6.1
In Australia and globally, dangerous behaviour by road users continues to play a critical role in fatal and serious injury crashes. Research has found that the top five causes of road fatalities (the ‘fatal five’) are speeding, distraction, driving under the influence of alcohol or drugs, fatigue, and failure to wear a seatbelt or other restraint.
6.2
This chapter considers three of the five leading causes of fatal injury on Australia’s: speed, distraction, and drug and alcohol use, as well as their contribution to road trauma. The chapter also considers measures to reduce the incidence and impact of these causes, including lower speed limits, targeted enforcement, and improved drug testing. It concludes with the committee views and recommendations.
6.3
It is noted at the outset that the causes of road fatality should be recognised as a systems issue and not only a result of driver behaviour. This is consistent with the Safe System approach and recognises the myriad of actors who influence the operation of the road system. Measures to address other contributing factors to road trauma (such as infrastructure, vehicles, and training and licensing arrangements) are considered in other chapters.
Speed management
6.4
Speed is a key factor in fatal and serious crashes on Australian roads, with the New South Wales (NSW) Centre for Road Safety noting that speed is a factor in 41 per cent of deaths and 24 per cent of serious injuries each year.
6.5
The National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030 (NRSS 2021–30) notes that as speed exceeds 30km/h, risks of fatality for pedestrians and vulnerable road users increase almost exponentially. High speeds also closely correlate with risks of injury in crashes involving two or more vehicles, as reflected in Figure 6.1 and Figure 6.2 below.
6.6
Higher speeds are also closely correlated with a greater likelihood that a crash will occur, as higher speeds limit drivers’ ability to identify and react to a vehicle, pedestrian, or hazard in sufficient time to avoid a crash. This is reflected in Figure 6.3 below, which illustrates stopping distances at various speeds in wet and dry weather conditions.
6.7
Noting the connection between speed and fatal and serious injury, inquiry participants expressed support for lower speed limits as an effective way of addressing road trauma.
6.8
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) noted that under Safe System principles, speed limits should be set with the intention of reducing the probability of fatal or serious injury by keeping crash impact forces within the survivable limits of the human body. The Safe System speed is therefore around 30km/h for pedestrians and vulnerable road users, 50km/h for side-impact collisions between vehicles, and 70km/h for head-on crashes.
6.9
ARRB also highlighted some examples of where lowering speed limits has achieved clear reductions in death and serious injury, and where raising speeds has resulted in corresponding increases to road trauma:
Reducing speed limits from 60km/h to 50km/h reduced fatal pedestrian crashes by 30 per cent in a study conducted in South Australia (SA).
Reduced limits in international jurisdictions (including Belgium, France, and Germany) reduced crashes by between eight and 40 per cent.
In the UK, a 10 per cent increase in mean speed resulted in a 26 per cent increase in the frequency of all injury crashes, and a 30 per cent increase in the frequency of serious and fatal injury crashes.
Speed limits and road infrastructure
6.10
Several stakeholders observed that speed limits must be set according to the nature and purpose of the road, noting that setting speed limits is a key part of the Movement and Place approach to infrastructure and systems design (discussed in Chapter 3). Stakeholders stressed that speed limits must take account of other factors that contribute to road safety, such as the location of the road, the quality of infrastructure, and any treatments that have been applied (such as line markings or physical road dividers).
6.11
Transurban stated that speed management might be strengthened through a ‘hierarchy system’ that considers the purpose of the road and its safety rating. Within such a system, motorways with four and five stars (out of a possible five) would have the highest speed limits, highways and arterial roads with lower star ratings would have lower speed limits, and areas of high pedestrian, child and cyclist activity would have the lowest limits.
6.12
ARRB similarly noted that setting limits is a risk management process that considers a road’s purpose and its ‘inherent’ safety features, stating that best-practice speed management involves the following four steps:
Developing a functional classification for the road to establish the range of speeds that may be appropriate. This will use Movement and Place.
Conducting a risk assessment to predict the inherent safety of the road.
Undertaking a gap analysis to compare current speed limits and desired speed limits, with adjustments made accordingly.
Making a decision on implementation of the speed limit.
6.13
The Australasian College of Road Safety (ACRS) highlighted links between safe speeds and infrastructure, calling for speeds to be lowered to match the road star rating. ACRS indicated that while speed limits should remain at a level that accords with the Safe System, there may be an argument for raising the speed limit where improvements are made to road infrastructure which raises the road’s star rating.
6.14
Representatives of the Transurban Road Safety Centre at Neuroscience Research Australia (NeuRA) noted that speed should be set at a level which ensures safety on the specific road. It stated that non-separated roads should not have speeds over 70km/h. Representatives also noted that sometimes a choice must be made between lowering the speed limit or upgrading the road (for example, due to resource constraints).
6.15
The Centre for Accident Research and Road Safety Queensland (CARRS-Q) advised that there are several lower cost, higher visibility treatments that could be implemented instead of, or in addition to, reduced speed limits. Such treatments (which include painted lines or strips to make a road appear narrower) encourage drivers to reduce their speed irrespective of the posted limit. These measures can also help highlight road features which demand lower speeds—such as the camber of a road or an approaching curve—that may not be apparent to drivers.
6.16
Some stakeholders also called for the imposition and enforcement of speed limits at work sites. For example, the Police Federation of Australia (PFA) stated:
[I]t would be great if we had universal approaches across all states and territories so everyone knows that when you go to a [work] site there are enforceable speed zones, whether …40, 30 or 20 [km/h] …[I]t is up to the states to dictate what the rules are, but I think the federal government has a leading role where it can say: 'This is best practice; this is what the statistical data and the research says. We strongly suggest, with the help of funding, that you change your rules or change the signing, or develop hotspots or critical points where there are injuries.'
Speed limits in urban and residential areas
6.17
Several submitters and witnesses called for speed limits to be lowered in residential and urban areas, to protect vulnerable road users from fatal and serious injury crashes. Generally, the proposed speed limit was 30km/h.
6.18
The Royal Australasian College of Surgeons (RACS) noted that the United Nations (UN) General Assembly has called for:
…[a] greater focus on speed management, including strengthening of law enforcement to prevent speeding and mandating a maximum road travel speed of 30 km/h in areas where vulnerable road users and vehicles mix in a frequent and planned manner, unless strong evidence exists that higher speeds are safe.
6.19
Safe Streets to School stated that 30km/h limits should apply in residential areas, noting that this may reduce fatalities by 7 per cent and deliver annual savings to the Australian economy estimated at $1.6 billion.
6.20
30Please called for 30km/h speed limits in all residential areas, with higher limits permitted on arterial roads where there is infrastructure to protect vulnerable road users. In support of this proposal, 30Please noted that:
There is growing acceptance of lower speed limits worldwide, with a ‘notable spread’ of area- and city-wide limits of 30km/h.
There is evidence that 30km/h limits in urban and residential areas ‘dramatically improve[s]’ safety outcomes. One study found a 30km/h city-wide limit reduced fatal injuries by around 63 per cent.
Drivers’ perception increases as speed decreases, whereas at high speeds a driver is less able to perceive other road users—increasing risk.
As drivers spend most of their time on arterial roads, the impact of a 30km/h speed limit in residential or urban areas will be minimal.
6.21
WalkSydney also called for 30km/h speed limits in residential, school, and commercial zones, noting that lowering speed limits may reduce the need for (often costly) infrastructure upgrades and that lower limits in residential areas are supported by most Australians.
6.22
The Monash University Accident Research Centre (MUARC) noted strong local and international support for lower speed limits in residential streets. MUARC stated that reducing speeds to 30 km/h in these areas will reduce the likelihood of fatal or serious injury to unprotected road users and increase the liveability of areas where people live, play, and shop.
6.23
RACS called for speeds to be reduced to 30km/h in school zones and areas of high child pedestrian activity such as parks and playgrounds. It also noted that while children are more susceptible to road trauma, they can be neglected in studies related to pedestrians and vulnerable road users.
6.24
The Institute for Sensible Transport (IST) told the committee that speed limits on residential streets are too high, and should be reduced to between 20km/h and 30km/h. According to IST, the portion of travel taking place on residential streets is ‘so small that…the increase in journey time will be measured in seconds. However, safety benefits will likely be substantial.
6.25
By contrast, Professor Raphael Grzebieta recommended that default speed limits in urban and residential areas be set at 40km/h, stating that this would still be palatable for drivers while resulting in significantly lower risks for vulnerable users. Professor Grzebieta acknowledged that while other stakeholders have called for speeds to be reduced to 30km/h, such proposals may not fully consider the role of driver behaviour.
6.26
Professor Grzebieta noted in this respect that it is assumed that where a pedestrian is hit on a 30km/h road, the impact speed will accordingly be 30km/h. However, even in relatively poor conditions drivers travelling at 40km/h would be able to perceive a pedestrian and apply brakes in time to reduce impact speeds to 33km/h—with a low risk of fatal injury.
6.27
WalkSydney indicated that the number of speed zones on roads should be limited to avoid confusion for drivers. If multiple speed zones are necessary, changes to speeds should be clearly signposted. WalkSydney stated:
What I don't see in Australia…are speed limit signs telling you what the speed limit on a particular road is or perhaps telling you that you're entering a zone or an area where the speed limit has changed. If speed limits are to be changed, a lot of public information that is visible to the driver at the locations is going to have to be made to gain acceptance that you're entering a safe neighbourhood or a slower speed district.
6.28
Some stakeholders also called for lower speed limits on arterial roads. For example, MUARC expressed support for lowering the default speed on such roads to 50km/h, asserting that current limits are too high to support the multiple functions that arterial roads will serve in the future.
Speed limits in regional, rural, and remote areas
6.29
Speed limits in regional, rural, and remote areas were discussed by several stakeholders. As noted elsewhere in this report, the committee heard that roads in these areas are often poorly maintained and lack appropriate safety treatments. Stakeholders indicated that speed limits on such roads should be lowered, at least until resources can be committed to upgrading the road to a standard permitting safe travel at faster speeds.
6.30
Professor Grzebieta told the committee that speeds on rural roads which lack roadside or median barriers should be set at or under 80km/h. Professor Grzebieta stated that rates of survival for the occupants of a vehicle with a 5-star safety rating involved in a single or multi-vehicle crash decreases rapidly as speeds exceed 80km/h. Road safety experts also indicate that 70km/h is an ‘aspirational’ speed under the Safe System approach on roads where single vehicle or head-on collisions are likely.
6.31
Professor Grzebieta observed that a common argument against lower speed limits on rural and remote roads is that this will increase travel times and driver fatigue. According to Professor Grzebieta, the fatigue argument is a myth and should be dismissed immediately. Further, since a vehicle is unlikely to travel at the posted speed limit over an entire journey, decreases in speed limits will not result in proportional increases to travel time. For example, a reduction in speed from 100km/h to 80km/h is likely to add just one to 12 minutes to a journey. While, from an ethical standpoint, reductions in road trauma clearly justify any potential inconvenience.
6.32
The need to set speeds according to the nature and overall safety of the road was also raised by stakeholders, as was the need to ensure that reductions in speed limits are—as far as possible—accompanied by work to upgrade infrastructure. This latter issue was closely linked to the need for effective community engagement, with stakeholders noting that regional, rural, and remote communities often see proposals to lower speed limits as an attempt to impose a lower-cost alternative to infrastructure upgrades which would deliver broader community benefits.
6.33
Roads Australia (RA) emphasised that in regional communities there must be a balance between reducing speed limits and improving road quality, stating that the goal should be to lift the quality of roads in regional areas to at least three stars.
6.34
The Riders Action Group Western Australia (RAGWA) pointed to comments by the ARRB that reducing speed limits should be undertaken in combination with other countermeasures (for example, radar speed signs and rumble strips). According to RAGWA, the ARRB previously indicated that speed limits tend to be less effective than infrastructure changes, as speed limits rely on driver compliance.
6.35
The Australian Local Government Association (ALGA) linked safe speeds to appropriate road infrastructure, indicating that maintaining or upgrading road lining and installing signage may facilitate the implementation of ‘self-explaining’ roads. The ALGA noted that a road will be ‘self-explaining’ where driving above the speed limit is uncomfortable for the driver.
6.36
The Human Factors and Ergonomics Society of Australia (HFESA) similarly noted that human factors considerations associated with road infrastructure could be better integrated into the road rules, stating that it is often difficult to ensure compliance with speed limits if it appears to a driver that the road would support a higher speed.
Community engagement
6.37
Inquiry participants emphasised that proposals to lower speed limits must be accompanied by community engagement, to educate road users on the safety benefits of lower speeds, encourage compliance, and ensure general community acceptance. Stakeholders emphasised that securing acceptance of lower speed limits can be challenging—especially in regional, rural, and remote communities—and called for measures to build community support underpinned by strong government leadership.
6.38
Austroads noted that community perceptions about road safety may not align with available data. This means that additional effort must be spent educating the community on the benefits of lower speeds relative to other measures. Acknowledging that communities may assert that infrastructure upgrades are needed prior to lowering speeds in an area, Austroads told the committee that:
To fix the road, certainly we can put in shoulders and lines on the edges and that has some marginal safety effects, but it's not significant. If you drop speed limits from 100 to 80[km/h], you'll halve the trauma on the road, if not more. You don't achieve that by patching a road and making it look…nice…[T]he community needs to understand that. It's a long journey to go on.
6.39
MUARC noted that attitudes to lower speed limits vary considerably by location (for example, residential area or arterial road); jurisdiction; and vehicle type (for example, passenger vehicle or heavy vehicle). For example:
Trials of 90km/h speed limits in Tasmania were supported by the local community. Evidence indicated that the public will accept lower speed limits if they can be educated on the associated benefits.
Research shows that people are happy to accept lower speeds around places of residence, but less happy to accept them elsewhere.
Truck drivers in trials of voluntary reduced speed limits (90km/h) found that the lower speed limits produced less stress as the drivers were able to integrate into traffic more successfully. There were also significant fuel savings, and a very low travel time deficit.
Surveys indicate that communities support lowering the speed limit to 30km/h in residential areas, due to perceptions that this will increase the amenity of the local area.
6.40
WalkSydney noted that there have been trials of lower speed limits by Transport NSW in Liverpool, Manly and Wollongong. While there was initially some resistance to lower limits and increased enforcement activity, ultimately the trials ‘have gone fine’ and the relevant measures are likely to be made permanent.
6.41
CARRS-Q noted there may be merit in using Movement and Place concepts to engage communities on speed limit proposals, noting that this approach can help facilitate discussion on adapting speed and infrastructure to the purpose for which a road will be used, types of users, and anticipated traffic volumes. CARRS-Q also identified a need for greater visibility at the national level around the positive impacts of speed limit reductions, noting that it must involve the collection of data on speed-based countermeasures.
6.42
In addition, CARRS-Q noted that community support may be strengthened via ongoing monitoring of areas where speed limits have been reduced. Where reducing speeds results in a corresponding reduction of fatalities and serious injuries, the lower speed limit could be retained. Otherwise, the old limit could be reinstated. This would enable authorities to engage directly with communities to justify reduced speed limits and provide assurance that reductions in speed limits are not implemented arbitrarily.
6.43
MUARC noted opportunities for the Commonwealth to trial alignment of speed limits with aspirational speeds under the Safe System approach—to gauge community sentiment and educate the public about the benefits of lower speeds and the relationship between speed limits and the quality of road infrastructure.
6.44
Stakeholders also emphasised that educating communities on the benefits of reduced speed limits, and on the importance of compliance, will only be effective if information is presented in a way that promotes understanding and encourages retention. For example, Professor Raphael Grzebieta noted that it can be difficult for the public to understand the effects of speed and relationships between kinetic energy and crash risk. Accordingly, Professor Grzebieta suggested that information on the risks of speeding be presented in a form which is easier to visualise, stating that:
[If speeds are] presented in the form of…equivalent speed to…jumping off the roof or out of a window of a building, the physics of the problem starts to be understood very quickly…a motorcyclist or a pedestrian would balk at being willing to drive off, ride off or jump off the roof or out of a window of a multistorey storey building hoping to survive hitting the ground below, even in a 5 star ANCAP vehicle…or wearing the best personal protection such as a helmet and protective clothing.
6.45
Stakeholders also highlighted the need for engagement with local councils on speed management matters. For example, ALGA stated that reduced speed limits must be implemented in consultation with stakeholders—including local councils and communities.
6.46
In addition, stakeholders told the committee that efforts should be made to address the Australian ‘culture of speeding’. For example, RA noted that education and awareness should emphasise that speed limits are an upper limit, and not a target. Efforts should be made to encourage driving at speeds which match the conditions of a road, noting that conditions may change frequently in regional, rural, and remote areas.
Driver distraction
6.47
Several stakeholders noted that distraction—particularly from mobile phones—continues to play a significant role in road trauma. For example, Maurice Blackburn Lawyers (MBL) noted that research shows people are distracted around 45 per cent of the time while driving, with anecdotal evidence suggesting that technology-based distraction is increasing.
6.48
MUARC cited recent American research which found that mobile phone use while driving was associated with an 83 per cent increase in crash risk, and that phone use comprises 7 per cent of non-driving tasks initiated by drivers. Other distractions include interaction with in-vehicle devices (such as infotainment systems or climate control); interactions with passengers; eating or drinking; and attention to external objects including road signs.
6.49
As outlined in Table 6.1 below, distracted driving is associated with very significant increases in crash risk. Visual-manual tasks such as dialling or texting using a mobile phone, reaching or searching for an object, and reading or writing, have been found to be particularly dangerous.
Table 6.1: Crash risks associated with types of distraction
|
|
|
|
Mobile phone use
|
|
|
Dialling (handheld)
|
12.2
|
|
Texting (handheld)
|
6.1
|
|
Reaching for mobile phone
|
4.8
|
|
Talking on mobile phone (handheld)
|
2.2
|
|
Passenger interactions
|
|
|
Adult/teen passenger
|
1.4
|
|
Use of in-vehicle device
|
|
|
Interaction with device
|
4.6
|
|
Use of in-vehicle climate control
|
2.3
|
|
Use of in-vehicle radio
|
1.9
|
|
Other
|
|
|
Reading or writing
|
9.9
|
|
Extended glance to external object
|
7.1
|
|
Personal grooming
|
1.4
|
Source: Source: R Goodsell, M Cunningham, A Chevalier, ‘Driver Distraction: A Review of Scientific Literature’, Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) Project No. 013817, 2019, p. 12
Drug and alcohol use
6.50
Stakeholders indicated that intoxication continues to be a leading cause deaths and serious injuries on Australian roads. For example, MUARC noted that according to national statistics:
20 per cent of fatal injuries and nine per cent of seriously injured drivers are associated with high levels of alcohol.
Cannabis use is detected in around 10 per cent of fatal injury crashes, and in around 2.5 per cent of serious injury crashes.
Methamphetamines (‘ice’) use is detected in around 12.5 per cent of fatal injury crashes (up to 20 per cent in some jurisdictions) and around 4 per cent of serious injuries.
6.51
MUARC also raised concern that methamphetamine use has become a more significant road safety issue than alcohol in many jurisdictions, stating that:
[E]vidence shows that methamphetamine [use] and the behaviour it creates are really problematic…typical methamphetamine crash[es] happen at intersections at incredibly high speed. People have a sense of indestructibility on it, and once they are addicted it's really hard to get them off it.
6.52
The Police Federation of Australia (PFA) similarly noted that a 2021 report on drug and alcohol testing programs in Victoria found that 18 per cent of fatally injured drivers tested positive for methamphetamine, while 16 per cent tested positive for cannabis. Overall, illicit drugs were present in over 25 per cent of fatally injured drivers.
Deterrence and enforcement
6.53
Stakeholders emphasised that reducing trauma on Australian roads requires enforcement that is appropriately targeted to the specific behaviour, noting that effective enforcement must consider both the general and specific deterrence costs of an intervention measured against its expected benefits, and the profile of offending drivers. Stakeholders highlighted the following as matters that should form part of enforcement approaches:
Enforcement must be continuous, consistent, and ‘highly visible’.
Information must be shared across police, justice and other government departments or agencies—particularly given the increasing complexity of compliance and enforcement related to road use.
6.54
Some stakeholders indicated that increased numbers of police are critical to effective deterrence, noting that automated enforcement measures may be less effective than a highly visible police presence.
6.55
For example, the PFA stated that reducing dangerous driving requires high-profile road policing operations. The PFA noted that the federal government could play a key role in funding such operations, at least in cases where operations span multiple jurisdictions. Explaining the role of a police presence in deterring dangerous behaviour, the PFA stated that:
[A] police officer standing on the side of the road doing RBT or in a marked police vehicle is a visible deterrent. Every single person that sees that police vehicle checks their speed, checks that they have their seatbelt on, whether it be consciously or subconsciously, and makes sure that they're driving in a correct manner. If someone is …doing something wrong in an unregistered vehicle or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, they focus on their behaviour, and police can have an interaction.
6.56
The PFA also indicated that increased police presence should be supported by enhancements to police vehicles, underpinned by a national standard.
6.57
Mr Daniel McAloon stated that while cameras are useful enforcement tools, a physical police presence is more effective at deterring dangerous and illegal behaviour. Mr McAloon also asserted that police on Australian roads could be increased without significant budget implications, as fines could be used to finance operations while also enabling meaningful deterrence.
6.58
Other stakeholders indicated that the use of technology should be increased as an enforcement tool.
6.59
For example, the Pedestrian Council of Australia (PCA) asserted that high-visibility policing is ‘the greatest rort of all’, stating that rather than focus on direct engagement with drivers police officers should embrace and increase their use of speed enforcement technology:
A police officer takes half an hour to book your average motorist … and, in doing so, he's probably got to endanger his life and the lives of many other road users, including the perpetrator…We've got phenomenal technology…We could [halve road trauma] by 2030 if we started embracing top-quality state-of-the-art speed-camera technology [including rewarding governments that do so].
6.60
Noting that most manufacturers can now equip vehicles with systems to identify users, Mr Michael Griffiths called for the federal government to enact Australian Design Rules (ADRs) requiring fitment of licence readers that automatically enforce licence conditions following a breach of the road rules. Mr Griffiths stated that implementation could progress from government vehicles to the vehicles of public contractors, and finally to all vehicles used for work purposes.
6.61
The ARRB noted that automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) is now widely used to identify the vehicles of disqualified or suspended drivers, unregistered vehicles and vehicles reported stolen. If a person is identified as engaging in illegal behaviour the system is updated with details of the incident and the person’s chance of being targeted in the future are greatly increased. The ARRB also submitted that ANPR could be used to deter individuals from committing offences in corporate vehicles ‘where drivers are not nominated to receive a speeding fine’. Offences could be turned over to the regulator with a view to addressing workplace road safety issues.
6.62
Stakeholders also emphasised that enforcement activity must take account of the challenges faced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
6.63
For example, according to the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO), enforcement of road safety in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities must be undertaken in partnership with the community itself. NACCHO stated:
Jailing people for non-payment of driving fines has damaging, on-going, multifaceted impacts on that individual, their family, and the community. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples also need access to justice support [via] community-controlled organisations to assist [with] pay[ing] fines, licences, and ‘time-to-pay’ schemes.
6.64
Measures to combat specific kinds of dangerous driving (such as speeding or distracted driving) are discussed below.
Enforcing safe speeds
6.65
Stakeholders noted that there is little point in lowering speed limits unless those limits are properly enforced. Accordingly, stakeholders called for targeted enforcement of limits in both regional and metropolitan areas in all jurisdictions. A key focus was automated enforcement mechanisms such as speed cameras, with stakeholders observing that these measures have been effective where they have been deployed.
6.66
The ARRB expressed support for using speed cameras to deter speeding and high-risk behaviour, noting that random, mobile, and average (point-to-point) cameras are preferred over cameras which detect speeds only at one fixed point. In this regard, ARRB stated that fixed cameras deter speeding only where a camera is deployed and are generally appropriate only in specific high-risk or black spot locations. The ARRB provided further evidence in support of point-to-point cameras, stating:
Research undertaken in the UK…found that the introduction of average speed cameras reduced…fatal and serious injury crashes by more than 30 per cent. In the Netherlands, the installation of average speed cameras found a reduction of 47 per cent for all crashes, and [a] 25 per cent reduction in fatalities…in Amsterdam it was found that the proportion of vehicles exceeding the speed limit dropped by 90 per cent. In Scotland, an average speed camera site saw fatalities reduce by 50 per cent, and…a 90 per cent reduction in speeding vehicles. In Italy one study claimed road fatalities across average speed camera length dropped by more than 50 per cent.
6.67
Transurban noted that automated enforcement has been highly effective in regulating speeds (as well as seatbelt and phone use) and reducing fatal and serious injuries. Transurban also observed that point-to-point speed cameras are seen as a ‘fairer’ form of enforcement, as they do not penalise a driver for exceeding the speed limit only at a specific location.
6.68
While supporting the use of average speed cameras, MUARC, explained that average speed cameras can be less cost-effective than mobile cameras which detect speed at specific points. In this respect, MUARC stated that mobile speed cameras can—in effect—cover a broader area than average speed cameras and can enforce compliance with speed limits ‘anywhere, anytime’. MUARC also noted that a 50 per cent increase in mobile cameras has the potential to prevent 130 fatalities and 330 serious injuries each year.
6.69
Additionally, MUARC supported the deployment of mobile average speed cameras, noting that these enforce speed limits over much longer sections of rural roads than more traditional ‘spot-speed’ mobile cameras.
6.70
On public awareness of speed camera technology, MUARC acknowledged that mobile speed enforcement, given its covert nature, is less accepted than fixed cameras by the community.
6.71
MUARC further stated that speed camera programs should build in the capacity to notify drivers that they have exceeded the speed limit as soon as possible after a breach occurs. This is to ensure that drivers can correct (often inadvertent) behaviour without incurring a penalty. Such measures may also help build trust in the system.
6.72
PCA said that cameras should not be accompanied by signs alerting drivers to their presence, noting that where signs are in place, drivers will decrease speed over the section of road which is being monitored only to increase speed thereafter. Further, if drivers can avoid penalties for exceeding speed limits, there is less incentive to drive at safer speeds more generally.
6.73
Some stakeholders expressed concern that state and territory governments have not deployed sufficient numbers of speed cameras (and particularly average speed cameras) on their road networks. For example, PCA noted that NSW is the only jurisdiction in the world that that does not use average speed cameras for all vehicles. This is despite the demonstrated safety benefits of these cameras and the fact that successive NSW governments have promised to deploy them.
6.74
The committee wrote to ministers responsible for road safety in all states and territories in February 2022, seeking information on the extent to which jurisdictions have deployed average speed cameras. Information received in response is set out in the table at Appendix D.
6.75
Responses indicated that at least some average speed cameras are deployed in most jurisdictions in relation to heavy and light vehicles. Motorcycles may not be captured by average speed cameras, as cameras typically detect front-facing licence plates. The percentage of the road network covered by average speed cameras is low (less than one per cent) in each jurisdiction, with cameras deployed on higher-risk roads—often in regional areas.
6.76
Several jurisdictions have plans to deploy or extend the coverage of average speed cameras and to explore options for deployment of mobile cameras. Research is underway to assess where cameras will be best-placed to achieve meaningful improvements in road safety (taking account of matters such as crash risk, asset security and infrastructure costs), and into other technology-based measures to target speeding and high-risk behaviours.
Speed limiting technology
6.77
The committee heard that there are opportunities to automatically limit speed via in-vehicle technologies as well as by enforcing speed limits.
6.78
Mr Michael Griffiths noted that as the whole of Australia is mapped by speed zones, a vehicle could be programmed to automatically limit a vehicle’s speed to the posted limit for a road. Short periods of override could be programmed into the system for emergencies. Mr Griffiths recommended that federal, state, and territory governments:
Develop an ADR requiring uniformity in the hardware and software required to access a vehicle’s speed limiting and other capabilities.
Announce an intention to implement this measure, with a one-year lead time before mandating fitment on government vehicles.
Collaborate with Safe Work Australia to make automated speed limiting a requirement in all vehicles used in the workplace within two years.
6.79
Mr Griffiths also expressed concern that while the public perception is that heavy vehicles are subject to automatic speed limiting, this may not be the case. Rather, speed limiting is coupled to engine power and gearing ratios. Accordingly, and noting that speed limiting technology is available for trucks, Mr Griffiths recommended that the federal government develop an ADR that requires speed limiters be fitted to heavy vehicles.
Community engagement on speed enforcement
6.80
Several stakeholders observed that implementation of speed enforcement measures requires meaningful engagement with the community.
6.81
Austroads stated that the community should be encouraged to see measures such as average speed cameras as a fair means of enforcement and a means of preventing death and injury—rather than as a revenue-raising tool.
6.82
MUARC similarly noted that the key to securing community acceptance of speed cameras and other enforcement measures is emphasising that the measures are to prevent crashes and save lives rather than to raise revenue. Expanding on this, MUARC told the committee that community engagement must be based on independent evidence:
[E]very time there's been a major review in one of the states…the ability to defend the program is based on independent evidence that you have around…whether the program is working or not. Victoria has been great, Queensland has been great, but New South Wales has been remiss…in generating evidence about the benefits of their camera program through independent evaluation. You need that if you're going to defend it at all.
6.83
MUARC added that there may be merit in exploring non-financial penalties such as demerit points for low-level speeding. This would send a message that the behaviour is not tolerated while also making clear that enforcement is not simply a revenue-raising exercise.
Combatting driver distraction
6.84
Stakeholders supported enforcement measures that specifically target distracted driving. As was the case in relation to enforcement of safe speeds, several stakeholders called for automated enforcement measures such as mobile phone detection cameras and mechanisms that disable use of devices while driving. Stakeholders noted that the requisite technology is available and stated that what is needed is action by government to ensure the technology is deployed where it will have the greatest impact.
6.85
Road Safety Matters (RSM) observed that NSW has installed cameras capable of detecting mobile phones while driving and stated that other technologies to disable phone use while driving could be deployed.
6.86
The ARRB also drew attention to NSW’s installation of fixed and transportable cameras to target illegal mobile phone use, explaining that the cameras use infra-red technology to capture images of passing vehicles in all conditions. According to the ARRB, modelling by MUARC estimates that the initiative will prevent around 100 fatal and serious injury crashes over a five-year period. Community surveys also indicate that the program has strong public support.
6.87
Some stakeholders indicated that automated measures targeting distracted driving are being rolled out in other jurisdictions. For example, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) said that Queensland has followed NSW in installing cameras to target phone use and failure to wear a seatbelt starting 26 July 2021. The rollout of this measure is being accompanied by a ‘significant media and social media campaign’ to increase community awareness and build acceptance.
6.88
CARRS-Q highlighted the release of the National Roadmap on Driver Distraction, developed via an extensive process of collaboration across government and industry. The roadmap contains the following five overarching strategies to address driver distraction: designing for safer interaction; mapping out the adoption of in-vehicle distraction mitigation technology; recognising the vehicle as a workplace; encouraging greater compliance via enforcement; and changing driver behaviour. It contains a proposed forward program of work, with a range of projects aligned in support of these strategies.
Regulation of driver distraction
6.89
Some inquiry participants indicated that existing regulations applicable to distracted driving may not be keeping pace with emerging technologies and indicated that changes may be needed to ensure that regulation can be made ‘technology neutral’ going forward.
6.90
Drawing on ongoing work by the National Transport Commission (NTC), MBL identified the following key issues with existing regulations relating to driver distraction:
The regulations have not kept pace with the arrival of smartphones and other devices, including devices which are built into vehicles.
Sources of distraction and risks associated with certain behaviours are treated differently without a clear reason for doing so.
The regulations can be confusing for road users and enforcement bodies, particular as regards which devices are legal to use when driving.
6.91
MBL noted that the NTC is developing technology-neutral approaches to regulating distraction, focused on addressing interactions between drivers and types of technology rather than on the technology itself. MBL expressed support for a technology-neutral approach to regulating driver distraction, noting that such an approach is better suited to capturing the ’ever-changing array’ of distractions facing drivers.
Alcohol and drug enforcement
6.92
Stakeholders called for better enforcement of road rules relating to alcohol and drugs. A key concern was that measures aimed at deterring speeding and driving under the influence of alcohol are often adopted wholesale in drug enforcement notwithstanding that they may be less effective in this area. This was a particular issue given the increased prevalence of drug use (particularly methamphetamine use) on Australian roads.
6.93
ARRB noted that only limited consideration is given to deterring ‘drug driving’ as a discrete issue, stating that research is needed to develop targeted enforcement measures. ARRB also raised concern that roadside drug screening does not detect the concentration of a drug or its impact on driving ability. ARRB stated that if roadside screening is to continue, development of testing methods to detect both the present and concentration of a drug must be prioritised.
6.94
MUARC noted that a key issue in drug enforcement is a tendency to adopt measures to deter drink driving—such as widespread and random testing—without considering their appropriateness for drug enforcement. With reference to measures targeting methamphetamine use, MUARC stated:
When it comes to methamphetamine, we must be actually catching the people. The hit rate you get through enforcement is critically important to the effectiveness of the program…[Y]ou don't want to test large numbers of people; you want to find the people you need to test, catch them and get them off the road. That's a mindset shift from what has been portrayed as the optimum enforcement practice from alcohol. We need to shift our police forces' views on how methamphetamine enforcement is done. Within that, we need to have the police forces use a lot more intelligence about who the most likely people are and where are they most likely to be.
6.95
According to MUARC, technologies such as ANPR may be successful in targeting methamphetamine use, as they enable police to identify road users who have previously been caught driving while under the influence of the drug. Rehabilitation programs may also be needed, both to address drug dependency and to remove users from the road network.
6.96
PFA emphasised that the federal government could play an important role in funding research into drug driving to underpin development of a national drug testing standard. Referring also to difficulties balancing road safety enforcement with state and territory laws relating to drug possession and use generally, the PFA told the committee that:
[S]ome jurisdictions are starting to go down the path of making certain amounts of…drugs not illicit anymore…The ACT is a key example where it's proposed you can have two grams of methamphetamine or two grams of heroin or two grams of cocaine [without committing an offence]…
[We need further research to understand how drugs affect driving ability so that we can say] ‘…you cannot drive, even if, in your jurisdiction, you are entitled to take that for medicinal purposes or it's actually [legal]’. That's one of our major concerns…We [also] need to ensure there are national testing standards… [to set] the levels that are specifically needed for [an] offence.
6.97
PFA added that there appears to be no international standard that Australia might adopt to bolster drug and road safety enforcement activity. However, statistical data on the impacts of drug use on driving ability exists. What is needed is to translate this data into drug enforcement protocols and to use the data to develop campaigns to educate road users on the impacts of drug use on individuals, families, and communities.
Alcohol interlock programs
6.98
Several stakeholders spoke to the value of alcohol interlock programs as a means of targeting driving under the influence of alcohol.
6.99
The ARRB noted that alcohol interlocks have been successful in Europe and Scandinavia as a means of reducing reoffending. For example, in Finland just six per cent of offenders who undertook a rehabilitation program involving interlocks committed another offence, compared with 30 per cent among drink drivers who had not been driving with an interlock.
6.100
MUARC stated that interlock devices have been effective in addressing road trauma associated with alcohol use. However, there is no interlock system available for drug enforcement.
6.101
The committee heard that several jurisdictions are introducing or enhancing existing interlock programs to combat drink driving. DTMR noted that in September 2021, Queensland introduced measures to strengthen its programs, as well as measures to help rehabilitate drink driving offenders. Relevant reforms include:
Mid-range (0.1 BAC) offenders and repeat offenders will be required to install an Interlock or sit out of the licensing system for five years.
Offenders with an interlock will need to prove they can separate drinking and driving by not failing a test for four consecutive months at the end of an initial 12-month period.
Repeat offenders will also be required to complete an intensive multi-session education program before they can remove the interlock.
6.102
Some stakeholders observed that interlock programs can be difficult to implement in jurisdictions with dispersed populations, remote areas, and low socio-economic conditions. Cultural and community norms also affect the success of such programs. The NT Department of Infrastructure, Planning and Logistics (DIPL) explained to the committee that:
[The NT] introduced an alcohol interlock program [around] six or seven years ago. The difficulty has been, because of access for remote and regional areas, there were a huge number of people that were required by the courts to have an interlock put in, but very, very few took it on. There was a cost associated with that, but also the fact was that all those people who were in remote and regional areas had to travel hundreds of kilometres to have it installed and checked. The difficulty of delivering that type of regime in the [NT] with our vast distances has been very, very challenging.
6.103
The DIPL further noted that in many remote communities a car may be registered to a single person (if registered at all) but used as a community asset. Consequently, enforcement action such as requiring fitment of an interlock or confiscation of a vehicle could impact the entire community.
6.104
Some stakeholders also observed that random breath testing (RBT) remains an effective means of deterring drink driving. For example, MUARC noted that its modelling for the NRSS 2021–30 predicted that a 15 per cent increase in breath tests and a 25 per cent increase in drug tests would prevent around 155 deaths and 1200 hospitalisations annually.
6.105
RACS observed that there are inconsistencies in the implementation of RBT programs, and different ways of measuring their success. RACS called for greater consistency in how RBT is implemented across Australia.
Road rules applicable to drug and alcohol use
6.106
Some stakeholders indicated that the current road rules relating to drug and alcohol use may to too lenient or otherwise insufficient to effectively deter road users from driving while intoxicated. This was identified as an issue for both light and heavy vehicle drivers.
6.107
PCA called for the legal blood alcohol content (BAC) to be lowered to 0.02 (current permissible BAC is 0.05 for open licences; zero for learner and provisional licences). The PCA highlighted an article written by its CEO about a fatal crash in January 2020 which involved a driver with a BAC of 0.107. The article also noted that 30 per cent of fatal injury crashes involve intoxication—according to the National Road Safety Strategy 2011–2020.
6.108
The Toll Group noted that NSW is the only state to permit truck drivers to have a BAC over zero and legally drive, and recommended that the BAC limit for the drivers of all vehicles 4.5 tonnes and over be set at zero in all jurisdictions.
Dangerous behaviours under the National Road Safety Strategy 2021–2030
6.109
The NRSS 2021–30 expressly recognises that speed management is critical to reducing road trauma and emphasises the need to increase acceptance of lower speed limits as a means of improving safety outcomes. The strategy sets out several actions to support effective speed management, including:
Managing speeds where there are conflicts between vehicles and road users and where infrastructure and roadside hazards are likely.
Developing Regulation Impact Statements on reducing speed limits for open roads and unsealed roads in both regional and remote areas.
Implementing Movement and Place approaches across the road network to support best practice speed management.
Developing a national guide for best practice, consistent speed limits to prevent fatal and serious injuries to vulnerable road users, including consideration of reviewing default speeds in built-up areas.
6.110
Performance metrics for the strategy also capture matters such as the share of roads in high pedestrian areas with speed limits of 40km/h or under, and the share of roads with higher speed limits on which other safety measures (for example, separated bicycle lanes) have been implemented.
6.111
The Office of Road Safety (ORS) told the committee that effective speed management will underpin each priority of the strategy. Rather than treating speed limits as stand-alone road safety measures, the strategy will consider the nature of the relevant road and its purpose, with a view to building acceptance of safer speeds as a function of the road over a longer period.
6.112
ORS also emphasised that it is not the Commonwealth’s role to set speed limits. Rather, it is the responsibility of states and territories, with some jurisdictions also involving local councils in the decision-making process. However, ORS noted that states and territories have endorsed the approach to speed management proposed in the NRSS 2021–30 and stated that the Commonwealth will hold states accountable for applying it.
6.113
The NRSS 2021–30 also includes action items to combat distracted driving and driving under the influence of alcohol and drugs. Key items include implementing the National Driver Distraction Roadmap and adopting best-practice enforcement of, and education on, drug and alcohol laws.
Committee view
Speed limits
6.114
The committee heard that there is widespread support for lowering speed limits as a way of reducing road trauma, with stakeholders calling for speed limits to be set at a level which ensures the maximum chance of surviving a road crash. The committee understands that this corresponds to 30km/h for pedestrians, rising to 70km/h for head-on crashes between vehicles.
6.115
Evidence also indicates a need to consider the nature and purpose of a road, as well as its quality and safety, when setting speed limits. This is closely linked to the adoption of Movement and Place (also discussed elsewhere in this report). Stakeholders called for measures to expressly link speed limits to the star rating of a road, noting that this would be an effective means of identifying priority roads for reduced speed limits pending more significant infrastructure upgrades.
6.116
The committee also notes the view that the appropriate default speed limit for residential areas and areas with high pedestrian traffic is 30km/h. This is consistent with the Safe System speed limit applicable to pedestrians. 30km/h speed limits were also supported in areas of high child pedestrian activity such as schools and parks.
6.117
The view was also expressed that default speed limits on regional roads should be lowered to 80km/h, particularly given that regional roads are often of lower quality and safety. Stakeholders also emphasised that lower speed limits on regional roads should not be imposed as an alternative to measures. In this respect, the committee heard that work should continue to raise the overall safety of regional roads, and that priority roads should be identified for targeted investment.
6.118
The committee is pleased to note that there are a range of actions in the NRSS 2021–30 which aim to rationalise speed limits, underpinned by a recognition of Safe System speeds. In particular, the committee notes the proposals to develop Regulation Impact Statements for reducing the default speed limit on open roads and unsealed roads in regional and remote areas, and that a key performance indicator for the strategy is the share of high pedestrian commercial areas with speed limits of 40km/h or under.
6.119
Noting these matters, the committee makes no further recommendations in relation to speed limits. but encourages jurisdictions to expedite rollout of the speed-related measures in the NRSS 2021–30. Noting that the strategy contemplates reducing default speed limits in built-up areas, the committee encourages governments to consider reducing the speed limit to 30km/h in all residential areas as part of this work.
Speed enforcement
6.120
A common refrain from stakeholders was that speed limits must be accompanied by robust enforcement to ensure that they are effective in reducing road trauma. The committee heard that average speed cameras in particular have proven effective in reducing fatal and serious injury.
6.121
The committee notes that the previous Joint Select Committee on Road Safety (previous committee) recommended that the Commonwealth work with state and territory governments and police agencies to increase the number of average speed cameras and phone detection cameras. The previous committee noted that this may involve tying deployment of cameras to infrastructure funding as appropriate. Evidence provided to the committee also indicates that states and territories are taking steps to increase the deployment of average speed cameras across the road network.
6.122
While acknowledging that progress has been made to increase the number of average speed cameras, the committee remains concerned that the pace at which cameras are being deployed may not be sufficient. The committee is also concerned that average speed detection is not applied to all vehicles in all jurisdictions.
6.123
The committee therefore considers the Commonwealth should take additional steps to encourage the deployment of average speed cameras across the road network, and importantly to ensure the cameras are used to detect speeding by all vehicle types. In the committee’s view, this should involve agreement on a roadmap to deploy average speed cameras on major highways and areas of high crash risk. Opportunities also exist for the Commonwealth to use funding as a policy lever.
6.124
The committee recommends that the Australian Government support the deployment of average speed cameras for all vehicle types by:
working with state and territory governments to develop and agree a roadmap for increasing numbers of average speed cameras across the road network;
making infrastructure and road safety funding conditional on state and territory governments extending the coverage of existing average speed cameras to all vehicle types; and
making funding for projects on major roads and highways conditional on the deployment of average speed cameras for all vehicle types.
Speeds limits and enforcement: community engagement
6.125
The committee heard that lowering speed limits and implementing speed enforcement measures must be accompanied by meaningful community engagement. Securing acceptance of speed limits will be critical to ensuring compliance, as the community will be more likely to obey a speed limit if it is seen as a genuine effort to improve safety rather than an arbitrary or low-cost alternative to infrastructure upgrades which improve local amenity.
6.126
While confident that community engagement will underpin all actions to reduce speeds in the NRSS 2021–30, as well as rollout of speed enforcement measures, the committee considers it prudent to reiterate the importance of meaningful community engagement in this report.
6.127
The committee recommends that the Australian Government ensure that actions to reduce speed limits and implement enforcement measures are accompanied by community consultation, with a focus on emphasising the safety benefits of these measures to community members.
Distracted driving
6.128
The committee heard that driver distraction continues to play a significant role in road trauma—particularly distraction associated with mobile phone use. Stakeholders called for measures to reduce the incidence of distraction, including through mobile phone detection cameras and technology-based measures to disable the use of devices while driving.
6.129
The committee notes that the previous committee made recommendations aimed at facilitating greater understanding of the contribution of distraction to road trauma and increasing community awareness of the impacts of driver distraction on road safety. Noting the increased prevalence of phone use as a cause of distraction, that committee also called on government to liaise with technology manufacturers to enhance the safety of their products. This committee supports the previous committee’s recommendations.
6.130
The committee also notes that a national roadmap on driver distraction has recently been released, outlining strategies to combat distraction via design, enforcement, behavioural change, and technology. The committee is pleased that implementation of the roadmap is an action item in the NRSS 2021–30. The committee encourages governments to prioritise implementation of the roadmap, including by working with telecommunications companies to expedite rollout of app-based measures to limit distraction and with the health and community sectors to understand and respond to the underlying causes of excessive mobile phone use. The committee makes no further recommendations of its own.
Drug and alcohol use
6.131
The committee heard that drug and alcohol use continue to play a key role in road trauma. Drug use—particularly the use of methamphetamines—is also continuing to rise and is associated with crashes of greater severity.
6.132
The committee heard that measures to combat ‘drug driving’ could be made more effective, with stakeholders concerned that enforcement strategies often adopt measures to target speeding or alcohol use without considering whether such measures are appropriate for drug enforcement. In addition, the committee heard that tests are unable to detect concentrations of a drug or its impact on driving ability.
6.133
Noting the significant and increasing contribution of drug use to road trauma, the committee considers that the Commonwealth should support the development of a national enforcement strategy to address driving under the influence of drugs. This should be supported by a national testing standard that clearly identifies the impacts of specific drugs on driving ability, and the development of tests which accurately measure both the presence and concentration of a drug in a person’s system.
6.134
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments and police agencies to develop and implement a national enforcement strategy targeting driving under the influence of drugs. This should involve the development of a national drug testing standard and research on reliable, accurate testing methods.