❓ A parliamentary question addresses the rationale, penalties, and government's position on seatbelt use among heavy vehicle drivers in Western Australia, including a past moratorium and the impact of demerit points on professional drivers.
AnsweredQoN 444Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
HEAVY VEHICLES - SEATBELTS
(1) Can the minister outline the background to the 1994-2005 moratorium on issuing infringement notices to drivers of heavy vehicles found to be not wearing seatbelts, including the rationale for introducing, and subsequently ceasing, the moratorium? (2) What is the penalty for a heavy vehicle driver found to be not wearing a seatbelt, including demerit points? (3) Does the double-demerits regime apply to this offence on a public holiday; and, if so, what is the penalty? (4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD
(1) Can the minister outline the background to the 1994-2005 moratorium on issuing infringement notices to drivers of heavy vehicles found to be not wearing seatbelts, including the rationale for introducing, and subsequently ceasing, the moratorium? (2) What is the penalty for a heavy vehicle driver found to be not wearing a seatbelt, including demerit points? (3) Does the double-demerits regime apply to this offence on a public holiday; and, if so, what is the penalty? (4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD
AnswerView source ↗
I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(2) What is the penalty for a heavy vehicle driver found to be not wearing a seatbelt, including demerit points? (3) Does the double-demerits regime apply to this offence on a public holiday; and, if so, what is the penalty? (4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(3) Does the double-demerits regime apply to this offence on a public holiday; and, if so, what is the penalty? (4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(2) What is the penalty for a heavy vehicle driver found to be not wearing a seatbelt, including demerit points? (3) Does the double-demerits regime apply to this offence on a public holiday; and, if so, what is the penalty? (4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(3) Does the double-demerits regime apply to this offence on a public holiday; and, if so, what is the penalty? (4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(4) Is it the government’s position that the penalty prescribed is commensurate with the gravity of the offence, particularly when considering the additional impact that the possible loss of licence through the accrual of demerit points would have on a professional long-distance driver? Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
Hon JON FORD replied: I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
I thank Hon Simon O’Brien for some notice of this question. The Minister for Police and Emergency Services has supplied the following answer - (1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(1) The reason for the exemption was that, at that time, trucks were produced with air ride seats, and seatbelts were anchored from the truck subframe. As a consequence, it was found that as the truck rode along a bumpy road, the air rise seat would move up and down, but the seatbelt would not adjust, making it uncomfortable for the driver. Drivers were allowed a period to rectify this problem. (2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(2) The penalty is $500 and four demerit points. (3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(3) Yes, eight demerit points. (4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
(4) Yes. Safety is paramount for all road users, and all available safety equipment should be utilised.
Explore WA Government Data
Search the full archive in the free dashboard, or query programmatically via API.
Explore more
Government Gazette
Appointments, regulatory notices, planning changes.
Hansard
Debates, questions, speeches and sentiment.
Tabled Papers
Reports and documents tabled in Parliament.
Committees
Committee profiles and recent reports.
Regulations
Subsidiary legislation with filters and summaries.
Bills
Proposed laws and parliamentary progress.
Acts
Current WA legislation and summaries.
Explanatory Memoranda
Bills with EMs (text/PDF) available.
Members
MP profiles, party breakdown and rankings.
Pollie Rankings
Data-driven rankings across 19 categories.
Amendment Chains
Track how schemes and regulations evolve over time.