Speeding fines in SA not being used for better driver education, claims think tank

SOUTH Australian motorists have become slaves to the Government’s reliance on revenue-raising speeding fines - but is this really the best way of promoting safe driving on our roads? Here’s a call for a new approach.

SA Police officer Constable Rachel Sarvas from the Port Adelaide police traffic enforcement section uses a speed radar gun o...

SOUTH Australian motorists have become slaves to a reliance on hefty revenue-raising speeding fines to promote road safety at the expense of better driver education, according to the head of a major policy think-tank.

Associate Professor Mike O’Neill, director of the SA Centre for Economic Studies, said the State Government should reward good motorists and increase driver education under a major revamp of road safety strategies instead of using speeding fines to curb bad road behaviour.

“Is South Australia going to be the dumb state or the state that’s scientific (regarding road safety strategies) because you can only keep whipping the slaves for so long,’’ he said.

His comments came after the independent SA Centre for Economic Studies, based at Adelaide University, released a report yesterday that concluded a heavy reliance on financial penalties in SA indicated an “overly strong preference for revenue raising in the pursuit of greater road safety”.

The report, co-authored by Professor O’Neill titled Exceeding the Limit: How Excessive Speeding Fines May Undermine Community Engagement with Government Road Safety Policy, used “expert analysis’’ to investigate the “contribution of road traffic fines in reducing road fatalities’’.

The authors crunched data from 2000 onwards and investigated the basis for setting penalties, the impact of speed cameras, speed limits, the role of information provided to drivers, equality of fines, driving under the influence, speeding and mobile phone use.

The report said road traffic fines in SA are higher than those in other states for the same or similar offences due to the Government’s reliance on “hefty fines” and more needs to be done to reduce the number of motorists drink and drug driving, using mobile phones and failing to wear seat belts.

“The persistent and strong conception of ‘revenue raising’ relative to ‘road safety objectives’ carries a significant danger for government policy and the legitimacy of police efforts,” the report said

“It is time for a serious rethink of efforts to reduce the road toll that in the final analysis, is critically dependent on driver training, driving behaviour and driver attitudes.

“It is well to remember that reinforcement or reward is much more likely to lead to sustainable changes in behaviour than punishment.’’

The report found two-thirds of motorists thought speed cameras were just “revenue raisers’’ and that inconsistent suburban speed limits, ranging from 40, 50 and 60km/h, created confusion and were blamed by drivers for being fined.

Researchers suggest reforms including:

REWARDING motorists for good driving behaviour;

INDEXING traffic fines to inflation or changes in labour incomes;

RE-INTRODUCING visible signs warning drivers that mobile speed cameras are in use;

The release of the report comes on the eve of further speeding fine increases of up to $23 next week and latest police figures showing speeding fines have surged 41.5 per cent in two years — from 126,008 in 2012 to 178,395 in 2014.

The Government countered by saying its fines “reflect the gravity of the offence’’ and were not a “mechanism for revenue raising’’ and that “education is vital’’.

Road Safety Minister Tony Piccolo said the Government “attempts to find the right balance between speeding fines and demerit points to provide the best road safety outcome for those people who exceed the speed limit’’.

“I have always said I would prefer to not collect a solitary dollar if it meant people were doing the right thing,” he said.

“Accordingly, a few years ago the Government reduced fines and increased demerit points for people caught speeding between zero and 10 kilometres per hour.

“Fines were increased for exceeding the speed limits beyond 10 kilometres per hour, which is a much more deliberate and dangerous action.’’

Mr Piccolo said speeding limits were set by a process of consultation.

In 2013 the Government said it was considering giving motorists with a clean speeding record a 25 per cent discount on their drivers licence renewal.

The RAA said it broadly supported the report’s findings and recommendations, especially a move from reliance on more speed cameras to greater education to improve driver behaviour.

Drug drivers face a U-turn in legislation

Ken McGregor and Meagan Dillon

DRIVERS would be forced to “reverse the onus of proof” by proving drugs were not the cause of their dangerous driving, under proposed legislation to be introduced to State Parliament.

State MP John Darley, a member of Federal MP Nick Xenophon’s team, is drafting the bill in response to the acquittal of drug-driving mother-of-three Leah Jane Lenarczyk who had methylamphetamine in her system when she hit and seriously hurt a 12-year-old boy after driving through a red light.

She was acquitted of a dangerous-driving charge by a judge who took into account expert evidence that the drugs in her system may have had a “positive effect” on her abilities behind the wheel.

Courts. Leah Jane Lenarczyk charged with aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving.

Senator Xenophon said the case showed current laws, which required the prosecution to prove the drug caused the dangerous driving, were not keeping pace with the epidemic use of methamphetamine, which is also called ice or speed. “We need to give the police and prosecutors the legal tools to keep the community safe,” he said.

“Right now the police have one hand tied beyond their back — any perception that ice use can be positive for driving is dangerous.”

Lenarczyk, 39, of Highbury was acquitted of causing serious harm by dangerous driving to the boy, who suffered skull fractures and a broken leg among other injuries but was found guilty of a lesser charge of driving without due care.

It was not proved the “mid level” recording of the drug in her system caused any adverse effect on her driving.

Clinical forensic toxicologist Dr Michael Robinson, who testified at the Lenarczyk trial, told The Advertiser yesterday the effect of methylamphetamine on a person’s driving ability was based on dosage as well as tolerance levels. He said there needed to be drugs in the blood stream, coupled with visible signs of intoxication to prove an inability to drive a car.

“The blood concentration itself can be used as evidence of impairment or intoxication,” he said. He said in the case of Lenarczyk, it had been reported that she did not show any other signs of intoxication, such as restlessness, sweating or being fidgety.

“In this case there were no real symptoms of methylamphetamine intoxication — it became very difficult to say with any certainty that someone appeared intoxicated.”

Dr Robertson said methylamphetamine was designed by the Japanese to enhance performance in the army and the drug “is quite effective at doing that”. While SA Police would not comment on the case, Assistant Commissioner Linda Williams said drugs and driving can be “lethal”.

“Methamphetamine can lead to over confidence,” she said. “You do not know, or cannot guarantee, how it is going to effect you.”

Motor Accident Commission road safety general manager Michael Cornish agreed, saying drugs were a factor in 24 per cent of fatal crashes on the state’s roads last year. Attorney-General John Rau said he had not yet considered the judgement but had sought advice from the Department of Public Prosecutions.

READ MORE ABOUT THE LEAH LENARCZYK RULING HERE