❓ Hon. Nigel Hallett questions the removal of warning signs for mobile speed cameras, citing road safety concerns and revenue raising perceptions. The Minister responds, detailing safety risks to operators and the use of revenue for road safety initiatives.
AnsweredQoN 397Legislative Council
QuestionView source ↗
ROAD
SAFETY — MOBILE SPEED CAMERA OPERATORS
397. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the
minister representing the Minister for Police:
Could the minister please explain the reasons behind the new
rule changes that allow the removal of warning signs advising motorists they
have passed through mobile speed cameras? If the reason is to provide some
protection to the mobile speed camera operators, could the minister please
explain —
(1) How many
incidents have there been in which mobile speed camera operators have been
threatened?
(2) Have there been reports of
personal injury or assaults to operators; and, if so, how many?
(3) Is it fair to
say the message of speed and road safety is being lost and is now seen as just
revenue raising?
The PRESIDENT : I think the Attorney General will answer
that question in his representative capacity, but the last aspect of that
question is an opinion.
SAFETY — MOBILE SPEED CAMERA OPERATORS
397. Hon NIGEL HALLETT to the
minister representing the Minister for Police:
Could the minister please explain the reasons behind the new
rule changes that allow the removal of warning signs advising motorists they
have passed through mobile speed cameras? If the reason is to provide some
protection to the mobile speed camera operators, could the minister please
explain —
(1) How many
incidents have there been in which mobile speed camera operators have been
threatened?
(2) Have there been reports of
personal injury or assaults to operators; and, if so, how many?
(3) Is it fair to
say the message of speed and road safety is being lost and is now seen as just
revenue raising?
The PRESIDENT : I think the Attorney General will answer
that question in his representative capacity, but the last aspect of that
question is an opinion.
AnswerView source ↗
On behalf of the Minister for Police, I thank the honourable
member for some notice of the question.
Current police policy states that a speed camera advisory
sign may be placed approximately 30 metres after a mobile speed camera as a
courtesy sign used at the discretion of the camera operator. This discretion
should take into account the safety of the camera operator, members of the
public and the equipment. Compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health
Act 1984 has resulted in a limited deployment of the signs. Safety issues
assessed by the operators include: proximity to traffic flow and inherent risks
to safety; personal safety as single-crew operators; operations in hours of
darkness; elevated risks from increasing prevalence of issue-motivated
individuals and groups opposed to speed camera operations—I take it
that that is jargonese for people who want to punch out camera operators simply
because they are operating speed cameras; and, general risk of assault or
attack from disgruntled motorists. As speed camera operators operate on a
single officer deployment basis, the decision to utilise the advisory sign
remains with the individual camera operator based on a risk assessment
consistent with the provisions of the OSH act.
In answer to the specific questions —
(1) In the period 26 October 2011 to 1 April 2015 there have
been 67 incidents.
(2) In the
period 26 October 2011 to 1 April 2015, four camera operators have been
physically assaulted.
(3) All
revenue collected from the payment of infringements is deposited into the road
trauma trust account, and these funds are used to support various road safety
strategies.
member for some notice of the question.
Current police policy states that a speed camera advisory
sign may be placed approximately 30 metres after a mobile speed camera as a
courtesy sign used at the discretion of the camera operator. This discretion
should take into account the safety of the camera operator, members of the
public and the equipment. Compliance with the Occupational Safety and Health
Act 1984 has resulted in a limited deployment of the signs. Safety issues
assessed by the operators include: proximity to traffic flow and inherent risks
to safety; personal safety as single-crew operators; operations in hours of
darkness; elevated risks from increasing prevalence of issue-motivated
individuals and groups opposed to speed camera operations—I take it
that that is jargonese for people who want to punch out camera operators simply
because they are operating speed cameras; and, general risk of assault or
attack from disgruntled motorists. As speed camera operators operate on a
single officer deployment basis, the decision to utilise the advisory sign
remains with the individual camera operator based on a risk assessment
consistent with the provisions of the OSH act.
In answer to the specific questions —
(1) In the period 26 October 2011 to 1 April 2015 there have
been 67 incidents.
(2) In the
period 26 October 2011 to 1 April 2015, four camera operators have been
physically assaulted.
(3) All
revenue collected from the payment of infringements is deposited into the road
trauma trust account, and these funds are used to support various road safety
strategies.
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.