❓ Mr. Pendal questions the $1000 damage threshold for reporting vehicle collisions, arguing it's outdated given rising repair costs. The Minister acknowledges the need for review, noting the threshold hasn't been updated since 1988.
AnsweredQoN 1273Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
(1) Under what circumstances is it required that vehicle collisions be reported to the police by parties involved, when no person in the crash is injured?
(2) If the criterion for reporting, as provided by the Road Traffic Act 1974, is a personally assessed $1000 worth of vehicle damage, can this sum be reviewed on the basis that repair costs have risen to such an extent that $1,000 would pay for very little in the way of repairs?
(3) When was the $1,000 damage estimate last reviewed?
(4) How can a person involved in such a collision be expected to make an ‘on the spot’ assessment of damage to the other vehicle, while he/she is at the scene of the accident?
(5) If the Minister is not prepared to undertake a review of this damage level for reporting purposes, what is the reason?
(2) If the criterion for reporting, as provided by the Road Traffic Act 1974, is a personally assessed $1000 worth of vehicle damage, can this sum be reviewed on the basis that repair costs have risen to such an extent that $1,000 would pay for very little in the way of repairs?
(3) When was the $1,000 damage estimate last reviewed?
(4) How can a person involved in such a collision be expected to make an ‘on the spot’ assessment of damage to the other vehicle, while he/she is at the scene of the accident?
(5) If the Minister is not prepared to undertake a review of this damage level for reporting purposes, what is the reason?
AnswerView source ↗
Answered
17 June 2003
Responded by
Minister for Planning and Infrastructure
Response time
90 days
The driver or person in charge of the vehicle has reason to believe that the aggregate value of the damage (all property damaged) does not exceed $1000 and the owner of any property damaged is then or immediately thereafter present to represented at the place where the accident occurred. 2. Given the increase in vehicle repair costs since the last review it is appropriate to review this amount, 3. The prescribed amount of $1000 was last reviewed in 1988. 4. Whilst there is always going to be a requirement for persons to make an “on the spot” assessment of the value of the damage having such a provision obviates the necessity for all traffic accidents to be reported. This is particularly relevant where all parties agree on who will accept responsibility for a minor accident and persons are not injured. 5. Not applicable.
2. Given the increase in vehicle repair costs since the last review it is appropriate to review this amount, 3. The prescribed amount of $1000 was last reviewed in 1988. 4. Whilst there is always going to be a requirement for persons to make an “on the spot” assessment of the value of the damage having such a provision obviates the necessity for all traffic accidents to be reported. This is particularly relevant where all parties agree on who will accept responsibility for a minor accident and persons are not injured. 5. Not applicable.
3. The prescribed amount of $1000 was last reviewed in 1988. 4. Whilst there is always going to be a requirement for persons to make an “on the spot” assessment of the value of the damage having such a provision obviates the necessity for all traffic accidents to be reported. This is particularly relevant where all parties agree on who will accept responsibility for a minor accident and persons are not injured. 5. Not applicable.
4. Whilst there is always going to be a requirement for persons to make an “on the spot” assessment of the value of the damage having such a provision obviates the necessity for all traffic accidents to be reported. This is particularly relevant where all parties agree on who will accept responsibility for a minor accident and persons are not injured. 5. Not applicable.
5. Not applicable.
2. Given the increase in vehicle repair costs since the last review it is appropriate to review this amount, 3. The prescribed amount of $1000 was last reviewed in 1988. 4. Whilst there is always going to be a requirement for persons to make an “on the spot” assessment of the value of the damage having such a provision obviates the necessity for all traffic accidents to be reported. This is particularly relevant where all parties agree on who will accept responsibility for a minor accident and persons are not injured. 5. Not applicable.
3. The prescribed amount of $1000 was last reviewed in 1988. 4. Whilst there is always going to be a requirement for persons to make an “on the spot” assessment of the value of the damage having such a provision obviates the necessity for all traffic accidents to be reported. This is particularly relevant where all parties agree on who will accept responsibility for a minor accident and persons are not injured. 5. Not applicable.
4. Whilst there is always going to be a requirement for persons to make an “on the spot” assessment of the value of the damage having such a provision obviates the necessity for all traffic accidents to be reported. This is particularly relevant where all parties agree on who will accept responsibility for a minor accident and persons are not injured. 5. Not applicable.
5. Not applicable.
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.