5.1
Enhancing vehicle safety is a crucial element of the Safe System approach, and a key contributor to reducing fatal and serious injuries on Australian roads. For example, safe vehicles can reduce the likelihood of a road crash via smarter and more autonomous systems and reduce the severity of a crash via passive safety features such as air bags and restraints. With advances in technology, safer vehicles can also assist with post-crash response, for example by generating information for emergency services on the nature and location of a crash and enabling faster response times.
5.2
Vehicle safety is a priority area in the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030 (NRSS 2021–30). The strategy proposes a range of actions to enhance vehicle safety outcomes. This is reflected in the extract below.
5.3
This chapter considers both the types of features that may improve vehicle safety and measures to encourage their uptake. In addition, the chapter considers associated matters such as education on the function of and risks associated with certain safety features; electric vehicles and connected and autonomous vehicles (CAVs); and motor vehicle insurance. It concludes with the committee’s views and recommendations.
5.4
The chapter covers measures to enhance vehicle safety generally, and by default has a focus on passenger and light commercial vehicles. However, at least some of the proposals raised in evidence are equally applicable to the heavy vehicle sector. Moreover, measures to increase the number of safer vehicles on the road network (such as enhanced fleet management) have a close connection to workplace safety.
Vehicle safety features
5.5
Several stakeholders noted that encouraging (or mandating) the fitment of proven vehicle features will be critical to reducing fatal and serious injury on Australian roads. A focus of evidence was autonomous or semi-autonomous systems such as autonomous emergency braking (AEB), lane keep assist, and adaptive cruise control.
5.6
30Please stated that safety features such as Intelligent Speed Assistance, AEB, enlarged impact protection zones, direct vision requirements and blind spot detection systems should be mandatory. According to 30Please, manufacturers can provide these features at minimal cost—particularly as many features are mandatory under European Union (EU) legislation.
5.7
Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (MBL) noted that safety features with the largest impact in the short to medium term are driver assist technologies such as AEB and lane keep assist. MBL stated that these technologies are readily available and are predicted to deliver substantial improvements in road safety outcomes.
5.8
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) observed that vehicle safety is moving from crash ‘worthiness’ to crash avoidance, with features such as AEB and lane keep assist predicted to dramatically reduce crashes. The ARRB indicated that such features are standard on many modern vehicles and should continue to be encouraged.
5.9
The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) indicated that efforts should be made to encourage uptake of driver warning and monitoring systems to prevent mobile phone use and help manage fatigue, stating that there is nothing in current regulations about such systems. ANCAP noted that from 2023 its testing protocols will only ‘reward’ direct driver monitoring systems (such as systems that monitor eye movements, blink rates or other physiological indicators and either notify the driver or activate a safety feature).
5.10
Stakeholders called for government and industry to expressly encourage the uptake of features which protect vulnerable road users. For example, WalkSydney noted that safety features such as intelligent speed assistance, AEB with pedestrian detection, direct vision requirements and blind spot detection have been recommended by the EU. WalkSydney stated that Australia should take steps to align its regulations with EU and other international standards. WalkSydney also stated that partnerships with industry to encourage use of telematics could lead to better compliance with speed limits and to improved safety outcomes, especially for young drivers.
5.11
Some stakeholders focused specifically on mandatory fitment of AEB to all light and heavy vehicles, noting its demonstrated safety benefits and the fact that AEB is already mandatory in other jurisdictions.
5.12
Some stakeholders emphasised that vehicles must be designed to optimise human factors safety and minimise distraction. For example, the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia (HFESA) raised concern that although guidelines and standards for user-centred vehicle cockpits exist, adoption of the standards is voluntary and accordingly the standards may not be followed by manufacturers. There is therefore an ‘enormous’ level of variation in the design and location of vehicle displays and controls and the ways drivers are required to interact with them. This can result in features that startle and distract drivers and reduce drivers’ ability to perceive people and objects on the road.
5.13
HFESA called for the adoption of consistent, mandatory standards for the design of human-vehicle interfaces. According to HFESA, this is to avoid:
…end[ing] up with vehicles like Teslas that look beautiful when you hop in—there are no controls that you can see—but just to change the speed of the windscreen wipers is a two- or three-step process that has to be undertaken by pressing a touchscreen and then finding your way through a menu to achieve that outcome. That's extremely distracting. It's unacceptable.
Vehicle age
5.14
Stakeholders observed that older vehicles are associated with an increased likelihood of a fatal or injury crash, and accordingly called for measures to lower the age of vehicles on the Australian road network.
5.15
ARRB noted that a study conducted in 2018 found that the average age of light vehicles involved in occupant fatality crashes was 12.7 years, compared with 9.8 years for all vehicles in Australia. Fatal crash risk also increased with vehicle age, with vehicles aged 15 years or older disproportionately represented in fatal crash statistics.
5.16
ANCAP similarly noted that in 2019, the average age of registered vehicles in a fatal crash was 13.4 years (3.3 years higher than the average age for all vehicles). Registered vehicles 15 years or older were four times more likely to be involved in a fatal crash than vehicles aged zero to five years. ANCAP recommended purchase and use of new vehicles with the highest safety ratings, calling on stakeholders to implement initiatives and offer incentives to help achieve this objective.
5.17
Vehicle age was a particular concern in regional, rural, and remote areas and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. For example, the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) noted that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (particularly in rural and remote areas) often drive older vehicles without the latest safety features. NACCHO explained that reasons for this include the lower socioeconomic status of community members and lack of targeted communication around the benefits of safe vehicles. NACCHO noted that it has been unable to find evidence of programs to incentivise Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples to acquire safer vehicles.
5.18
Turning to solutions, NACCHO stated that measures to subsidise the cost of or provide free child restraints to families would help support better road safety outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities, noting that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are four times more likely to be fatally injured in a crash relative to the Australian population. NACCHO also highlighted the value of programs delivered via Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisations (ACCHOs) to improving seatbelt use and other key road safety measures.
5.19
Some stakeholders also cautioned against measures that directly correlate the age of a vehicle with safety. For example, the Australian Street Machines Federation (ASMF), while noting that crash rates are higher for vehicles aged 15 to 35 years, emphasised that crashes are much rarer (almost non-existent) for cars aged over 35 years. According to the ASMF, such cars are often owned by collectors, are important to community and the economy, and therefore should not be unduly restricted by safety measures.
Motorcycle safety features
5.20
Stakeholders indicated that certain safety features show promise as a way of improving safety for motorcyclists.
5.21
The Motorcycle Council of NSW (MC NSW) observed that cornering anti-lock braking (ABS) has ‘great potential’ as does traction control. However, the MC NSW noted that only a limited amount can be done to enhance motorcyclist safety via technological advances, indicating that improving infrastructure quality and enhancing training and licensing arrangements may be more effective in this regard.
5.22
The MC NSW noted that while ‘standard’ ABS (as opposed to cornering ABS) has been lauded as an effective way of reducing road trauma, there is ‘no evidence’ that it has been as effective as claimed. MC NSW stated that making ABS effective will require education for riders on the use of the technology and expressed regret that when it had proposed supporting training initiatives, the proposal was dismissed.
Protective clothing
5.23
Closely linked to safety motorcycles is the availability and use of quality protective clothing. On this theme, ARRB recommended consideration be given to how protective clothing reduces road trauma and to whether riders should be required to wear specific protective gear. ARRB also proposed requiring riders to wear high visibility clothing.
5.24
MC NSW stated that the MotoCAP program for testing protective clothing requires additional funding to increase the number of garments tested each year. MC NSW added that the program should be expanded to capture motorcycle boots, noting that evidence suggests that foot and lower leg injuries can be prevented by appropriate footwear.
5.25
MC NSW also noted that Australia has no representation on the United Nations (UN) working group which maintains regulations relating to motorcycle helmets—even though most helmets bought and worn in Australia comply with those regulations. The latest UN regulation (which was developed without Australian input) leaves approval of accessories such as communications and cameras to the manufacturer. This may mean, according to MC NSW, that accessories and cameras are approved on a purely commercial basis without proper regard for safety.
Emissions reduction
5.26
Some stakeholders noted that improving vehicle safety is an opportunity to reduce emissions, calling for governments to take steps to encourage or mandate uptake of low emissions vehicles. This is broadly consistent with conceptions of road safety as not only a transport issue, but as a public health and environmental concern.
5.27
The ACT Government highlighted apparent resistance on the part of the Federal Government to mandating the Euro VI standard for cars imported to and sold in Australia. Noting that emissions standards cover 80 per cent of the global car market, the ACT Government expressed concern that by not mandating Euro VI standards, Australia may become a ‘dumping ground’ for inefficient, costly, polluting vehicles—with consequent, environmental, health, and economic impacts.
5.28
The ACT Government called for the Euro VI emissions standard to be mandated for all new vehicles as soon as possible. The ACT Minister for Transport and City Services elaborated on this as follows:
Currently in Australia we have a requirement for Euro 5 standards for new vehicles and no carbon dioxide emissions standards at all for vehicles…
[N]ot adopting Euro 6 standards…may see vehicle makers withdrawing vehicle models and variants from the Australian market rather than adding new safety connected or autonomous systems onto older…platforms, like Euro 5 platforms. This is especially true of price-sensitive segments in the market—typically, smaller, cheaper vehicles or those which are more specialised models and variants; there are early indications that …these models are already being phased out or scaled back.
Mechanisms to encourage uptake of safer vehicles
5.29
Stakeholders called for measures to encourage (if not mandate) uptake of proven vehicle safety features vehicles, noting that this is an area in which the Federal Government must take a leadership role. Stakeholders pointed to mechanisms such as Australian Design Rules (ADRs), ANCAP safety ratings, and fleet purchase and use policies as examples of mechanisms to increase the number of safe vehicles on Australian roads, indicating that these mechanisms could be enhanced via policy and law reform and additional investment.
5.30
Stakeholders also indicated that increasing uptake of proven vehicle safety features should be a priority in the immediate to short term, noting that it will take time for these features to permeate the fleet. The Centre for Automotive Safety Research (CASR), University of Adelaide, stated:
One of the challenges we face is with the turnover of the vehicle fleet. It takes a good eight years—or in some states 12 or 13 years—before you get 50 per cent penetration...[T]hat's why decisions made now are very important—they have a lag effect, a carry-on effect, into the future. If we allow certain things to occur today, we're going to have to deal with that legacy in 10 years’ time.
ANCAP safety ratings
5.31
ANCAP is Australasia’s independent vehicle safety authority. Its primary function is to assign a safety rating (between one and five stars) to vehicles entering the Australian and New Zealand markets. ANCAP star ratings indicate levels of safety a vehicle provides for occupants and pedestrians in the event of a crash, and its ability, via technology, to avoid or minimise the effects of a crash. ANCAP tests a significant number of vehicles on the market but has not achieved full penetration.
5.32
ANCAP told the committee that in some cases it purchases a vehicle to conduct an assessment while in others a manufacturer will supply a vehicle for testing. Its assessment protocols are routinely reviewed and updated as new vehicle safety technologies are developed and introduced. In 2020, ANCAP introduced new assessments and tests including:
Crash avoidance, including driver monitoring, autonomous emergency steering, and AEB.
Occupant safety, including protections associated with front and side impacts.
‘Tertiary’ safety, including information to assist emergency services and multi-collision breaking to minimise risks of incidents which occur after the first crash.
5.33
ANCAP noted that it will continue to evolve its test protocols, with tests from 2023 to include additional automated safety features such as advanced AEB and driver monitoring. Tests from 2025 will also focus on vehicle-to-vehicle communication and cyber security, supporting rollout of CAVs.
5.34
According to ANCAP, star ratings have the ‘unique capacity’ to accelerate uptake of vehicle safety features, as ratings cover a wide range of vehicles; are considered by most consumers in choosing a vehicle; and encourage uptake of safety features that exceed minimum legal standards. ANCAP asserted that government should continue to support ANCAP to ensure its influence as new vehicles are introduced.
5.35
ANCAP’s ratings exist in parallel to regulation and are used to encourage and support consumers to choose the safest vehicle possible—thereby also encouraging manufacturers to fit up-to-date safety features. ANCAP star ratings are a voluntary system; there is no legal requirement for a vehicle to be tested before entering the market, and no requirement for consumers to purchase vehicles with a particular rating.
5.36
ANCAP told the committee that it is important that the rating system continues to be voluntary and exist in parallel to regulation, as mandating would limit ANCAP’s ability to provide information on vehicle safety in a timely manner and ultimately slow the adoption of proven safety features.
Views on ANCAP safety ratings
5.37
Generally, stakeholders supported ANCAP ratings as a means of promoting vehicle safety, with several noting that ratings have a significant impact on consumer choice and that ANCAP’s testing protocols capture new safety features long before they are mandated. Stakeholders called for government to continue its support for ANCAP and for steps to be taken to ensure only vehicles with the highest safety ratings enter the Australian market.
5.38
While stakeholders were aligned with ANCAP’s view that its rating system should exist in parallel to regulation, measures were also suggested to ensure only five-star rated vehicles are permitted on Australian roads.
5.39
For example, the Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) observed that ways of preventing the use of unsafe or less safe vehicles could include higher tariffs on vehicles with lower ANCAP ratings and insurers refusing to insure such vehicles. Moreover, Australia should also ensure it does not allow trade partnerships or economic considerations to ‘trump’ road safety.
5.40
ARRB told the committee that restricting the import of cars below a particular safety rating would require aligning ADRs with ANCAP’s performance requirements, which could be challenging. As a potential compromise or interim arrangement, however, Australia could require vehicles available for sale to prominently display a sticker with their ANCAP rating. This could also be implemented for the used car market.
5.41
Some stakeholders also pointed to potential gaps in the rating system.
5.42
For example, the Amy Gillett Foundation (AGF) expressed concern that some motor vehicles have achieved a five-star rating despite failing AEB testing for cyclist safety. According to the AGF, a still greater number of vehicles (with various star ratings) are available for sale on the Australian market. The AGF called for steps to halt the importation of unsafe vehicles.
5.43
HFESA expressed concern that ANCAP does not assess the design and consequent safety of vehicle-user interfaces. According to HFESA, protocols do not capture matters such as the impact of wide A pillars on drivers’ vision; how drivers use assistive technologies such as AEB and lane keep assist; and whether levels of distraction created by interactions with infotainment and other systems are within acceptable limits. HFESA called for development of a ‘usability and safety’ rating program, to stimulate demand for ergonomically designed vehicles which minimise human error.
5.44
Another potential issue—raised by ANCAP itself—is that there can be very significant differences in safety between ratings assigned at different times, given the pace of change in safety technologies. ANCAP noted that it is taking steps to address this issue, stating:
You can look at a vehicle that is rated in 2020 and know that it is going to have a lot more safety features and better protect you and other road users than a vehicle that has a 2010 date stamp. It is almost like a ready reckoner. It is a very simple way of comparing vehicles. You can look at a vehicle and very quickly go, 'That one is newer from a safety perspective than its counterpart, so I know I am going to get a better outcome with that vehicle.’
[W]e are making changes to some of the lifespans of the ratings. …[A]t the moment …any rating that's been issued since 2018 has a six-year validity period built into it. Part of our full alignment with Euro NCAP was to include that six-year lifespan for date stamps. [O]nce you pass that six-year time frame, the manufacturer will no longer be able to market the 5-star…rating against that vehicle.
5.45
Some stakeholders also noted that ANCAP ratings to not apply to motorcycles and heavy vehicles and suggested that a scheme for rating these vehicle types be considered. For example, ARRB recommended that consideration be given to an assessment scheme for two-wheeled vehicles, supported by incentives to use vehicles with higher ratings (such as lower registration costs) and by requirements to use vehicles with the highest ratings in some circumstances (for example, learners).
5.46
ANCAP indicated that it would generally support a safety rating system for motorcycles and heavy vehicles. However, it indicated that additional research and investment will be needed.
Safety ratings for used cars
5.47
Used car safety ratings (UCSRs) assess the safety of used cars already on the market. Safety ratings are calculated by the Monash university Accident Research Centre (MUARC) and are based on real-world crash data about how well a specific vehicle performs in the event of a crash—based on a database of over 8 million crashes.
5.48
ARRB emphasised that purchase of safer second-hand vehicles should be encouraged via wider advertising of UCSRs, noting that consumers typically look at the ANCAP rating applicable to the vehicle they are considering purchasing without also looking at the more relevant UCSR. ARRB also stated that UCSRs should be more closely correlated with ANCAP ratings to provide a clear picture of used car safety. In addition, ARRB noted that many used car models have not been evaluated by ANCAP, as ANCAP historically tested only a few models each year.
5.49
ARRB further stated that safety ratings for new and used cars should be accompanied by additional community engagement on their benefits. For example—in relation to the used car market—there would be merit in a campaign to encourage families to permit more inexperienced drivers to use newer, safer vehicles.
Vehicle safety regulation
5.50
Inquiry participants highlighted the importance of regulation to the uptake of proven vehicle safety features. Several noted that ANCAP’s ratings scheme is advisory in nature, and that ratings mainly apply to passenger and light commercial vehicles. Consequently, it was considered necessary to ensure that the Australian vehicle market is also subject to robust and comprehensive safety regulations.
5.51
ANCAP itself noted that while star ratings are instrumental in influencing consumers (leading to faster uptake of safety features), the ratings are not available in relation to all vehicles. Further, ratings focus on vehicle safety, while regulations may address environmental and other concerns. This is illustrated in Table 5.1 below comparing ANCAP safety ratings to ADRs.
Table 5.1: Comparison of ANCAP safety ratings to ADRs
|
|
|
|
Addresses safety only
|
Addresses safety-, environment-, and theft-related matters
|
|
Relative measure: 0 to 5 stars
|
Pass/fail criteria
|
|
Measures performance above a minimum standard
|
Sets minimum standard
|
|
Aligns with Euro NCAP
|
Harmonised with international regulation—primarily United Nations (UN) and Europe
|
|
Agile and Flexible
|
Constrained by government regulatory processes
|
|
Convers passenger cars, sport utility vehicles (SUVs) and light commercial vehicles (LCVs) only
|
Covers all vehicle types
|
Source: ANCAP Safety, Submission 11, p. 25
Delays in mandating proven vehicle safety features
5.52
While acknowledging the benefits of using ADRs to drive the uptake of proven safety features, stakeholders raised concern that regulation is slow to respond to technological advancement, to the extent that a technology may become standard in most vehicles—or even become obsolete—before regulation is implemented to mandate fitment.
5.53
Mr Michael Paine told the committee that it was over 20 years after relevant risks were identified before Australia mandated fitment of safety features to protect against head injury. The relevant regulation would have been further delayed had a significant portion of the fleet not already been fitted with head protection as is standard.
5.54
Mr Paine also observed that even if safety features are mandated for new vehicles in a timely manner, there will be a delay before the features permeate the entire Australian fleet. Accordingly, Mr Paine advocated for the retrofit of proven technologies, noting that there are several technologies (including speed limiters; seat belt reminders; and speed advisory systems) that can readily be fitted to existing vehicles.
5.55
The Australasian College of Road Safety (ACRS) stated that regulation must be amended in a more timely manner to enable a safe vehicle fleet, as well as to ensure the safety of other modes of transport such as personal mobility devices. ACRS stated:
[C]urrent practices must be urgently disrupted to encourage the safest vehicles…into the Australian vehicle fleet. Regulation to mandate proven technologies…can take almost a decade..
5.56
Stakeholders also emphasised that mandating safety features requires the political will to act. For example, Mr Lauchlan McIntosh expressed strong disappointment that despite the support of successive governments, and despite the benefits of the technology being accepted for many years, the Parliament has yet to require AEB for heavy vehicles. Mr McIntosh told the committee that:
There is a lack of accountability of [p]arliamentarians regarding recommendations they make and …the regulators they oversee. Years after Parliament recommended mandating this technology [AEB], we are waiting at least another year before implementation.
Parents, parliamentarians, business and community organisations, researchers, and others have also urged action. Unnecessary death and injury as a minimum are the result of no mandatory implementation. The lack of fitment in each vehicle sold today will mean that less than best practice safety vehicle will continue to operate in Australia for decades.
Alignment with international standards
5.57
Safety standards in many countries are based on the regulations of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). The UNECE website notes that the regulatory framework allows the market introduction of innovative vehicle technologies while continuously improving global vehicle safety. The framework is also ‘instrumental’ to cross-border trade, as it includes provisions for the reciprocal acceptance of systems, parts, and equipment used by contracting parties.
5.58
Australia is a signatory to the agreements that underpin the UNECE framework, and government policy is to harmonise all national vehicle safety standards with international regulations if possible—with consideration given to the adoption of UN regulations. This policy is also considered important to fulfilling World Trade Organization and Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation commitments.
5.59
The Office of Road Safety (ORS) noted that Australia is around 90 to 95 per cent harmonised with UN standards. If harmonisation has not occurred, this is generally because Australian conditions create a productivity argument for divergence. Alignment with UN standards is typically undertaken to ensure the greatest possible range of vehicles is available to consumers.
5.60
Stakeholders raised concern that harmonising ADRs with UN standards can contribute to implementation delays. In this respect, CASR noted that since Australia is just one per cent of the global market, there is a perceived need to ensure Australian regulations are harmonised with UN counterparts to avoid restrictions on trade. This can lead to delays in proven safety features being mandated in vehicles on the Australian road network. CASR also noted that where features are not mandated, a manufacturer may remove the features ahead of making the vehicle available for sale, leading to a ‘dumbing down’ of safety. Noting Europe has mandated several safety features ahead of relevant UN standards, CASR stated that Australia should follow Europe’s lead in being ‘aggressive’ in mandating such features.
5.61
Other stakeholders also argued for adopting European standards.
5.62
For example, ANCAP noted that its star ratings are often based on tests performed by its European counterpart, told the committee that Australia should adopt EU regulations that mandate features such as AEB and lane keep assist, as well as cyber security and software safety features. ANCAP also stated that Australia should follow a similar timeframe to Europe in mandating such features, noting that the EU will mandate fitment of AEB capable of detecting vehicles and stationary objects from July 2022 and AEB capable of detecting pedestrians and cyclists from July 2024.
5.63
The ACT Government stated that it is critical that the Commonwealth updates ADRs as soon as possible once features such as lane keep assist, adaptive cruise control and AEB are mandated under international standards, noting that delays in harmonisation mean that safer vehicles are directed to international markets at the expense of Australia’s fleet.
5.64
Representatives of the Transurban Road Safety Centre and Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) pointed to the European vehicle technology roadmap, indicating that this roadmap enables Europe to adopt technologies more efficiently than other jurisdictions and provides timeframes for implementation. This in turn allows manufacturers—and members of the public—to adjust their expectations accordingly. Transurban at NeuRA supported Australia developing a similar roadmap—led by ORS and the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (DITRDC).
5.65
Other stakeholders noted that while there may be merit in increasing the speed at which Australia mandates proven safety features (or otherwise adopts vehicle standards), care should be taken to ensure that Australia’s often unique environmental conditions. For example, MUARC stated:
[W]e do have a slightly different environment, and you want to ensure that, if you're adding cost to a vehicle, potentially, through mandating safety equipment, you are getting exactly the best stuff you want at the right time in the right way. I don't think you want to necessarily just adopt the European standards without…some sort of research to support the likely benefits…to make sure you are making prudent investments, but, by the same token, I think we can go a lot further in improving what we do in this country.
5.66
Stakeholders also raised concern that regulatory processes can prioritise trade over safety, noting this can lead to Australia losing out on life-saving vehicle safety features. The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) and National Transport Association (NatRoads) noted that when conducting Regulation Impact Assessments (RIAs) for law or policy changes, agencies are required to select the policy option with the highest ratio of benefits to costs (BCR). This is notwithstanding that the option with the highest BCR may not always deliver the best safety outcomes.
5.67
ATA provided the following example of how current RIA processes may miss opportunities to enhance road safety:
[I]n 2017 the infrastructure department published a consultation RIS on requiring electronic stability control for trucks and trailers. [It] recommended confining the requirement to prime movers …and trailers on the grounds that this would deliver the highest benefit-cost ratio. The RIS revealed …that, if this requirement were extended to every rigid truck, you would save another 22 lives and avoid another 395 serious injuries over 35 years. And the BCR of this extended approach would have been entirely acceptable.
5.68
ATA and NatRoads recommended that recent changes to guidance on RIAs be extended to all federal agencies, noting that the guidance currently only applies to ministers’ meetings and standard-setting bodies. ATA and NatRoads indicated that this would allow agencies to select options that prevent the greatest number of fatal or serious injuries when undertaking impact assessments.
5.69
CASR similarly stated that there should be a review of RIA processes, with a view to ensuring that safety is prioritised.
Fleet management
5.70
Several stakeholders emphasised that fleet purchasing and use policies are critical to ensuring only safe vehicles are imported into Australia, calling for policies which permit only five-star rated vehicles. Some stakeholders also highlighted the need for limits on vehicle safety assessment dates and for measures to reduce emissions.
5.71
ANCAP observed that business and government purchase over 50 per cent of new vehicles, noting that there is a clear opportunity to enhance road safety via fleet management policies. Accordingly, ANCAP called for commercial users, governments, and businesses to develop and implement policies covering employer-owned vehicles and the ‘grey fleet’ requiring the purchase and use of vehicles with a 5-star rating. ANCAP stated that any vehicle used for work purposes should have a rating with a date stamp of no more than six years, while vehicles used for commercial purposes should have a rating with a date stamp of no more than three years.
5.72
ANCAP also indicated that platform-based services (such as food delivery and rideshare platforms) would benefit from better fleet management policies. ANCAP noted that from 1 October 2021, Uber has introduced a policy requiring all vehicles newly registered to the platform to hold a five-star safety rating. ANCAP noted that while other operators have policies to promote responsible driving behaviours, none officially require vehicles to have five-star ratings. ANCAP stated that these other platforms should be encouraged to adopt policies requiring five-star rated vehicles.
5.73
The National Road Safety Partnership Program (NRSPP) stated that a guide is required to ensure that five-star rated vehicles which are selected by organisations are fit for purpose and produce the lowest emissions possible. The NRSPP also observed that with continuous improvements in the rating system and ongoing development of vehicle safety technology, a rating may become outmoded and less reliable as a measure of safety.
5.74
Stakeholders also indicated that workplaces may benefit from training on effective fleet management, with some indicating that they have programs that are suitable for broad application. For example, the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia (IPWEA) noted that it has an established fleet management program to support sustainable fleet policy, explaining that the program encourages participants to apply critical principles, knowledge, and skills to effectively manage plant and vehicles.
5.75
In their submission, IPWEA also indicated that businesses might reduce safety risk by offering staff alternatives to driving for work purposes. According to IPWEA, public transport could be incentivised, as could working from home where this is appropriate for the position.
The grey fleet
5.76
Stakeholders observed that many businesses are reducing traditional fleets (fleets owned by the business) in favour of using ‘grey fleets’ (fleets owned by employees or contractors). Generally, this is to reduce costs.
5.77
Stakeholders asserted that although grey fleet vehicles are not purchased by the business, there should be no difference in in the safety requirements applicable to traditional and grey fleets. Accordingly, stakeholders called for fleet policies to be extended to the grey fleet, noting that the grey fleet is often overlooked in workplace risk management strategies.
Government fleet purchasing policies
5.78
Stakeholders identified a need to update government fleet purchasing and use policies to enhance road safety across the public sector, to serve as an example to the private sector, and to accelerate the uptake of safer vehicles more generally (noting, for example, that many public sector employees use salary sacrifice agreements to purchase vehicles). Stakeholders noted that while fleet policies may require five-star rated vehicles, factors such as the currency of a rating and reference to specific safety features may be lacking. Concerns were also raised at the narrow coverage of policies, with specific regard to exclusions for parliamentarians and the grey fleet.
5.79
ANCAP noted that while Commonwealth fleet policy requires vehicles to have a five-star safety rating; be fit-for-purpose; deliver value for money; and address environmental considerations, there is no requirement that ratings have a specific date stamp. Further, fleet policies do not extend to senior executives or members of Parliament and may not cover the grey fleet. ANCAP recommended that policies be updated to provide that vehicles purchased under salary sacrifice agreements have a five-star safety rating with a date stamp of no older than three years, and that all vehicles used for work purposes (including the grey fleet) have a five-star rating with a date stamp of no older than six years.
5.80
The Australasian Trauma Society (ATS) stated that the Federal Government has an opportunity to mandate that all light vehicles for fleet cars be fitted with crash avoidance features such as AEB and electronic lane stabilisation. ATS indicated that this is of special relevance to fleet cars which are typically driven further than privately-owned vehicles and consequently have higher crash risks.
5.81
Stakeholders noted that at least some state governments have embedded requirements for safer vehicles and work practices in their fleet policies.
5.82
For example, the Northern Territory (NT) Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics (NT DIPL) advised the committee that its fleet policy requires purchase and use of five-star vehicles, also highlighting guidelines for emissions standards and vehicle retention periods.
Other incentives
5.83
In addition to calling for mandatory safety features and improvements to fleet management, stakeholders indicated there may be merit in exploring financial incentives to encourage uptake of newer, safer vehicles.
5.84
ACRS observed that cost continues to inhibit the uptake of safer vehicles in Australia, noting that measures such as tax incentives could help make safer vehicles a more realistic option for consumers. ACRS observed that a recent inquiry on road safety in Victoria recommended the abolition of the federal luxury car tax as a means of addressing barriers to the uptake of vehicles with proven safety features.
5.85
RACS expressed support for measures such as removing tariffs on the import of all vehicles with proven safety features; the adoption of fiscal incentives for purchase of safer vehicles; subsidies to the price of vehicles with recent five-star ratings; and reduced registration costs for vehicles incorporating proven safety features.
5.86
MUARC noted that while vehicles have become more affordable over the last 20 years, consumers remain less likely to prioritise safety in their purchasing decisions. This is driven by the dominant market share of commercial utility vehicles, encouraged by tax incentives. Accordingly, MUARC advised the committee, incentives to the purchase of less safe vehicles in the tax system must be addressed.
5.87
Representatives of the Transurban Road Safety Centre at NeuRA indicated that financial measures may be effective to encourage uptake of newer vehicles by younger people and people in rural and remote areas (who may have less disposable income). Measures include lower insurance premiums or registration rates and discounts on vehicles with modern safety features. Additional research is likely to be required ahead of implementation.
5.88
The Victorian Department of Transport (VDT) pointed to its unsafe2safe program (a trial program under Victoria’s latest road safety action plan), which provides incentives to people living in regional are to purchase new cars. The VDT stated that:
If [a person] own[s] a vehicle over six years of age, we are going to support them to buy a newer, safer one, with a $5,000 incentive …We are aiming to help 1,000 vehicle owners…The whole point is to be able to scrap older and more unsafe vehicles.
5.89
VDT also noted that Victoria is considering mechanisms to allow older people to lease rather than buy vehicles, as well as ways of providing safer vehicles to people in community care settings. In this respect, VDT noted that older people may not have the financial means to purchase new vehicles or upgrade existing vehicles to enhance their safety.
5.90
The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) noted that as part of its next road safety action plan, Queensland is considering a pilot program to provide young people, elderly people, and lower-income road users with access to safer vehicles—particularly in regional and remote communities. Queensland proposes to consider existing schemes and how these could be adapted to the jurisdiction.
Safer vehicles: education and awareness
5.91
Stakeholders noted that improving the safety of vehicles will be less effective if drivers are not educated on the features with which a vehicle is equipped or do not know how to maintain the vehicle to a safe standard. Accordingly, stakeholders noted that more could be done to educate consumers on how to select, operate, and maintain vehicles to optimise safety outcomes.
5.92
A key issue was that autonomous safety features may diminish a person’s ability to operate a vehicle using manual processes. Stakeholders noted that this may increase risks, particularly if a feature fails to compensate for dangerous behaviour or a driver moves to a vehicle that does not have that feature installed.
5.93
HFESA noted that there is substantial literature on the negative behavioural adaptations linked to over-reliance on automated features, stating:
There's been a lot of publicity around people deciding to sort of overrule [an automated system] in clever ways and sit there and read a book or go to sleep and push the vehicle into situations that it wasn't designed for with that level of automation. That's already happening. Even some advanced driver assistance systems that we have in cars now can encourage what we call this negative behavioural adaptation, but to different extents. Even something like adaptive cruise control…can make people …a bit complacent.
5.94
HFESA also noted that expectations around autonomous safety features may be due to marketers overemphasising the benefits of those features without educating drivers on how they should be used.
5.95
The MUARC similarly noted that without education on the functions and limitations of new safety technologies, installation of such technology can exacerbate risks associated with drivers over-estimating their abilities.
5.96
ANCAP told the committee that automated systems can result in people becoming disengaged with the driving process, stating that there are initiatives underway to understand and address this issue. As an example, ANCAP observed that the Assisted Driving Program of its Euro NCAP counterpart assesses the level of assistance provided by a vehicle; how this is matched by the perceptions of the driver; and the ability of a system to keep drivers engaged. The program also assesses how a system responds where a driver fails to react to a safety event, and how it responds in emergency situations.
5.97
The Riders Action Group Western Australia (RAGWA) noted that studies have found that some active safety features are ‘training’ drivers to be complacent, as well as substantially increasing driver distraction.
5.98
The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety-Queensland (CARRS-Q) also noted that research indicates a lack of understanding among drivers as to the technologies fitted to their vehicles, as well as about how to move between vehicles with and without such technological features. Further, CARSS-Q indicated that uptake of new technology may be impacted by the lack of standardisation in terminology and function between manufacturers, and that additional education might be necessary to ensure that drivers are not distracted by in-vehicle infotainment systems.
5.99
The Australian Road Safety Foundation (ARSF) supported training for older people, particularly in relation to new safety technologies, stating:
[W]e can't just assume that people will know automatically what the systems will do, even for a hybrid vehicle. For example, you might find that you go to an airport and pick up a rental car that's a hybrid car, so clearly it's not going to have the engine start-up and those traditional things that you automatically associate with a car…[T]here is an opportunity [for] a learning platform that provides awareness for every road user.
5.100
In relation to vehicle maintenance, NACCHO called for subsidised vehicle maintenance to be provided for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and greater investment in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander maintenance workforce. NACCHO stated that ‘upskilling’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities will enhance access to mechanics; improve economic prospects and workforce opportunities; and increase community awareness of road safety.
5.101
NACCHO also told the committee that while the lack of trained mechanics in communities may be an issue regarding training, there are opportunities to work with communities to locate skilled mechanics and ensure training is delivered in a timely, comprehensive, culturally safe way. NACCHO added that there are opportunities for federal funding in this area.
Connected and autonomous vehicles
5.102
Stakeholders noted that a substantial number of vehicles are fitted with intelligent safety systems, with levels of automation predicted to increase. Stakeholders observed that autonomous vehicle technology has the potential to significantly enhance road safety outcomes provided steps are taken—including in the short term—to prepare the road network for CAVs.
5.103
ARRB told the committee that automation can take human error out of the equation and therefore play a key role in addressing crashes which are difficult to prevent. ARRB also noted that advanced driver assist systems were expected to be included in all new cars sold in Australia by late 2021. These systems will form part of ANCAP testing protocols, such that no car will be able to achieve a five-star rating without these features.
5.104
Stakeholders also cautioned against over-reliance on CAVs in the short to medium term, noting that full automation may not be available for several years. ACRS said that while there is ‘great enthusiasm to remove the errant driver…and move to [CAVs]’ (with all jurisdictions having a ‘surge of interest’ in CAV testing), there will likely be a lengthy transition period to full rollout of CAVs. ACRS noted that, in the meantime, there are safety benefits to be gained from technologies that are already available.
Infrastructure upgrades
5.105
Stakeholders indicated that steps must be taken in both the short and long term to ensure the road network is prepared for introduction of CAVs. In this respect, stakeholders noted that CAVs require capacity to communicate with other vehicles, road infrastructure, and other objects to function, and recommended that resources be dedicated to assessing the readiness of the network for introduction of CAVs and—where necessary—applying appropriate treatments.
5.106
ANCAP told the committee that its testing processes demonstrate the importance of physical infrastructure (such as signs and lines) to the safe operation of active safety technologies and stated that new and emerging technologies increasingly rely on both physical and digital infrastructure to function effectively. ANCAP recommended additional funding be dedicated to upgrading of infrastructure to facilitate introduction of CAVs.
5.107
MUARC noted that a key issue associated with CAV safety is that it is not supported by appropriate road infrastructure, stating:
[I]t's important to…get [safety] features into vehicles as quickly as we can, but at the same time we need to be focusing on supporting infrastructure, like speed signs and road markings, that are...going to make those vehicles as functional as possible when they get rolled out…[I]t's not just a single approach and it's not just about advertising; it's about looking at the whole system and how it supports benefits that can accrue from these technologies.
5.108
MUARC stated that the sheer size of the road network and the need to prioritise mobility means preparing the network for current and future safety technologies will be challenging. Targeted investment, underpinned by careful planning, will be required.
5.109
Similarly, ACRS saw more funding as necessary to ensure infrastructure can be developed (or redeveloped) to enable CAVs to function effectively. In addition, regulations should be redeveloped with CAVs in mind as the number of these vehicles on the market continues to increase.
5.110
ARRB was also of the view that transitioning to higher levels of automation requires investment in suitable infrastructure. ARRB emphasised that infrastructure planning and development must occur now, particularly given that various existing safety features (and not only fully automated systems) rely on communications with road infrastructure to function.
5.111
ARRB also raised concern that there appears to be limited baselining of the infrastructure that is, or is not, ready for this transition. Accordingly, ARRB called for road agencies to assess the readiness of infrastructure for CAVs before implementing treatments. This may involve using survey vehicles to assess roads through the ‘eyes’ of a CAV, with results used to inform planning and investment.
Policy and regulation
5.112
Stakeholders emphasised that adoption of CAVs will require an appropriate legislative and policy framework to ensure Australia is able to realise the benefits of this technology and mitigate potential safety risks.
5.113
MUARC noted that there is inevitably going to be regulatory pressure to offer semi and fully automated vehicles to consumers, asserting that the Commonwealth must remain at the forefront of this area to ensure that the maximum benefits are realised. Accordingly, MUARC recommended that the Federal Government:
Ensure CAVs comply with international best practice standards.
Support ANCAP’s roadmap for CAVs, which aims to ensure that CAV technology is available to Australian consumers.
Conduct ongoing evaluations of CAV technology as it is rolled out, to avoid unintended safety consequences during the transition period.
5.114
ANCAP observed that this work is in train, with the Commonwealth having developed a national policy framework outlining areas for action in relation to CAV technology, including:
A clear and coordinated approach to adoption of CAV technology.
Enabling the private sector to bring CAV technology to the market.
Ensuring policy and regulation related to the development of CAV technology is aligned with community expectations.
Investing in research and development in relation to CAVs, and in trials of the technology as it is rolled out.
5.115
MBL stated that existing laws are inadequate to support widespread use of CAVs, calling for all governments to implement nationally consistent regulation. MBL noted that the National Transport Commission (NTC) is undertaking work in relation to CAVs, including vehicle trials; insurance; vehicle safety; and vehicle-generated data. MBL indicated that this work should be prioritised and supported going forward.
5.116
Roads Australia (RA) stated that with the ongoing development of CAV technology and apparent public enthusiasm for the safety benefits of CAVs, it is an appropriate time to ensure that targeted regulations and standards are implemented. RA noted that poor road design and maintenance can create issues with CAV technology, noting that awareness of this issue will help ensure Australia is prepared for the introduction of CAVs and avoid the need for infrastructure upgrades after such vehicles become common.
5.117
Inquiry participants also indicated that improvements should be made to test protocols for CAVs. For example, CARRS-Q stated that CAV trials are not adapted to the needs of regional, rural, and remote areas, stating that tests must capture the needs of both urban and regional communities.
Electric vehicles
5.118
Stakeholders supported measures to increase the uptake of electric vehicles, noting that such vehicles can deliver health, safety, economic, and environmental benefits.
5.119
The Electric Vehicle Council (EVC) raised concern that Australia lags behind other countries on uptake of electric vehicles, noting that this is largely due to a lack of policy measures to incentivise the market. In encouraging the implementation of such measures, EVC stated:
Zero emissions vehicles provide health benefits and reduce the risk of respiratory illness, putting money back into the public health sector. Reduced emissions from electric vehicles address the impacts of climate change and provide a path to net-zero by 2050. Electric vehicle drivers benefit from lower total cost of ownership with reduced spending on fuel, servicing, and maintenance.
There are significant safety benefits of electric vehicles through safety technology that reduces risks of human error while driving. A quieter, more comfortable driving environment allows drivers to be in a more concentrated state of mind.
5.120
EVC also asserted that the Commonwealth should introduce fuel efficiency standards and take lead in developing a national electric vehicle strategy. The strategy could consider data collection regarding market penetration of electric vehicles, measures to encourage uptake, and ways to manage the consequences of greater uptake such as reductions in fuel excise.
5.121
EVC also told the committee that as part of an electric vehicle strategy, subsidies should be made available to reduce vehicle costs. This would encourage manufacturers to bring a greater range of vehicles to market and help governments regulate which vehicles can be sold to reduce emissions to acceptable levels across the fleet.
5.122
The Commonwealth published its Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy on 9 November 2021. According to the website of the Department of Industry, Science, Energy and Resources, the strategy is a technology-led approach to reducing emissions in the transport sector and includes measures to support rollout of future fuel technologies and ensure the grid is prepared for increased numbers of electric vehicles. Priority areas in the strategy include charging and refuelling infrastructure; zero emissions vehicles in commercial fleets; information for drivers and fleets on technologies; integrating electric vehicles into the grid; and support for Australian innovation and manufacturing.
Barriers to the rollout of electric vehicles
5.123
Some stakeholders indicated that there will be barriers to the rollout of electric vehicles which must be overcome if Australia is to realise the benefits of such vehicles as a transport option.
5.124
EVC noted that regional, rural, and remote areas present challenges for the uptake of electric vehicles. Key issues include concerns as to the range of a vehicle and consequent limits on daily travel and impacts on people living in remote areas who cannot access electric vehicles due to a lack of supporting infrastructure. EVC indicated that such challenges might be addressed by installing charging stations at locations such as rest stops; technological advances to allow vehicles to travel further without recharging; and funding for infrastructure upgrades.
5.125
The Caravan Industry Association of Australia (CIAA) stated that electric vehicles will pose a ‘massive challenge’ for the caravan and recreational vehicle sector, particularly in terms of towing capacity and ensuring that charging infrastructure is available in caravan parks. CIAA noted that while full rollout of electric vehicles may be up to a decade away, it is essential that planning for necessary infrastructure begins now.
5.126
State and territory governments indicated to the committee that work is underway to support rollout of electric vehicles.
5.127
For example, the Hon Mr Chris Steel, Minister for Transport and City Services, ACT Government, observed that the ACT has a commitment to install 50 charging points, with work also ongoing to ensure the ACT has sufficient grid capacity. The ACT Government is also supportive of work to ensure jurisdictions such as the ACT have capacity to enable interstate travellers to recharge during a trip, noting that this will help overcome some of the anxieties associated with purchasing an electric vehicle.
5.128
Minister Steel also observed that a ‘fundamental’ barrier to the uptake of electric vehicles is the lack of Commonwealth design rules and emissions standards to encourage manufacturers and distributors to make a broader range of models available. In this regard, he asserted that adoption of the Euro 6 standard (and more broadly keeping pace with European standards) is ‘very low-hanging fruit’ and should be pursued as a matter of urgency.
Safety for new and emerging vehicles
5.129
For several stakeholders, an area for reform was increasing use of e-scooters and other micro-mobility devices. Stakeholders appeared to support use of these devices as a means of reducing passenger vehicle travel (contributing in turn to lower emissions and less congestion) and increasing available mobility options. However, stakeholders were concerned that such devices may present substantial safety risks to other road users, particularly if not carefully regulated.
5.130
MUARC asserted that attention should paid to regulating e-scooters, hoverboards and e-bikes; automated shuttles; and electric personal mobility vehicles. MUARC noted that these vehicles fall outside current ADRs and may present significant challenges both to pedestrians and to drivers.
5.131
The Pedestrian Council of Australia (PCA) expressed concern that while electric vehicles such as e-scooters and e-bikes present a significant risk to pedestrians, there are few if any measures in place to control the speeds they can be driven or the locations they can be used:
[T]hese electric bikes that I now see coming through, can do 80 kilometres per hour. In Brisbane you can now ride private electric bikes everywhere, and no-one's checking them for their so-called ability to cut out at 25, because there's no technology to do it …I think we've got real problems ahead with what's going to impact our footpaths …Footpaths were developed to protect pedestrians. But we're losing our rights on footpaths very quickly.
5.132
According to PCA, pedestrian safety may require that electric vehicles not be permitted on footpaths. This may in turn require infrastructure upgrades to provide dedicated lanes for such vehicles. In addition, PCA saw merit in controlling the speeds at which these vehicles may travel, either by technological means or through enforcement.
5.133
The ACT Government told the committee that it had recently reviewed e-scooter use within its jurisdiction and from a safety perspective found that:
For pedestrians, appropriate use of the devices including correct behaviour and lower speeds when approaching, particularly from behind, would increase the sense of safety. Most incidents occur at night (58 per cent), consistent with peak usage data. The reasons stated for use also indicate that peak usage is for getting to and from entertainment/ food venues on Friday and Saturday nights. At the time of this review, there is no available data to support sufficiently accurate granular analysis of the causes of e-scooter-related injury of riders or that caused by e scooter riders to other road users.
5.134
The review made several recommendations to strengthen road and path safety regarding use of micro-mobility devices. These included reviewing additions to infrastructure; reviewing law, policy, and guidance for use of devices; and considering options for low speed or ‘no-go’ zones in high traffic areas or peak times. A recommendation was also made to increase the collection of data regarding use of micro-mobility devices.
5.135
The ACT Government also acknowledged issues associated with tampering with devices (e-scooters and e-bikes in particular) to enable exceeding pre-set 15km/h and 25km/h limits. This occurs most frequently with privately owned devices which may have been imported. The ACT Government stated that this is a concern requiring monitoring.
5.136
The DTMR noted that e-scooters (and other small electric vehicles) are classed as personal mobility devices (PMDs). They are permitted on footpaths at low speeds and regulated under Queensland law. Discussion is ongoing as to the extent to which PMDs should be permitted on footpaths, balancing safety with access for people with disability.
Insurance
5.137
Linked to safety outcomes for vehicles was the issue of insurance, with some stakeholders noting that road safety could be improved via reforms to motor vehicle insurance policy and associated legislation.
5.138
Dr Richard Tooth drew comparisons between insurance in Australia (using NSW as an example) and the United Kingdom (UK) to illustrate where reforms could improve road safety outcomes.
In Australia, a person purchases motor vehicle insurance covering the costs of damage to the vehicle, and separately purchases third party cover for personal injury from one of a limited number of insurers. In the UK, a person purchases one product from a vehicle insurer covering both vehicle damage and personal injury.
In the UK, vehicle insurers bear liability for claims, and set premiums according to anticipated risk. In Australia and comparable jurisdictions, compulsory third party (CTP) premiums are strictly regulated.
Australia operates under a risk equalisation scheme, such that claim costs are shared among insurers. For lower-risk policyholders, this means that premium costs can be higher relative to potential benefits. Coupled with the controls imposed on CTP premiums, this means that safer road users are effectively subsidising unsafe road users.
5.139
Dr Tooth indicated that because of these differences, insurers in Australia are considerably less active in the road safety space, as there are limited incentives for them to encourage safe road use. Moreover, claim costs for insurers associated with death and serious injury are considerably lower than the societal benefits of prevention. For example, the cost to an insurer for a fatal injury claim is between $200,000 and $500,000, while the societal benefit of prevention has been estimated at $8 million.
5.140
According to Dr Tooth, there would be merit in reforming law and policy relating to motor vehicle insurance in Australia, either to:
directly follow the UK by making insurers liable for personal injury and vehicle damage, allowing insurers to set premiums according to risk; or.
optimise the UK model, by aligning insurers’ incentives for safety with the societal benefits of preventing a death or serious injury.
5.141
Dr Tooth noted that adopting the UK model would roughly quadruple Australian insurers’ incentives to prevent road crashes leading to death or serious injury, while the ‘optimal’ model would increase incentives again by a factor of two or three. Analysis indicated that the societal benefits of the ‘optimal’ model would be $6 billion per year in 2027, and around $100 billion over the period ending in 2037. Benefits would be realised through steps taken by road users to reduce their risk profile—including changing behaviours and purchasing cars with modern safety features.
5.142
Dr Tooth acknowledged that younger drivers—who are statistically at higher risk of fatal and serious injury crashes—may not be able to afford the higher premiums associated with risk-based pricing, particularly if they cannot afford a vehicle with up-to-date technology. However, Dr Tooth noted that this group of road users could reduce costs by changing their behaviour and purchasing telematics- or use-based policies, stating that:
[T]elematics-based…insurance…encourages safety by monitoring how people drive. It's largely taken up by young drivers, who [have] the higher risks …[T]here's a lot of evidence to suggest safety benefits in the order of 20 to 40 per cent reduction in incidents…[I]nsurers also incentivise, particularly among young drivers, adoption of safer technologies. In the UK you get a discount for autonomous emergency braking, and the discount for a young driver is much greater than…for a middle-aged driver.
5.143
There may also be opportunities to subsidise costs for young drivers and drivers from lower socioeconomic brackets. Costs could also be lowered via subsidies on the purchase of vehicles, which could in turn lower premiums if a vehicle is fitted with safety technology.
5.144
Dr Tooth recommended the Commonwealth work with jurisdictions to investigate opportunities to reform motor vehicle insurance markets. Following such investigations, a roadmap to policy and law reform should be developed. Reforms will require close consultation with insurers; but should ultimately be driven by government.
5.145
Mr Michael Griffiths also noted that while certain drivers and vehicles present significantly lower safety risks, CTP premiums are similar across different classes of road user. Mr Griffiths expressed concern that this may result substantial cross-subsidisation, recommending that in response:
Road safety data be interrogated to determine the extent of any cross-subsidisation through CTP and other charges.
The Commonwealth convene the equivalent of a National Cabinet of the heads of road safety from each jurisdiction, with the purpose of polling and sharing data on cost by class of road user.
Committee view
Vehicle safety features
5.146
The committee heard there is strong support for measures to encourage the uptake of proven safety features, with a particular appetite for mandating autonomous or semi-autonomous features such as autonomous emergency braking (AEB), lane keep assist and cruise control, as well as features that provide greater protection for vulnerable road users. Stakeholders indicated that such features will be critical to improving safety on Australian roads. While many of these features are fitted as standard to vehicles already on the market, additional changes to regulation and enhancements to workplace fleet policies help to optimise safety for the entire fleet.
5.147
The committee welcomes the recent enactment of regulations to mandate the fitment of AEB to passenger and light commercial vehicles and is pleased to note that the NRSS 2021–30 contemplates a range of actions to improve vehicle safety—with a focus on expediting fitment of safety technologies and reducing the age of vehicles on the road. While noting the NRSS 2021–30 does not specifically refer to improving human-vehicle interfaces with a view to minimising distraction, the committee is aware that developing standards for such interfaces is a program area under the National Roadmap on Driver Distraction, and that implementing the roadmap is an action item in the NRSS 2021–30.
5.148
In relation to motorcycle safety, the committee notes that stability and traction control are recognised as potentially very effective measures in enhancing safety outcomes. Noting that the NRSS 2021–30 contemplates enactment of new ADRs on safety technology, the committee encourages the Commonwealth to investigate options to mandate fitment of stability and traction control features as part of ongoing work under the strategy.
5.149
The committee also notes concerns that Australia is not represented on the working groups responsible for developing UN regulations for motorcycle helmets and protective gear. Noting that the Commonwealth proposes under the NRSS 2021–30 to invest in new UN regulations working groups, the committee encourages the Commonwealth to obtain representation on groups associated with motorcycle protective equipment to ensure that the commercial interests of manufacturers are not prioritised over safety.
5.150
Finally, the committee notes concern that failure to mandate the Euro VI emissions standard for vehicles imported into Australia may undermine efforts to enhance vehicle safety and to meet emissions reduction targets. Accordingly, the committee would support the Commonwealth exploring options to mandate that standard for new vehicles.
ANCAP safety ratings
5.151
The committee heard that there is support for the ANCAP rating system as a means improving safety by influencing consumer choice and understands that ANCAP ratings have been instrumental in increasing the extent to which proven safety features are fitted as standard to a very significant portion of new vehicles available for sale in Australia.
5.152
The committee is pleased that the NRSS 2021–30 proposes ongoing support for ANCAP as a means of promoting voluntary uptake of vehicle safety features ahead of regulation. However, noting concerns as to the coverage and efficacy of ANCAP assessment processes, the committee considers there may be opportunities for the Commonwealth to work with ANCAP to enhance testing protocols with a focus on safety for vulnerable road users and human-vehicle interfaces.
5.153
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) to enhance ANCAP testing protocols, with a particular focus on:
implementing protocols to assess human-vehicle interfaces; and
safety for cyclists, pedestrians, and motorcyclists.
Safety ratings for used cars
5.154
Noting that older cars often lack the safety features fitted to new vehicles, the committee strongly supports mechanisms to ensure consumers can make informed purchasing decisions about used cars. While ANCAP star ratings are well understood, it appears that knowledge about Used Car Safety Ratings (UCSRs) is limited. Accordingly, the committee considers that steps should be taken to increase alignment between the two rating systems and to increase awareness of USCRs as a measure of vehicle safety.
5.155
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments, the Monash University Accident Research Centre, and the Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) to:
increase alignment between ANCAP safety ratings and Used Car Safety Ratings (UCSR); and
develop and implement campaigns to increase awareness of USCRs as a measure of used vehicle safety.
Vehicle regulation
5.156
The committee heard that vehicle regulations continue to be a key means of mandating proven safety features for vehicles on the Australian market. However, the committee also heard that there are concerns about the slow pace at which regulations are implemented.
5.157
The committee is pleased that the NRSS 2021–30 proposes measures to prioritise and adopt proven technological improvements for all vehicle types via ADRs as quickly as possible, and to support quick adoption of vehicle safety regulation by investing in UN regulations working groups.
5.158
However, consistent with the views of stakeholders, the committee considers that the Commonwealth might be more proactive in mandating proven vehicle safety features. The committee is of the view that there would be merit in Australia following Europe’s example in developing and implementing a roadmap for mandating vehicle safety features, with a particular focus on new technologies.
5.159
The committee considers that this could help guide the development of regulations, inform investment, and ensure that stakeholders (such as business with vehicle fleets) remain apprised of regulatory proposals and can prepare accordingly.
5.160
The committee recommends that the Australian Government develop, publish, and implement a roadmap for mandating proven vehicle safety features by regulation
5.161
The committee also heard that regulatory processes for ADRs may be prioritising trade over safety, and that cost-benefit analyses do not give sufficient attention to the number of fatalities and serious injuries that may be prevented by a policy measure.
5.162
The committee notes support from inquiry participants for changes in guidance applicable to ministers’ meetings and standard-setting bodies that aim to increase the priority given to safety in Regulation Impact Assessment (RIA) processes. The committee considers that the Commonwealth should review its policy and guidance material applicable to RIA processes for ADRs and other road safety-related matters with a view to increasing the priority given to safety outcomes.
5.163
The committee recommends that the Australian Government review policy and guidance applicable to regulatory impact assessments associated with Australian Design Rules and other road safety matters, with a view to increasing the priority afforded to road safety outcomes.
Fleet policies
5.164
The committee heard that public and private sector fleet policies will be critical to ensuring that only safe vehicles are imported into Australia, as businesses and government purchase over half of new vehicles.
5.165
Evidence indicates that there are opportunities to improve fleet policies for private sector organisations, including to ensure that policies require vehicles used for work purposes to have a five-star rating with a recent date stamp and to ensure policies capture all vehicles used for work purposes—including grey fleet. The committee also heard that training and guidance may be needed to support businesses to develop or update fleet policies.
5.166
The committee recommended in Chapter 8 that the Commonwealth investigate mechanisms to encourage public and private sector entities to implement individual road safety strategies. In the committee’s view, this should include full consideration of whether all vehicles purchased for work purposes have the highest possible safety rating with a recent date stamp. The committee notes in this regard that ensuring vehicle safety is a key part of organisations’ duties under work health and safety (WHS) laws.
5.167
To support road safety in the workplace, the committee also considers that guidance material on fleet management should be implemented, with a view to ensuring organisations select vehicles that are fit for purpose, have a high safety rating with a recent date stamp, and—where possible—contribute to emissions reduction. The committee heard that organisations such as the National Road Safety Partnership Program and the Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia may be able to assist in this regard.
5.168
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with road safety stakeholders to develop, publish, and implement guidance on best-practice fleet purchasing policy. Guidance should at a minimum specify that all vehicles purchased or used for work purposes must have a five-star safety rating with a recent date stamp.
5.169
The committee understands that Commonwealth and state and territory governments generally have robust fleet policies, with requirements to only purchase vehicles with five-star ratings that are fit for purpose. However, evidence suggests that government fleet policies may not capture the currency of a safety rating. This is of concern given the rapid and increasing pace of technological advancement. In addition, policies may not extend to senior executives, members of Parliament, or grey fleet vehicles.
5.170
The committee is pleased that an action item in the NRSS 2021–30 is to encourage and support uptake of proven vehicle safety technologies via fleet policies, and notes that the previous Joint Select Committee on Road Safety recommended that governments review procurement practices to ensure that safety is a key consideration in vehicle purchasing decisions.
5.171
However, the committee considers that existing proposals to enhance fleet policies may benefit from greater specificity. Accordingly, the committee considers that government fleet policies specify that vehicles purchased via salary sacrifice agreements have a five-star rating with a date stamp no older than three years, and all vehicles used for work purposes have a five-star rating with a date stamp no older than six years. The committee is also of the view that policies should be extended to all persons engaged in the sector, including senior executives and parliamentarians.
5.172
Building on recommendations of the previous Joint Select Committee on Road Safety, the committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state, territory, and local governments to ensure that fleet policies for all levels of government:
require vehicles purchased under salary sacrifice agreements have a five-star safety rating with a date stamp no older than three years;
require vehicles used for work purposes to have a five-star safety rating with a date stamp no older than six years; and
extend to all persons engaged in the public sector, including senior executives and parliamentarians.
Financial and other incentives
5.173
The committee heard there would be merit in exploring financial and other incentives to encourage the uptake of safer vehicles, particularly in relation to purchasing decisions that may not be directly influenced by fleet policy. Tax-based measures and discounts on registration and insurance premiums have been suggested—particularly as a means of supporting people in lower socio-economic brackets and in regional, rural, and remote areas.
5.174
The committee notes that there are existing state-based initiatives that aim to increase the affordability of newer, safer vehicles, such as the unsafe2safe trial program in Victoria. Other states are developing programs to improve access to safer vehicles for disadvantaged road users.
5.175
The committee considers that there would be merit in the Commonwealth working with states and territories to investigate opportunities to remove tax-based barriers to uptake of safer vehicles. In addition, the committee considers that the Commonwealth should support programs which provide subsidies or other financial incentives to the purchase or lease of safer vehicles, with a focus on increasing affordability and access for lower-income road users and people in regional, rural, and remote areas.
5.176
The committee is of the view that this work should be coordinated via the Office of Road Safety and could involve identifying best-practice programs which may be suitable for national rollout.
5.177
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to:
identify and remove tax-based barriers to the purchase of newer, safer vehicles; and
investigate opportunities to provide incentives for the purchase of newer, safer vehicles, with a focus on supporting lower-income road users and people in regional, rural, and remote areas.
Connected and autonomous vehicles
5.178
The committee heard that CAVs are supported as a way of improving safety by reducing if not eliminating human error, and that the presence of CAVs is predicted to increase across the network. Evidence indicates that steps should be taken in the short term to ensure the network is prepared for rollout of these vehicles, and to enhance the effectiveness of existing autonomous and semi-autonomous systems.
5.179
The committee notes that there is work in train to support rollout of CAVs and prepare the Australian road network. The committee is also pleased that the NRSS 2021–30 proposes implementation of a national approach to the regulation of vehicles with autonomous systems, and preparation of the road network for CAV developments.
Electric vehicles
5.180
The committee heard that electric and hybrid vehicles have the potential to deliver substantial public health and environmental benefits. Moreover, these vehicles are often equipped with the latest safety features. The committee is concerned that Australia may lag behind other countries in terms of measures to increase uptake of electric vehicles across the road network. In particular, the committee notes the evidence that Australia has not yet adopted the latest vehicle emissions standards. The committee also notes that substantial infrastructure upgrades may be required to ensure that the network is prepared for greater numbers of electric vehicles, and to ensure electric vehicles are a viable option in regional and remote areas.
5.181
The committee notes that the Commonwealth has published a Future Fuels and Vehicles Strategy, setting out technology-led approaches to emissions reduction in the transport sector—including measures to increase uptake of hybrid, hydrogen, electric and bio-fuelled vehicles. The committee supports this strategy and encourages the Commonwealth to continue to explore options to expedite the rollout of zero-emissions vehicles.
New and emerging vehicles
5.182
The committee heard that e-scooters and micro-mobility devices have the potential to deliver significant benefits in terms of reduced congestion and low emissions. However, there are concerns that these emerging vehicle technologies have the potential to create substantial safety risks for other road users—particularly pedestrians.
5.183
The committee heard that micro-mobility devices may not be captured by current ADRs, and as such controls over safety features may be limited. Moreover, there may not be sufficient control over the areas where these devices may be used or the speeds at which they may travel. This is notwithstanding that many of these devices are equipped with speed limiting technology and are subject to geo-fencing arrangements.
5.184
The committee notes that jurisdictions are building their understanding of benefits and risks associated with e-scooters and micro-mobility devices. However, the committee considers that more could be done—including at the national level—to identify, assess and respond to relevant safety risks.
5.185
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to review measures at the state and territory level to regulate the use of e-scooters and other micro-mobility devices, with a view to ensuring the safety of riders, pedestrians, and other road users.
Consumer education
5.186
Evidence indicates that more could be done to ensure that consumers understand the safety features with which a vehicle is equipped, with a particular focus on risks associated with in-vehicle systems. In particular, the committee heard that driver assistance technologies have the potential to result in drivers becoming disengaged, leading to safety risks.
5.187
An action in the NRSS 2021–30 is to prioritise and adopt technological improvements for all vehicle types through new ADRs. Additionally, the strategy refers frequently to education as a means of improving road safety. The committee considers that measures to support the uptake of safety features—particularly driver assistance systems—should be accompanied by campaigns to increase awareness of how those systems function and to help ensure that people do not over-rely on the systems while driving.
5.188
The committee recommends that the Australian Government support actions to increase uptake of vehicle safety features with measures to increase public awareness and understanding of how the features operate, with a focus on autonomous and semi-autonomous systems and the risks of disengagement from the driving task.
Support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities
5.189
The committee heard that there may not be sufficient measures in place to support Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to acquire safer vehicles or to enable their access to proven safety features such as child restraints. The committee also heard that work should be done to ensure community members are trained in vehicle maintenance, including by increasing the number of trained mechanics in communities.
5.190
The committee considers that the Commonwealth should work with the Aboriginal Community-Controlled sector to identify opportunities for investment in initiatives which support the acquisition of vehicles with up-to-date safety features, and the fitment of safety features, at a reduced cost or—if possible—free of charge. The committee also strongly supports initiatives to build capacity around vehicle maintenance in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Such initiatives could also focus on ‘routine’ safety behaviours (such as oil checking, and correct seatbelt use).
5.191
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with the Aboriginal Community-Controlled sector to identify opportunities for investment in programs which:
increase access to safer vehicles and proven safety features; and
build capacity around vehicle maintenance and safe vehicle use.
Insurance
5.192
The committee heard that insurance is closely linked to road safety, with stakeholders noting that Australia’s current insurance framework limits incentives for insurers to encourage safe road use. The committee heard that adoption of or improvement on the scheme which applies in the UK has the potential to significantly reduce fatal and serious injury crashes, while also resulting in very significant financial savings.
5.193
Accordingly, the committee considers the Commonwealth should work with states and territories to investigate opportunities for motor vehicle insurance reform, and thereafter develop a roadmap towards law and policy changes—with a view to increasing incentives to safer road use.
5.194
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments, the insurance industry and other road safety stakeholders to investigate opportunities to reform motor vehicle insurance and to develop a roadmap towards policy and law reform.