Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld)

Queensland Parliamentary Library

Ban on Speed Camera Alerts: Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld)

A Monash University Accident Research Centre Report notes that speed cameras (both fixed and mobile) are an example of speed enforcement technologies that are common throughout the world but appear to be most prevalent in Australia and Great Britain.

In January 2006, a Gold Coast businessman established a service – Road Spy – which sends SMS text message alerts to motorists’ mobile phones warning about mobile speed cameras and mobile radars 24 hours a day. It also provides traffic information such as delays, oil spills, accidents, and traffic light outages.

Acting on its belief that Road Spy’s SMS text message alerts about traffic enforcement sites undermine road safety initiatives and the safety of other road users, the Queensland Government has introduced the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) to ban commercial services from sending SMS, Internet and similar messages warning of traffic enforcement sites.

Nicolee Dixon

Research Brief No 2007/03

Queensland Parliamentary Library Research Publications and Resources Section Ms Karen Sampford, Director (07) 3406 7116 Mrs Nicolee Dixon, Senior Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7409 Mrs Renee Gastaldon, Parliamentary Research Officer (07) 3406 7241

Research Publications are compiled for Members of the Queensland Parliament, for use in parliamentary debates and for related parliamentary purposes. Information in publications is current to the date of publication. Information on legislation, case law or legal policy issues does not constitute legal advice.

Research Publications on Bills reflect the legislation as introduced and should not be considered complete guides to the legislation. To determine whether a Bill has been enacted, or whether amendments have been made to a Bill during consideration in detail, the Queensland Legislation Annotations, prepared by the Office of the Queensland Parliamentary Counsel, or the Bills Update, produced by the Table Office of the Queensland Parliament, should be consulted. Readers should also refer to the relevant Alert Digest of the Scrutiny of Legislation Committee of the Queensland Parliament.

ISSN 1443-7902 ISBN 1 921056 44 4 February 2007

Copyright protects this publication. Except for purposes permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, reproduction by whatever means is prohibited, other than by Members of the Queensland Parliament in the course of their official duties, without the prior written permission of the Clerk of the Parliament on behalf of the Parliament of Queensland.

Inquiries should be addressed to: Director, Research Publications & Resources Queensland Parliamentary Library Parliament House George Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Ms Karen Sampford. (Tel: 07 3406 7116) Email: [email protected]

Information about Research Publications can be found on the Internet at: www.parliament.qld.gov.au/publications

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... 1

1 INTRODUCTION...... 1

2 ROAD SAFETY AND SPEED...... 1

3 SPEED CAMERAS...... 3

3.1 QUEENSLAND SPEED CAMERA PROGRAM...... 3

3.2 FIXED SPEED CAMERAS – THE NEW SOUTH WALES EXAMPLE ...... 8

3.3 SPEED CAMERA ISSUES...... 8

3.4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY INTO NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY .....10

4 ROAD SPY...... 12

4.1 REACTION BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS ...... 13

4.2 USE OF MOBILE PHONES WHILE DRIVING ...... 15

5 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS – AMENDMENTS TO THE SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005 (QLD) ...... 16

6 OTHER JURISDICTIONS ...... 18

6.1 NEW SOUTH WALES ...... 18

6.1.1 Speed Camera Evaluation...... 19

6.1.2 Road Spy in New South Wales...... 21

6.2 VICTORIA ...... 22

6.3 WESTERN AUSTRALIA ...... 26

RECENT QPL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2007 ...... 29

Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld)

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Queensland Police Service 2006-2007 Ministerial Portfolio Statement attributes around 69 of the 329 road crash fatalities on Queensland roads during 2005 to speed and states that 1,208 of all reportable crashes were due to speed. AAMI research indicates that 88% of Australian drivers admit to exceeding the speed limit at least some of the time. This Research Brief first outlines the prevalence of speeding at the state and national level and discusses the use of speed cameras as one of a number of road safety initiatives that governments use to try to reduce the road toll. There are two types of speed cameras – mobile and fixed: pages 1-3. As part of the Queensland Road Safety Strategy 2004-2011, the Queensland Government has allocated over $12 million to extend on-road police enforcement up until 30 June 2007, including $8 million for the camera detection program. The Queensland Speed Camera Program, which was introduced in May 1997, and currently uses mobile speed cameras, is described on pages 4-8, together with a discussion of how the cameras work, the legislative basis of the program, and the relevant penalties provided under the Transport Operations (Road Use Management) Act 1995 (Qld) for speeding offences. An evaluation of the program is currently being undertaken. A Monash University Accident Research Centre Report, published in September 2005, outlines a number of issues about speed cameras and the ways in which these have been handled by various state and territory governments. These issues include the fact that many people believe that speed cameras have a primarily revenue raising purpose rather than being a road safety initiative; the belief among many drivers that slightly excessive speeding is not dangerous; and a number of publicised technical faults with the cameras: pages 8-10. A House of Representatives Inquiry into National Road Safety, discussed on pages 10-12, considered the use of speed cameras as a speed management tool in Western Australia, New South Wales and Victoria finding that covert, random mobile speed cameras appeared to be a successful speed enforcement measure. In January 2006, a Gold Coast businessman established a service – Road Spy – which sends SMS text message alerts to subscribing motorists’ mobile phones warning about mobile speed cameras and mobile radars 24 hours a day. It also provides traffic information such as delays, oil spills, accidents, traffic light outages and a fuel watch service. This service is currently operating on the Gold Coast and has recently extended its reach into the Brisbane area. There are plans to cover most other areas of the country in the near future. The Road Spy service, and the initial reaction to it by the Queensland Government, the Queensland Police Service and others, is considered on pages 12-15. A further concern that the Queensland Government and the police have with the Road Spy SMS text messaging service is that it may encourage people to use their mobile phones whilst driving, a practice which is against the law but continues regardless of that fact: pages 15-16.

Queensland Parliamentary Library

To overcome the lack of any legislative provisions to prohibit persons or businesses in trade or commerce from sending SMS, Internet and like messages to warn drivers about the location of police traffic enforcement sites, the Queensland Government has introduced the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) to make such activities unlawful. It does so by amending the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld): pages 16-18. The Brief then considers the use of speed cameras in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia and relevant evaluations pertaining to their operation: pages 18-28.

Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

In January 2006, a Gold Coast businessman established a service which sends SMS text message alerts to subscribing motorists’ mobile phones warning about mobile speed cameras and mobile radars 24 hours a day. Subscription fees are around $30 a month. It also provides traffic information such as delays, oil spills, accidents, and traffic light outages and a fuel watch service. This service – Road Spy – is currently operating on the Gold Coast and has recently extended its reach into the Brisbane area. There are plans to cover most other areas of the country in the near future.1

Acting on its belief that Road Spy’s SMS text message alerts about traffic enforcement sites undermine road safety initiatives and the safety of other road users, the Queensland Government has introduced the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) which seeks to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) to ban commercial services from sending SMS, Internet and similar messages warning of traffic enforcement sites.

2 ROAD SAFETY AND SPEED

The Queensland Government’s Road Safety website states that an increase of speed of just between 10-15 km/h can ‘in some cases, be the difference between life and death’, given that the average driver takes around 1.5 seconds to react to an emergency. So, for a small motor vehicle travelling at 60 km/h, the total stopping distance from the time of the happening of the emergency is 48 metres (around 25 metres for reaction and 23 metres to apply the brakes). At 50 km/h, the total stopping distance is lowered to 37 metres for the same small vehicle. Thus, by the time a vehicle travelling at 50 km/h has stopped under emergency braking, another vehicle braking from 60 km/h would still be travelling at about 40 km/h.2

During the 2005-2006 financial year, there were 312 fatal crashes on Queensland roads and 4,707 crashes involving injury requiring hospitalisation.3

1 Road Spy homepage, http://www.roadspy.com.au.

2 Queensland Government, Road Safety website, ‘Speeding – the facts’, http://www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/index/rs_speeding_thefacts. See also ‘Does a 10 km/h reduction in speed make a difference?’.

3 Queensland Police Service (QPS), Annual Statistical Review 2005-2006, p 136, http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resources/Internet/services/reportsPublications/statisticalReview /0506/documents/12_traffic.pdf.

Page 2 Queensland Parliamentary Library

Research by the insurer body AAMI has found that 88% of Australian motorists admit to exceeding the speed limit at least some of the time, with younger men being the worst offenders. It was found that 36% of Australians sometimes speed to get to work or home sooner and 16% ignore restricted speed limits.5

In April 2006, the Queensland Premier launched a new road safety awareness campaign – Because Enough is Enough – alongside the new enforcement mechanism of double demerit points for repeat speeding offenders that came into force on 13 April 2006. The Premier commented that 329 people were killed on Queensland roads in 2005 as well as over 6,000 injured and that the community needed to work together to turn the statistics around.6 A number of road safety initiatives are being implemented in the wake of the February 2006 Road Safety Summit, among them being the introduction of fixed speed cameras which will be signposted to inform people about them.7

In the June 2006 State Budget it was announced that revenue from speed and red light cameras will go towards funding road safety projects outlined in the Budget, particularly fixing black spots on Queensland roads. The Minister for Transport & Main Roads, the Hon Paul Lucas MP, said that the Government was working with the Queensland Police Service (QPS) to introduce permanent fixed speed cameras and undertaking preliminary work so that signs would inform motorists about speed cameras in key, high traffic volume speed areas.8

4 QPS, 2006-2007 State Budget, Ministerial Portfolio Statement, pp 1-29-1-31, http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resources/Internet/services/reportsPublications/ministerial/mps/0 607/documents/MPS_0607.pdf .

5 AAMI, Crash Index, August 2006, http://www.aami.com.au/about_aami_insurance/aami_news_centre/pdf/special_reports/AAMI_ CrashIndex06report_mediacentre.pdf.

6 Hon Peter Beattie MP, Premier of Queensland, Hon Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport & Main Roads & Hon Judy Spence MP, Minister for Police and Corrective Services, ‘Premier Launches 2006 Road Safety Campaign – Enough is Enough’, Queensland Media Statement, 10 April 2006.

7 ‘Premier Launches 2006 Road Safety Campaign – Enough is Enough’.

8 Hon Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport & Main Roads, ‘Extra 88 Safer Roads Sooner Projects for Queensland Roads’, ‘Road Safety Wins Budget Boost’, Media Statements, 6 June 2006. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 3

At a national level, the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services Inquiry into National Road Safety – Eyes on the road ahead (Inquiry Report) in 2004 noted that the evidence presented to it clearly indicated that speed is a major factor in road trauma. Speed affects both the risk of crashing and the severity of the crash – including crashes caused by non-speed factors.9 In its submission to the Committee, the Queensland Government said – Speeding continues to be a road safety issue in Queensland, with fatal crashes attributed to speed up by 32 percent over the last five years and fatal crashes in high speed zones still accounting for 49 percent of all fatal crashes. Excessive speed is a major contributing factor in approximately 15 percent of fatal crashes each year. … Speed related crashes cost the community approximately $180 million per year in hospital and health care costs, lost productivity … and the use of emergency services.10

3 SPEED CAMERAS

A September 2005 Monash University Accident Research Centre Report notes that speed cameras (both fixed and mobile) are an example of speed enforcement technologies that are common throughout the world but appear to be most prevalent in Australia and Great Britain. The mobile cameras tend to be moved between sites across the road network and operated covertly to create a perception that speeding can be detected anywhere on the network. Fixed speed cameras are usually more overt in their operation.11

3.1 QUEENSLAND SPEED CAMERA PROGRAM

The framework for road safety initiatives, including speeding enforcement activities, in Queensland is provided by the National Road Safety Strategy 2001- 2010; the Queensland Road Safety Strategy 2004-2011 and State and Commonwealth Road Safety Action Plans. The Transport Operations (Road Use

9 Commonwealth Parliament, House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services (SCTRS), Inquiry into National Road Safety – Eyes on the road ahead, Report, June 2004, Canberra, p 32, http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/trs/roadsafety/report/fullreport.pdf.

10 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 33 quoting Government of Queensland Submission no 31, p 8.

11 A Delaney, H Ward & M Cameron, ‘The History and Development of Speed Camera Use’, Report No 242, Monash University Accident Research Centre, September 2005, p ix, http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc242.pdf.

Page 4 Queensland Parliamentary Library

Management) Act 1995 (Qld) (Chapter 5, Part 7) (TORUM Act) governs the use of photographic detection devices. A photographic detection device is a device, including a digital device, that captures an image and is approved under the Traffic Regulation 1962 (see Part 22). The Queensland Speed Camera Program was introduced in May 1997 involving overt use of cameras in vans and other vehicles marked as speed camera units.

As part of the Road Safety Initiatives Package, the Queensland Government has allocated funding of $12.7 million to extend on-road police enforcement until 30 June 2007, including $8 million for the camera detection offence program. The funding will maintain the level of speed camera operation at 70,000 hours per year (or 8 hours per day).12 In November 2006, the Government introduced the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) (the 2006 Bill) into the Queensland Parliament, clauses 61 and 62 of which amend evidentiary provisions of the TORUM Act to allow for the introduction of fixed speed cameras.

At present, speed camera sites are chosen primarily on the basis of crash history of all severities. Secondary criteria include road works sites, locations identified through validated public complaints, and locations identified through validated stakeholder concern or local knowledge.13 A recent review of the speed camera scheduling system has resulted in some proposals to change the type, timing and location of the enforcement resources so that they are scheduled on the basis of road crash and other traffic intelligence. It is considered that this approach would enable high risk behaviours, locations and times to be better targeted.14

The QPS website notes that the testing and accuracy of speed detection devices complies with the relevant Australian Standard and manufacturers’ guidelines and is conducted on a yearly basis. Each device is also field tested before and after each use.15 The 2006 Bill makes provision for the testing of technologies that may be used in association with fixed speed cameras when these are introduced.

The mobile speed cameras work by emitting a radar beam across the road so that any vehicle passing through it at a speed in excess of the pre-set limit will be automatically photographed. A 700 mm high sign is placed 5-10 metres past the vehicle site advising motorists of the presence of the camera.

12 QPS, 2006-2007 Queensland State Budget, Ministerial Portfolio Statement, pp 1-4, 1-27.

13 QPS, ‘Speed Cameras Making Roads Safer’, http://www.police.qld.gov.au/services/newsletters/nhw/2006/autumn/.

14 QPS, 2006-2007 Queensland State Budget, Ministerial Portfolio Statement, p 1-30.

15 QPS Road Safety website, http://www.police.qld.gov.au/programs/roadSafety/speed.htm. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 5

The camera can measure the speed of vehicles travelling in either direction. If a speed camera photograph is taken of a vehicle, it is imprinted with details such as the time, date, location, detected speed and the site speed limit. The photo is carefully examined by trained adjudicators to determine if an infringement notice (speeding ticket) should be issued. The speeding ticket will contain the photograph and the relevant details of the offence, the number of licence demerit points and the fine for the offence. It is mailed to the registered owner of the vehicle.16 The notice provides a period of 28 days in which to pay the fine, to challenge the offence, or to nominate the actual driver at the time of the offence.17

Under the Act, a person is taken to have committed the offence if the person was the person in charge of the vehicle that was involved in the offence even if the actual offender is someone else. It is a defence if the person can prove that they were not the driver at the relevant time and the person has notified the Police Commissioner, by way of a statutory declaration, of the contact details for the person who was driving at the time of the offence and of other matters specified under s 114 of the TORUM Act.18

Under s 117 of the TORUM Act, all money collected for penalties imposed for speed camera detected offences in excess of administration costs must be allocated to road safety education and awareness programs; road accident injury rehabilitation programs; and road funding to improve road safety in known crash sites. Queensland is one of the few jurisdictions where there is specific legislative direction for the expenditure of speed camera revenue.19

If the offence is challenged in court, an image produced by the prosecution, purporting to be certified by the Police Commissioner as being properly taken by a photographic detection device at a specified location and time, is evidence of the accuracy of the image and things depicted in it: s 120 of the TORUM Act.

The applicable penalties for speeding depend upon the amount by which the speed limit is exceeded. Travelling at less than 13 km/h over the limit will incur a $100 fine and one demerit point. If the limit is exceeded by more than 40 km/h, then a

16 QPS Road Safety website, ‘Speed cameras – how do they work?’, http://www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/index/rs_speeding_speedcameras, and ‘Fines and demerit points’, http://www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/index/rs_speeding_finesanddemerit

17 QPS Road Safety website, ‘Fines and demerit points’.

18 Other exceptions apply – for example, if the vehicle has been stolen.

19 QPS Road Safety website, ‘Speed camera revenue’, http://www.roadsafety.qld.gov.au/qt/LTASinfo.nsf/index/rs_speeding_camerarev.

Page 6 Queensland Parliamentary Library

$700 fine and eight demerit point penalty may be incurred as well as a six month licence suspension.20

During 2005, the number of vehicles monitored per speed camera offence was approximately 162.21

A review of the Speed Camera Program is currently being undertaken by the Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety – Queensland (CARRS-Q) and the QPS which considers the length of time a driver’s behaviour is influenced after they have passed an operational speed camera site.22 Preliminary findings indicate that – [o]vertly deployed mobile speed cameras do produce meaningful reductions in vehicle speeds, but only for a relatively short distance downstream (1.5 kilometre) from the camera site. No meaningful reduction could be identified 500 metres upstream from the camera site. The main practical road safety implication of these findings is that to maximise the impact of speed cameras on reducing speeding, and hopefully speed related crashes, speed camera deployment will be most effective if it is within a maximum range of one kilometre from locations that have a history of high speed related crash risk.23

The outcome of an earlier evaluation undertaken by the Monash University Accident Research Centre – the Crash Effects of the Queensland Speed Cameras Program – was published in September 2003.24 The study covered the period from the introduction of the program in May 1997 to the end of June 2001 in areas within 6 km of speed cameras sites. The evaluation found that, when operating at maximum coverage, the program was estimated to have reduced fatal crashes by around 45% in areas within 2 km of speed cameras sites as well as non-injury crashes by 21%. In terms of annual road trauma in Queensland, the savings were found to represent a 26% decrease in fatal to medically treated crashes, and a 21%

20 See QPS Road Safety website, ‘Fines and demerit points’, for the range of penalties that apply.

21 2006-2007 Queensland State Budget, Ministerial Portfolio Statement, QPS, p 1-31.

22 2006-2007 Queensland State Budget, Ministerial Portfolio Statement, QPS, pp 1-28-1-29.

23 P Champness; M Sheehan & L Folkman, Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety- Queensland (CARRS-Q), Queensland University of Technology, ‘Time And Distance Halo Effects Of An Overtly Deployed Mobile Speed Camera’, Paper presented at the 2005 Australasian Road Safety Research, Policing and Education Conference, Wellington, New Zealand, November 2005.

24 S Newstead & M Cameron, ‘Evaluation of the Crash Effects of the Queensland Speed Camera Program’, Report No 204, Monash University Accident Research Centre, September 2003, http://www.monash.edu.au/muarc/reports/muarc204.pdf. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 7 reduction in all casualty crashes.25 It was also found that higher levels of true randomness in the selection of sites of the camera operations were also associated with higher levels of crash reduction when comparing differential performance of the program across police regions in Queensland.26

The evaluation also compared the relative crash reduction performance of the Queensland and Victorian speed camera programs. At the time of the study, the two states adopted different approaches in terms of visibility and program coverage. The Victorian program was covert in operation whereas the Queensland program is overt in nature.27 The authors commented that the principal mechanism of crash effectiveness of the Victorian program is believed to be through generalised deterrence associated with the covert nature of the operations. The authors noted a study of road trauma reductions in Victoria during the early 1990s28 which estimated the reduction in serious casualty crashes connected with the Victorian speed camera program and associated publicity to be around 19%. The evaluation considered that this figure was fairly comparable to the estimated 26% statewide reduction in fatal to medically treated crashes for the Queensland program. It was suggested that the two programs have been similar in total effectiveness even though there was a fundamental difference in their modes of operation.29

A November 2006 newspaper article reported that the Minister for Transport announced that the Government wanted to roll out fixed cameras at locations such as the Story Bridge by the end of 2007.30 It is reported that signs will be installed to warn motorists that they are entering speed camera zones and that any extra revenue raised through fines would go into road improvements.31

25 S Newstead & M Cameron, pp iii, 30-31.

26 S Newstead & M Cameron, pp vii, 34.

27 Since April 2006, downloads of lists of fixed and mobile speed cameras sites in Victoria have been possible (as discussed later).

28 S Newstead et al., ‘Modelling of some major factors influencing road trauma trends in Victoria 1989-1993’, Report No 74, Monash University, Accident Research Centre, 1995.

29 S Newstead & M Cameron, pp 32-33.

30 Edmund Burke, ‘Fixed cameras to capture speeders – Leadfoots on Story Bridge will be the first target’, Courier Mail, 5 November 2006, p 7. This move is supported by changes to evidentiary provisions relating to speed detection device technologies in the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld).

31 Edmund Burke.

Page 8 Queensland Parliamentary Library

3.2 FIXED SPEED CAMERAS – THE NEW SOUTH WALES EXAMPLE

Fixed speed cameras detect the speed of motor vehicles by using piezo-electric detectors embedded into the road surface which deflect slightly when a vehicle is driven over them.32 This causes them to emit signals which trigger an electronic device that measures the speed of the vehicle. If the speed is in excess of the legal limit, a digital picture is taken of the vehicle. The digital image and other details indicating the colour, type, make and number plate of the vehicle are securely stored on a disk. The data is managed and processed by a government agency which then issues an infringement notice to the motorist concerned setting out the details of the penalty incurred.33

3.3 SPEED CAMERA ISSUES

The September 2005 Monash University Accident Research Centre Report notes the various controversies associated with the use of speed cameras in Australia, the United States and Canada, and Great Britain. In Australia, essentially four issues were identified.34

The first was a credibility dilemma – encompassing the view held by many motorists that speed cameras were not just for road safety purposes but that they also have a revenue raising function and that cameras were placed in areas where it was ‘safe to speed’. There was also the view that the overt operation of cameras was most effective when used at unsafe locations whereas covert operations were aimed at raising revenue.35 The Report noted that specific efforts directed at addressing these concerns had not been widely documented but, as part of the Victorian road safety advertising campaign, advertisements highlighting the risks of being caught speeding at any time of the day at any place on the road network have been aired at various times during the speed camera program. Evaluations of

32 The types and methods of operation of fixed speed cameras vary but the example used here is of the fixed speed cameras used in NSW in order to provide an illustration of their use and operation. The description is taken from the ARRB Group Ltd’s ‘Evaluation of the Fixed Digital Speed Camera Program in NSW’, Evaluation Report, May 2005, for the NSW Road Traffic Authority (RTA, http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/downloads/2005_05_speedcamera_evaluation.pdf.

33 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, p ii.

34 A Delaney et al, Table 1 on p xi-xii.

35 A Delaney et al, pp xii-xiii. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 9 this advertising have revealed positive impacts on casualty crashes, indicating that road safety advertising can influence public attitudes to road safety issues.36

The second issue concerning speed camera use in Australia covered the belief by motorists that slightly excessive speeding, of itself, was not associated with an increased risk of having a collision. The Report commented that this social dilemma could be addressed through media campaigns (such as advertising) highlighting the reduced crash and injury risk associated with lower levels of speed – thus raising public awareness of the proven relationship between speed and injury risk.37

The third dilemma identified by the Report was that enforcement by way of speed cameras did not allow the ‘captured’ motorist an opportunity to explain the circumstances of the event. There was no immediate notification of the offender, and no witness to the event. On the other hand, if a police officer pulls over a speeding vehicle, the driver is immediately identified, informed of the offence and given a chance to explain the behaviour and prepare a defence if the driver wishes to challenge the offence in court. However, this issue was found to have been more of a concern for North American motorists than for Australian motorists.38

The fourth issue canvassed by the Report was that acceptance of speed cameras was reduced by the fact that some had been proved faulty and that not all speedometers in motor vehicles were accurate, leading to inadvertent speeding. The Report suggested that attention to risk management during the initial speed camera implementation period can help increase acceptance of speed camera programs. As an example, when the Victorian program was being established, the Department of Justice engaged in a number of risk management strategies such as independent technical testing and quality assurance. It also won public support for the program as well as genuinely identifying road safety as a main objective.39 The Report noted that a key concern in North America associated with the implementation of speed cameras was that police resources were diverted from ‘more serious’ offences and other irresponsible driving behaviour.40

36 A Delaney et al, ‘p xiii.

37 A Delaney et al, p xiii.

38 A Delaney et al, pp xiii-xiv. It was also felt by some drivers that the penalties for exceeding a speed limit by less than 10 kph were less fair than for exceeding it by more than 10 kph.

39 A Delaney et al, p xiv.

40 A Delaney et al, pp xi, xiv..

Page 10 Queensland Parliamentary Library

The Report concluded that the above controversies were common across several jurisdictions but that authorities in Australia and Great Britain had taken measures to address public concerns and minimise the effect of the operation of the speed camera program so that the issues were properly managed.41

It has been reported that there are a number of devices and other things which can affect the accuracy of speed cameras. A leading radar expert has commented that speed camera readings can be affected by other motor vehicles at intersections, tram and train lines, commercial and traffic signs, bus shelters, letter boxes, metal garages, fences or parked trucks. Other problems can be caused if the camera is set up incorrectly so the beam bounces off the road or it is focussing on a bend.42

AAMI research from 2005 indicates that 60% of Australian motorists believe that speeding fines are mainly a revenue raising exercise. Half of drivers (51%) say that they do not trust the accuracy of speed cameras, with the highest proportion of motorists with this belief being in Melbourne where there have been some technical fault issues with the speed cameras in recent times. It was also revealed that one-third of drivers admit to flashing their lights to warn other motorists of the presence of a speed camera.43

3.4 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES INQUIRY INTO NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY

In the Report of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services Inquiry into National Road Safety – Eyes on the road ahead (mentioned earlier), it was considered that greater compliance with speed limits would reduce road fatalities but noted that this was difficult to accomplish.44 The Inquiry Report then proceeded to set out the speed management strategies that have been tried at the state level for New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia.45 Details of the strategies adopted in these states will be provided later in this Research Brief.

41 A Delaney et al, p xv.

42 Glenn Connley interviewing Dr Wolf Garwoli, ‘Beating Speed Cameras’, Today Tonight, 4 August 2005, http://seven.com.au/todaytonight/story/?id=22256.

43 AAMI, Crash Index, September 2005, p 3.

44 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 33.

45 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 34. These jurisdictions provided detailed evidence to the Committee. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 11

• Western Australia: the main speed management approach has been a mixture of community education and enforcement, including the use of speed cameras in high volume traffic areas and hand-held and mobile radars in rural areas. While there has been some success with both approaches, speeding problems continue, leading the WA Government to enhance its enforcement and education measures and make these more strategic in their approach.46

• New South Wales: the main speed management tool adopted by the NSW Government is fixed digital speed cameras on lengths of road where there has been evidence of speed and collision problems and to clearly signpost the cameras. After two years of operation, an evaluation conducted on behalf of the NSW Roads and Traffic Authority (RTA) – considered in some detail below – found a significant reduction in the proportion of speeding vehicles in all speed zones. In the two years following the cameras being installed, crashes over all types decreased by 20% with fatality crashes falling by around 90%.47

• Victoria: Victoria also uses speed cameras but takes a different approach to NSW. A VicRoads official told the Committee that in the 18 months leading up to the Committee’s Inquiry, there had been an increase in the use of covert mobile cameras, the message being that to speed anywhere at any time means one may be caught. This is backed by lower enforcement levels, tougher penalties and lower thresholds for demerit points.48 The Committee noted that the impact of the Victoria strategy had been dramatic with a doubling of infringements coinciding with a decline in fatalities from May 2002.49

The Inquiry Report commented that the Committee had been impressed by evidence of the success of covert, random, mobile speed enforcement measures and believed that they should become a central part of speed management in all jurisdictions but that fixed cameras also have an additional role to play.50 The comment was also made that the deterrent effect of a visible police presence on the roads should not be underestimated but, nonetheless, remote detection makes

46 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 35, quoting Government of Western Australia, Submission no 37, p 8.

47 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, pp 35-36, citing NSW RTA, Submission no 35.

48 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 37, quoting from Transcript of Evidence, pp 6-7.

49 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 37.

50 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 37.

Page 12 Queensland Parliamentary Library deterrence and enforcement more efficient and effective than a ‘cops on the beat approach’ will allow.51

4 ROAD SPY

Under r 225 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (Qld) (TOURM Act) it is an offence for a person to drive a vehicle which has in it or on it a device for preventing the effective use of a speed measuring device, or a device for detecting the use of a speed measuring device. This law mirrors r 225 of the Australian Road Rules. Other jurisdictions have similar prohibitions.

Road Spy works differently. The business pays contractors – generally taxi drivers and couriers – to report cameras, radars and other traffic information which Road Spy then processes. Subscribers are also encouraged to provide information by sending a text message to the Road Spy message centre (using a ‘recommended and legal hands free kit if driving at the time’), by telephoning the call centre, or via an email.52 SMS warning messages are then sent to subscribers’ mobile phones in the relevant area giving the location and direction of the potential police operation or traffic hazard.

In July 2006, Road Spy added two new services to its website. The first is a fuel watch service which alerts subscribers about the cheapest fuel around for the day. The second is a road watch service that helps motorists to save time by alerting them of any major traffic incidents.53

Since its release in January 2006, Road Spy claims to have sent over 2,300 different alerts to motorists ranging from police speed camera sites to children throwing rocks from overpasses and wild animals obstructing traffic. Around 30% of those messages related to speed camera operations.54

On the Road Spy website, it is claimed that Road Spy supports Australian road safety and encourages safe driving at all times and the use of mobile phone hands-

51 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 38.

52 Road Spy, ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, http://www.roadspy.com.au/faq.php.

53 Road Spy, ‘Road Spy Release Its Fuel Watch Service’, Media Releases, 1 July 2006; ‘Road Spy Release Its Road Watch Service’, Media Releases, 24 July 2006, http://www.roadspy.com.au/media.php.

54 Road Spy, ‘Road Spy Considers Restructuring its Organisation’, Media Releases, 30 October 2006. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 13 free sets.55 A Road Spy spokesman is reported as saying that while ‘we do not condone or encourage speeding in any way, we think Road Spy will play a role in reminding drivers to adjust their driving. … Mobile speed cameras are usually placed in known accident black spots, so prior knowledge through Road Spy will help make the roads a safer place for all users.’56

4.1 REACTION BY THE QUEENSLAND GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS

On 11 January 2006, the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the Hon Judy Spence MP, announced that she would consider legislative changes to ban the Road Spy service because it was undermining the millions of dollars that the State Government spends on road safety initiatives. Ms Spence said that to tell drivers where police have set up Random Breath Tests was ‘effectively promoting drink driving, by telling drivers which roads to avoid on their way home. This is totally irresponsible as it is encouraging life-endangering behaviour on our roads.’ Ms Spence also said that ‘these type of web sites have no interest in road safety…’.57

The Commissioner for Police, Bob Atkinson, said that drink driving was a major cause of deaths on Queensland roads and ‘any attempt to assist drunk drivers to avoid detection was irresponsible and posed a danger to all road users’.58 The Police Commissioner said that ‘to provide a service to suggest to people that they can evade detection for drink-driving was the height of irresponsibility’.59

On 12 January 2006, Road Spy decided to remove Random Breath Test (RBT) alerts for new subscribers in an attempt to cooperate with the Queensland Police Service (QPS), the Queensland Government and RACQ to reduce the road toll. The RBT alerts would continue for current members who have asked to receive them during their current subscription.60

The RACQ’s spokesman, Gary Fites, commended the decision to remove the RBT alerts, stating that while provision of advice about traffic delays and road hazards

55 Road Spy homepage.

56 Road Spy, ‘Road Spy launches a new road safety service’, Media Releases, 11 January 2006.

57 Hon Judy Spence MP, Minister for Police & Corrective Services, ‘Spence Condemns SMS RBT Police Alerts and Life-Endangering’, Media Statement, 11 January 2006.

58 ‘Spence Condemns SMS RBT Police Alerts and Life-Endangering’.

59 Sue Lappenman, ‘Police move to outwit Road Spy’, Gold Coast Bulletin, 12 January 2006, p 3.

60 Road Spy, ‘Road Spy to Remove Random Breath Testing Service Alerts’, Media Releases, 12 January 2006,

Page 14 Queensland Parliamentary Library can be useful to motorists, the RACQ believes that motorists who drive under the speed and blood alcohol limits do not need information regarding enforcement locations.61

Countering the above reaction regarding alerts about speed cameras, Road Spy’s creator, Adam Bush, claims that there was independent research from the United Kingdom that shows that Road Spy users could have up to 24% fewer accidents.62 He went on to state that this research had led police in the United Kingdom and in countries such as New Zealand and the United States to support the publicising of the location of speed cameras. Mr Bush noted that some Australian states publicise the location of speed cameras. He expressed the opinion that more speed cameras were being questionably placed so that even the most conservative, conscientious driver might inadvertently exceed the speed limit due to a slope in the road. Mr Bush also took the view that when motorists were unaware of speed camera locations, it can cause them to apply the brakes suddenly and risk having a collision.63

In a recent radio interview, Mr Bush acknowledged that his critics do suggest that Road Spy helps people to get away with dangerous driving but said that he did not believe that Road Spy did that. Rather, it alerts people about hazards that are likely to cause crashes and drivers can adjust their speed to suit.64 He told the reporter that once a driver is aware that there is a speed camera on a particular road they will always think that ‘maybe it is there today’. He said that the alerts slow all of Road Spy’s members down and helps them to drive safely as they are reminded by the messages to check their speed.

Mr Bush is also reported to believe that the Government was unfairly targeting Road Spy when other media, such as radio stations, broadcast the location of speed cameras.65

61 Road Spy, ‘RACQ’s Reaction to Withdrawal of RBT Alerts’, Media Releases, 12 January 2006,

62 MORI (a public opinion research body) conducted research in 2001 that is reported to have shown that radar detector users had on average 24% fewer accidents, see http://www.originb2.com/traps/index.cfm.

63 Road Spy, ‘NSW Don’t Know What to Think: NSW Government & NSW Police Have Conflicting Comments’, Media Releases, 15 January 2006.

64 Jean Kennedy, ‘Motorists avoid speeding fines through ‘road spy’ service’, PM, ABC Online, 12 May 2006, http://www.abc.net.au/cgi- bin/common/printfriendly.pl?http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2006/s1637442.htm.

65 Rosanne Barrett, ‘Road Spy targeting “unfair”’, Courier Mail, 16 May 2006, p 15. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 15

4.2 USE OF MOBILE PHONES WHILE DRIVING

A further issue regarding the Road Spy service is that it may encourage people to use their hand-held mobile telephones while they are driving. This is illegal under s 300 of the Transport Operations (Road Use Management – Road Rules) Regulation 1999 (Qld). The Minister for Police, Hon Judy Spence MP, is reported to have commented that three fatalities in the last four years have been directly attributed to mobile phone use.66

In January 2005, fines for illegal use of a mobile phone while driving were increased to $225 (as well as three demerit points) yet it has been reported that during 2005, over 15,000 motorists were caught breaking the law. In one instance, a driver in Cairns was found guilty of dangerous driving occasioning death after checking a text message he received moments before colliding with another vehicle, killing the driver instantly.67 Corporate affairs manager for the insurer AAMI, Mike Sopinski, is reported as saying that illegal mobile phone use by motorists was reaching epidemic proportions and that Queensland drivers were not prepared to curb this dangerous behaviour even in the face of increased police enforcement and undercover roadside police operations. 68

Research by The George Institute at the University of Sydney, in collaboration with the University of Western Australia, involving a study of over 400 drivers in Perth, revealed that there may be no safety advantage associated with using a hands-free mobile phone rather than a hand-held mobile phone. There was an elevated risk of crashing – a fourfold increase – irrespective of the type of device used.69 It has been reported that a significant finding was that one in five driving errors was a result of distraction. The effects of talking on a mobile phone while driving can include taking one’s eyes off the road or losing concentration.70

66 Hon Peter Beattie MP, Premier of Queensland & Hon Judy Spence MP, Minister for Police & Corrective Services, ‘Winter Blitz Includes ‘Dialling’ Drivers’, Media Statement, 7 June 2006.

67 Roseanne Barrett, ‘Chat-driving offences up despite fines’, Courier Mail, 24 October 2006, p 7.

68 Paul Weston, ‘Call waiting … How police are ambushing drivers who talk on their mobiles’, Sunday Mail, 26 February 2006, p 7.

69 The George Institute for International Health, ‘The risk of car crash increases when using a hand-held or hands-free mobile phone’, July 2005, at http://www.thegeorgeinstitute.org/homepage.cfm.

70 Eamonn Duff, ’25,000 fined but we still don’t get the message’, SMH Online, 6 August 2006, http://www.smh.com.au.

Page 16 Queensland Parliamentary Library

AAMI research reveals 35% of young motorists (aged 18-24) admit to using their mobile phone without a hands-free kit while driving as opposed to 16% of older drivers.71

However, Road Spy’s Adam Bush does not appear to believe that his service encourages people to illegally use their mobile phone. He said that he hoped that none of Road Spy’s members read their alerts while driving but most people would be at work or home when receiving the alerts so they have the information prior to getting into their vehicle.72

In August 2006, the Minister for Transport & Main Roads, the Hon Paul Lucas MP, announced a range of reforms to reduce the youth road toll in the wake of the Queensland Road Safety Summit earlier in the year. The main initiative is a new graduated licensing system featuring the reintroduction of P plates for those drivers securing their licence under the age of 25. Among the restrictions on provisional drivers will be a ban on all mobile phone use, including hands-free or speaker phones, for young drivers in their first year of driving. The changes commence on 1 July 2007.73

5 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS – AMENDMENTS TO THE SUMMARY OFFENCES ACT 2005 (QLD)

In a radio interview on 12 May 2006, the Minister for Police said that legislation to make types of businesses, such as Road Spy, illegal and make it an offence for people to use them would be introduced into the Queensland Parliament before the end of the year.74 There are currently no provisions in Queensland legislation or in the Australian Road Rules to prohibit persons or businesses in trade or commerce from sending SMS text messages warning about the location of police traffic enforcement sites.75

71 AAMI, Young Drivers Annual Road Safety Index, November 2006.

72 Adam Bush being interviewed by Jean Kennedy, ‘Motorists avoid speeding fines through ‘road spy’ service’.

73 Hon Paul Lucas MP, Minister for Transport & Main Roads, ‘Blueprint to Save Young Lives’, Media Statement, 14 August 2006. The reforms have been introduced by the Transport Legislation and Another Act Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) currently before Parliament.

74 Hon Judy Spence MP, Minister for Police & Corrective Services being interviewed by Jean Kennedy, ‘Motorists avoid speeding fines through ‘road spy’ service’.

75 Hon JC Spence MP, Minister for Police & Corrective Services, Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld), Second Reading Speech, Queensland Parliamentary Debates, 2 November 2006, pp 497-500, p 499. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 17

On 2 November 2006, the Minister for Police and Corrective Services, the Hon Judy Spence MP, introduced the Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) (the Bill) into the Queensland Parliament. One of the objectives of the Bill is to amend the Summary Offences Act 2005 (Qld) to prohibit a person,76 in trade or commerce, from providing a service of informing another person of the location of a traffic enforcement site for the purpose of, or that has the effect of, enabling the other person to avoid, or be prepared for, a check made at that site. A ‘traffic enforcement site’ is defined as a place being used by the police to perform random or systematic checks of compliance by drivers with the TORUM Act. Examples of such are speed camera sites, RBT sites, and vehicle safety check sites. The maximum penalty for contravention is a fine of $7,500 for an individual and $ 37,500 for a corporation.77 A person provides a ‘service of informing another person’ if the person makes information about the location of a traffic enforcement site available by a relevant message (i.e. a message via the Internet; a SMS message; or any other message that may be heard, read or viewed by a person using a mobile phone). It is also made clear that the offence provision does not apply to the provider of a telephone or Internet service only because another person uses that service to inform another person about the location of a traffic enforcement site: proposed new s 24A (see cl 6).

In her Second Reading Speech, the Minister said that the new laws will not prevent commercial radio stations from broadcasting ‘the general location of police radar and speed camera sites to their listeners during the day. These limited, random and delayed traffic alerts do not pose a similar level of threat to road safety that is currently posed by Road Spy or potentially by any other similar business…’.78 Such alerts are not considered to pose the same level of threat to road safety as that posed by comprehensive, precise and almost instantaneous alerts provided by Road Spy.79

Road Spy’s Adam Bush responded that it was a shame that the Government cannot see the benefits that his business provided for users and questioned why radio stations will be exempted from the laws, given that they will profit indirectly through increases in their audience which, in turn, increases profitability through advertising.80 Mr Bush stated that Road Spy will continue to provide its services to subscribers until such time as it is required by law not to do so. He said that he

76 Which includes a corporation.

77 See Penalties and Sentences Act 1992 (Qld) ss 5, 181B.

78 Hon JC Spence, Second Reading Speech, p 500.

79 Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld), Explanatory Notes, p 5.

80 Road Spy, ‘Road Spy Considers Restructuring its Organisation’, Media Releases, 30 October 2006.

Page 18 Queensland Parliamentary Library will consider ways to change Road Spy’s organisational structure to becoming a non-profit club so that it is within the constraints of the law.81

6 OTHER JURISDICTIONS

6.1 NEW SOUTH WALES

Fixed speed cameras have operated in New South Wales since 1999 and are generally placed in locations where there has been a high incidence of severe collisions and a demonstrated speeding problem. The enabling legislation is Division 2 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (NSW) (ss 44-47), which took effect in December 1999. Mobile speed cameras have been in operation since 1991. Fixed speed cameras are also located at a number of primary schools. The locations of the fixed cameras have three warning signs about the presence of cameras.82 The three signs on approach to the speed camera display an image of a speed camera, an applicable warning message (e.g. ‘speed camera ahead’), and the regulatory speed limit.

If a motorist is detected by a speed camera or a police officer and a notice is issued, the motorist will be fined and incur licence demerit points, the severity dependent upon the kilometres per hour in excess of the speed limit. For instance, exceeding the speed limit by less than 15 km/h will cost a motorist $77 and three demerit points. If caught speeding by more than 45 km/h over the speed limit, the motorist may have their licence immediately suspended and confiscated at the roadside for six months (as well as a $1,589 fine and 6 demerit points). Exceeding the limit by more than 30 km/h may incur a suspension for three months.83

Section 48 of the Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 prohibits the driving of a vehicle or allowing a trailer to stand on a road if a prohibited speed measuring evasion article is fitted or applied to, or carried in, the vehicle. Some defences apply. A ‘speed measuring evasion article’ is a device or substance designed to detect, or interfere with, or reduce the effectiveness of, an

81 Road Spy, ‘Road Spy Considers Restructuring its Organisation’.

82 RTA, ‘Fixed speed camera locations’, http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/fixeddigitalspeedcameras/index. html.

83 RTA, ‘Speeding Penalties’, http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/rulesregulations/penalties/speeding.html?rrlid=11. Higher penalties apply if convicted by a court. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 19 approved speed measuring device and includes a radar detecting or radar jamming device.84

The NSW Road Traffic Authority (RTA)’s website contains documents setting out the locations of fixed speed cameras in school zones and in other locations around Sydney and outside of Sydney. A public education campaign was conducted during late 2000 which was reported to have raised community awareness of the cameras to 90%.85

The RTA believes that fixed digital speed cameras are an effective and efficient means of enforcing speed limits on specific high accident lengths of roads; reducing excessive speeding and the number of serious crashes; releasing police for other duties; and offering a safe means of enforcement.86

It has been reported that there are 113 fixed speed cameras in NSW and, in 2005, $57.3 million worth of fines were issued.87

6.1.1 Speed Camera Evaluation

An Evaluation of the Fixed Digital Speed Camera Program in NSW was conducted by the ARRB Group on behalf of the RTA to consider driver speed behaviour, road trauma, economic value, and community understanding of the use of cameras as a road safety tool. The objective was to identify and measure the impact of 28 fixed digital speed cameras at urban and rural locations throughout NSW.88 The ARRB Group reported its findings in May 2005.

The authors carried out a crash analysis on all the sites studied to ascertain if the changes in crashes at the camera sites were beyond chance fluctuation (i.e. were statistically significant) while also taking into account any influences by other factors. A key finding was that after two years of camera operation, there was an 89.8% reduction in fatal crashes along the camera lengths (i.e. the length of road

84 See Road Transport (Safety and Traffic Management) Act 1999 (NSW), Dictionary.

85 RTA, Fixed Speed Cameras Public Education webpage, http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/fixeddigitalspeedcameras/publice ducation.html.

86 RTA, ‘Fixed Speed Cameras, http://www.rta.nsw.gov.au/roadsafety/speedandspeedcameras/fixeddigitalspeedcameras/index. html.

87 Edmund Tadros, ‘Speeding fines may come to sudden halt’, SMH Online, 24 August 2006.

88 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, p iii.

Page 20 Queensland Parliamentary Library along which the camera operated).89 In terms of speed behaviour, the ARRB Group stated that the data collected showed substantial reductions in mean speeds along the camera sites. In terms of the percentage of vehicles exceeding the limit by 10 km/h, 20 km/h and 30 km/h, it was found that very large reductions were achieved along the ‘high crash’ camera lengths.90

The economic analysis undertaken as part of the evaluation found that, overall, the 28 camera sites have positive social benefits corresponding to positive net present values because the crash reductions achieved contributed to the program’s high degree of economic merit.91 For the 28 sites, the net present value over a project horizon of 18 years was said to be $109.1 million and $113.4 million for all road lengths and camera lengths respectively. It was also found that, in terms of a cost benefit ratio, the program will perform competitively against other road safety programs over its time of operation.92

The ARRB Group evaluation also considered community attitudes towards the Fixed Digital Speed Camera Program through an analysis of four waves of questionnaire surveys over two years. The surveys gauged motorists’ knowledge, attitudes, beliefs and reported behaviours in relation to the fixed speed cameras, speeding, and speeding enforcement. It was found that the community generally had a positive attitude towards the cameras and was well aware of the program. More respondents considered that the cameras and their locations were associated with road safety and speeding rather than with revenue raising. Most respondents were found to have slowed down at the camera sites – a finding backed up by the increase in the incidence of respondents claiming that they reduce their speed below the limit on sighting the warning signs. This is also reflected in the speed survey results reported above.93

The ARRB Group evaluation concluded that, after the installation of 28 fixed speed cameras across various sites in NSW, significant reductions were achieved in speed, speeding rates and crashes. It went on to find that the approach adopted by the NSW Government for deploying fixed digital speed cameras – through selecting sites based on a particular speed and crash history and prominently

89 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, p 44.

90 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, p vi.

91 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, pp viii, 46.

92 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, pp ix, 44

93 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, p 45. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 21 signposting them – has proven successful and that the evaluation provided support for extending the program across NSW.94

A number of surveys conducted between September 2000 and September 2002, including the ARRB Group evaluation, have found that although the majority of NSW motorists believe that the use of speed cameras produces real road safety benefits, there are many who see the use of the cameras as associated with revenue raising rather than road safety.95 It was also noted that one third of those who believed speed cameras were very effective also believed that infringement notices are primarily revenue raising, suggesting that the negative perception by some people that cameras are a revenue raising device may not be clear evidence of disapproval of their use. The ARRB Group found, therefore, that there were co- existing but inconsistent perceptions of the operation of speed cameras.96 A NRMA Speed Survey Research Report of 553 NSW motorists polled by telephone found that 92% of the drivers supported fixed speed cameras at likely crash sites and 77% thought that the cameras were effective in getting drivers to obey the speed limit. However, 54% of those polled thought that cameras were more for raising revenue than for safety.97

The NRMA considers that there is strong evidence to support that speed cameras reduce crash rates and reported that a sample of 20 cameras across NSW revealed a decrease of more than 20% in the number of crashes per kilometre per year near the cameras.98

6.1.2 Road Spy in New South Wales

Road Spy creator, Adam Bush, is said to wish to extend the service to Sydney in the near future, with the CBD the first area to be covered.99

94 ARRB Group Ltd, Evaluation Report, pp 46-47.

95 A Delaney et al, p 25.

96 A Delaney et al, p 26.

97 AC Nielsen on behalf of NRMA Motoring & Services, NRMA Speed Survey Research Report, summarised on the NRMA website, http://www.openroad.com.au/motoring_driverknowhow_speedcameras.asp.

98 NRMA, ‘Speed Cameras’, http://www.openroad.com.au/motoring_driverknowhow_speedcameras.asp.

99 Jordan Baker, ‘Alert over SMS traffic spy warnings’, Sydney Morning Herald Online, 12 May 2006.

Page 22 Queensland Parliamentary Library

In a May 2006 media report, the NSW Premier, the Hon Morris Iemma MP, said that he would not support a service that allowed drink drivers to avoid being tested or had any implications for safe road use as there was ‘no such thing as safe speeding…’. The Premier added that he was concerned about a technology or a service that will enable people to evade the law.100

In a radio interview, the NSW Minister for Roads, the Hon Eric Roozendaal MP, commented that the motivation for Road Spy is to make money for the founder and is not in the interests of the community or road safety.101 Mr Roozendaal said that he would ask the NSW Roads Transport Authority to investigate the road safety implications of the service, particularly if it encouraged motorists to read SMS messages while driving. Illegal users of a mobile phone in NSW may face a fine of $225 and three demerit points.102

6.2 VICTORIA

In Victoria, the use of automatic detection devices, including speed cameras, to detect offences such as speeding under the Road Safety Act 1986 (Vic), is governed by the Road Safety (General) Regulations 1999 (Vic).

An initial trial of mobile speed cameras with warning signs about their use during 1985 did not have any significant impact on reducing collisions in the relevant areas. However, a new program was introduced by the Victorian Government in December 1989 involving the covert use of speed cameras operating from unmarked cars with no warning signs. There were also many public announcements that widespread use of cameras was being implemented, followed by a large publicity campaign shortly after the program began. The Traffic Camera Office, within the Police Department, was established in 1990 with responsibility for administration and management of the cameras. By January 1991, 54 cameras had been rolled out.103 In 1998, the operation of the cameras was given to a private company, Tenix Solutions. This allowed police resources to be diverted to other duties while the operation of the cameras – a job believed to be suited more to technicians than to police officers – was done by technicians at Tenix. The Traffic

100 ‘Iemma condemns ‘Road Spy’ service’, Drive.com.au, (Fairfax Digital), 12 May 2006, http://www.drive.com.au/Editorial/PrintArticle.aspx?id=11833.

101 Hon Eric Roozendaal MP being interviewed by Jean Kennedy, ‘Motorists avoid speeding fines through ‘road spy’ service’.

102 Jordan Baker, ‘Alert over SMS Traffic Spy Warnings’, Sydney Morning Herald Online, 12 May 2006.

103 A Delaney et al, p 9. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 23

Camera Office continued to carry out enforcement operations and determine site locations for cameras.104 There are now over 150 speed cameras operating throughout Victoria and police carry out additional speed enforcement through the use of mobile radar laser equipment in problem areas.105

Victoria has both fixed and mobile speed cameras. The cameras capture digital images directly to computer. The way in which the fixed cameras work is that the system measures the speed of a passing vehicle using piezo-electric sensors placed at three regular intervals under the road surface. Each sensor gives out an electric pulse as the wheels pass over it and a signal is sent to the camera system. A speed measurement device measures the time between the arrival of the first and second pulses and the time it takes the vehicle to travel between the sensors. If the vehicle is going too fast, the camera captures an image of the vehicle.106

The mobile camera sites consist of unmarked vehicles or a tripod upon which the radar unit is mounted. Each time a camera is set up, the control unit is programmed with specific information about the site and the speed zone. The radar unit transmits a beam across the road. When a vehicle passes through the beam, the radar control unit checks the speed of the vehicle and tells the camera when to capture the image.107

If the vehicle is travelling faster than the speed limit, an infringement notice will be issued to the owner of the vehicle soon after. The owner of the vehicle on whom the infringement notice is served incurs an infringement penalty unless the owner supplies a sworn statement or statutory declaration setting out the details of the actual driver at the relevant time or a statement that they did not know, or could not reasonably ascertain, those details.

As at 1 July 2006, exceeding the speed limit by less than 10 km/h attracted a $134 fine and one demerit point. The severity of the penalty increases with the amount by which the speed limit is exceeded so that exceeding the speed limit by 45 km/h or more will mean that a fine of $462 is incurred as well as 8 demerit points and an automatic licence suspension of 12 months.108

104 Victorian Department of Justice, ‘History of Speed Cameras’, www.justice.vic.gov.au/roadsafety.

105 Victoria Police, ‘Safety Camera Program’, http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=280.

106 Victorian Department of Justice, ‘How Fixed Speed Cameras Work’ www.justice.vic.gov.au/roadsafety.

107 Victorian Department of Justice, ‘Mobile Speed Cameras’, www.justice.vic.gov.au/roadsafety.

108 Victorian Department of Justice, ‘Penalties for Speeding’, www.justice.vic.gov.au/roadsafety

Page 24 Queensland Parliamentary Library

The sites are not sign-posted nor brought to the attention of drivers in any way as the idea is to promote the perception that ‘if you speed you will get caught’. The aim is to force drivers to slow down all across the State, not just in areas where a camera is known to be located. However, the Traffic Camera Office’s Mobile Cameras Policy Manual provides that, to maintain community confidence that the use of speed cameras is fair, under no circumstances are the vehicles, tripods or flash units to be disguised by signs, open boots of vehicles, lamp posts, rubbish bins or by any other measures that may cause a public perception of concealed operations. There is, however, considerable advertising about the dangers of speeding, the relationship between speed and impact forces and the fact that mobile cameras operate across the State on a daily basis.109 On the Department of Justice website, it is possible (since April 2006) to download a complete list of fixed speed camera locations and mobile speed camera sites.110

Speed camera sites are selected on the basis of there being a significant documented history of serious and major injury collisions over the previous 12 months; or the sites being the subject of validated written complaints of excessive speed as assessed by the Traffic Management Unit; or otherwise being assessed as posing a significant risk of speed related collisions. Cameras can also be used during road construction to reduce the risk of injury to road workers and other motorists where the volume of traffic is beyond the capacity of traditional speed enforcement measures (e.g. patrol cars).111

Victoria Police considers that the Mobile Camera Program has contributed to a significant decrease in the number of fatal and serious collisions on Victorian roads.112 The Department of Justice considers that the road fatality rate has been reduced by half despite the growth in car numbers. It is claimed that while in 1989, 776 people were killed on Victorian roads (2.8 deaths for every 10,000 registered vehicles), it dropped to 330 in 2003 (0.94 deaths for every 10,000 registered vehicles). Further, after 12 months of having mobile speed cameras, around 13% of vehicles were caught speeding but in December 2002, this number fell to 2.4%. In November 2003, only 1.2% of drivers were detected speeding.113

109 Victoria Police, Traffic Camera Office, Mobile Cameras Policy Manual, April 2006, p 4.

110 Victorian Department of Justice, ‘About Speed Cameras’, www.justice.vic.gov.au/roadsafety.

111 Victoria Police, Mobile Cameras Policy Manual, pp 6, 8.

112 Victoria Police, ‘Safety Camera Program’, http://www.police.vic.gov.au/content.asp?Document_ID=280

113 Victorian Department of Justice, ‘History of Speed Cameras’. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 25

The monthly average number of traffic infringement notices issued was, from 1991 until 2002, around 40,000-50,000. From mid-2002, the number of infringement notices increased to reach around 96,000 in January 2003, before falling again.114

A survey by VicRoads in 1991 revealed high support for the use of speed cameras with 79% of respondents in favour of them. Half (50%) of supporters considered that the cameras deterred speeding and a further 31% believed that they made roads safer. Opponents to speed cameras argued that they were merely government revenue raisers (35%) and were placed in inappropriate locations (16%). The Report found it to be interesting that motorists from the country, those aged over 45, and motorists who had not been caught speeding in the past year were more likely to claim that the cameras had no effect on their driving behaviour.115

A number of surveys have considered community perceptions of speed cameras in recent years. For example, a survey for the Transport Accident Commission undertaken by Sweeney Market Research between October 2000 and July 2002 of around 600 motorists found that, over time, more respondents believed that speed camera use was to both improve road safety and raise revenue (56% in September 2000 but up to 66% in December 2001). There has also been a decrease in respondents who consider that speed cameras are there to raise revenue (declining to 17% by December 2001).116

Evidence provided to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Transport and Regional Services Inquiry into National Road Safety – Eyes on the road ahead prompted the finding by the Committee that the impact of the Victoria strategy had been dramatic, with a doubling of infringements coinciding with a decline in fatalities from May 2002.117

In 2004, much disquiet occurred when a number of speed cameras were found to be faulty after motorists complained of inaccurate readings. The cameras were installed and maintained by Poltech International, a company contracted by VicRoads, which went into administration around the same time as the fault was detected. The Victorian Government was then faced with a loss of public confidence in its road safety measure and with having to reimburse fined

114 A Delaney et al, pp 9-10.

115 A Delaney et al, pp 11-12.

116 A Delaney et al, p 14.

117 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 37, quoting evidence from a VicRoads representative.

Page 26 Queensland Parliamentary Library motorists.118 Other jurisdictions that use fixed Poltech cameras have reportedly taken steps to verify their accuracy.119 The Australian Capital Territory uses these cameras but it is reported that they are independently certified and calibrated by the CSIRO. The NSW Roads and Traffic Authority is reported to have tested its fixed cameras – some of which were supplied by Poltech – over a six month period but no problems were reported. Tasmania’s Poltech speed cameras were also reported to be problem-free.120

6.3 WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Speed cameras have operated in Western Australia since 1988 as part of a Road Safety Council (comprising Ministers for Health, Police, Education and Local Government) project. In 2005, the WA Police Service operated 17 speed cameras, 14 of which were in regular use. The use of such cameras for detecting and providing evidence of a speeding offence is covered by the Road Traffic Act 1974 (WA).

Speed cameras operate 24 hours a day at carefully selected locations around the State. The locations of cameras are based on previous crash history at a site, road geometry and traffic volumes.121 There are signs on roads warning that speed cameras are used in Western Australia and it is possible to check for speed camera locations on the WA Police Service website. The revenue collected from additional speed fines is used to fund a comprehensive road safety awareness program focussing on speed, alcohol, non-use of seatbelts and fatigue.122

From February 1998 until March 2001, five education campaigns were launched to correspond with the WA Government’s new speed enforcement program aimed at improving road safety. The advertisements that were part of this campaign emphasised dangers of speeding rather than the value of speed cameras. An evaluation of the education campaigns indicated that there were improvements in public attitudes through a focus on the potential detrimental effects of speeding. Data collected in October 2000 regarding community attitudes towards speeding

118 ‘Victoria’s speed camera saga continues’, The 7.30 Report, 2 June 2004, http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2004/s1121730.htm.

119 ‘Victoria’s speed camera saga continues’.

120 ‘Victoria’s speed camera saga continues’.

121 A Delaney et al, p 27.

122 Western Australian Police Service, Traffic Camera Section, ‘Frequently Asked Questions’, http://167.30.150.183/Services/Traffic/TrafficCameraSection.asp?FrequentlyAskedQuestions. Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Page 27 indicated that around 90% of respondents supported the use of speed cameras to detect those who speed.123

WA Police states that there has been a 71% reduction of drivers travelling above the speed limit and appears to attribute this to speed cameras.124 The Inquiry into National Road Safety – Eyes on the road ahead Report commented that although there has been some success with these approaches, speeding problems continue, leading the WA Government to enhance its enforcement and education measures and make them more strategic in their approach.125

In an ongoing survey of community road safety attitudes conducted by the WA Road Safety Council, 71% of young (17-39 years) male drivers admit to deliberately speeding and 60% of these exceed the limit by up to 10 km/h.126

A speed campaign during 2003 and 2004 sought to educate the community, particularly 17-39 year old male drivers who regularly speed (target group) and believe they can do so safely, about the risks of increases in travel speed. It comprised a television advertisement and media reminders of enforcement. An evaluation of the campaign concluded that drivers who travel at least 11 km/h over the speed limit were contained in the short term but this was not likely to be sustained. In rural areas in particular, 62% of the target group and those who travel at 11+ km/h over the limit, said it was unlikely they would be caught speeding.127 Advertising/education campaigns focussing on speed during 2005 and 2006 have yet to be evaluated. The January-March 2006 campaign sought to educate the community about reducing travel speeds.

Speed cameras are operated manually and once an operator leaves a site, the film is taken to the Police Forensics Support Unit for processing. It is then returned to the Infringement Management & Operations Unit for each frame to be manually

123 A Delaney et al, p 28.

124 WA Police Service, ‘Speed Camera Locations’, http://www.police.wa.gov.au/MediaandPublicAffairs/MediaandPublicAffairs.asp?SpeedCamer aLocations.

125 SCTRS, Inquiry Report, p 35, quoting Government of Western Australia, Submission no 37, p 8.

126 Road Safety Council Continuous Tracking Research, June 2005 quarter. Road Safety Council of Western Australia, http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/Campaigns/speed_jan_06/factsheet.html.

127 WA Office of Road Safety, ‘Community Education Campaign about Speeding Phase II 2003/04: Summary Evaluation’, at http://www.officeofroadsafety.wa.gov.au/Campaigns/speed03-04/campaigneval.html.

Page 28 Queensland Parliamentary Library checked, numbered and details recorded. If relevant, traffic infringement notices are then prepared.128

The severity of the penalty depends on the amount by which the driver has travelled over the speed limit. For example, exceeding the speed limit by 1-9 km/h will attract a $50 fine but exceeding the limit by more than 9 km/h but by not more than 19 km/h will incur a $100 fine plus one demerit point. 129 From 1 January 2007, exceeding the speed limit by 30-39 km/h means a $350 fine and five demerit points and exceeding it by 40 km/h or more attracts a $1,000 fine and seven demerit points. Payment must be made within 28 days of the issue of the infringement notice unless the recipient wishes to challenge the notice in court.

128 WA Police Service, ‘Speed and Red Light Cameras’, at http://www.police.wa.gov.au/Services/Traffic/TrafficCameraSection.asp?SpeedandRedLightCa meras.

129 WA Police Service, ‘Frequently Asked Questions’.

RECENT QPL RESEARCH PUBLICATIONS 2007 2007/01 Homework for the 21st Century Feb 2007 2007/02 Tackling Graffiti – Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Feb 2007 2007/03 Ban on Speed Camera Alerts: Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) Feb 2007

Research Papers are available as PDF files: • to members of the general public the full text of Research briefs is now available on the parliamentary web site, URL, www.parliament.qld.gov.au/publications • www.parliament.qld.gov.au/Library/Query.exe – e-Documents & e-Articles – Quick display of Library’s research publications

A Subject Index to Research Publications is available at the following site: www.parliament.qld.gov.au/view/publications/publications.asp?area=research&LIndex=4&SubArea=s_aborigines&Bindex=0&Barea=search Parliamentary Library - Research Publications & Resources Telephone (07) 3406 7108 Orders may be sent to Karen Sampford, [email protected]

This Publication:

RBR 2007/03 Ban on Speed Camera Alerts: Summary Offences and Other Acts Amendment Bill 2006 (Qld) (QPL, February 2007)