to be done with motorcyclists in mind, not just cyclists and pedestrians. I expect that this work will have good outcomes for motorcyclists.
The last thing I want to emphasise, especially to members of the community who may only hear a radio grab or other snippet about this report, is that the proposed measures are of benefit to all road users and to the city as a whole. They should not be divisive. We have probably all heard the acrimonious debates between different road users. Cyclists and car drivers can be particularly hostile to one another.
It might seem that by taking action to assist vulnerable road users, this somehow comes at the expense of car drivers. I do not believe that this is the case at all. These changes will help create a better and safer urban environment where users share the
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . . Video