❓ A WA parliament question regarding the removal of a traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School due to safety concerns about students crossing Canning Highway. The Minister responds by outlining the criteria for traffic wardens and the school's failure to meet them, while offering a re-evaluation if new evidence arises.
AnsweredQoN 577Legislative Assembly
QuestionView source ↗
TRAFFIC WARDEN - ST BENEDICT’S PRIMARY SCHOOL
In light of the dangerous situation now facing the schoolchildren trying to cross Canning Highway in Ardross without a crossing guard - (1) Will the minister table the report on the independent review of the children’s crossings program of Western Australia? (2) Will the minister define the criteria used to place or remove traffic wardens; for example, is it a minimum of 20 students and 750 cars equalling a product of 15 000? (3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
In light of the dangerous situation now facing the schoolchildren trying to cross Canning Highway in Ardross without a crossing guard - (1) Will the minister table the report on the independent review of the children’s crossings program of Western Australia? (2) Will the minister define the criteria used to place or remove traffic wardens; for example, is it a minimum of 20 students and 750 cars equalling a product of 15 000? (3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE
AnswerView source ↗
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(1) Will the minister table the report on the independent review of the children’s crossings program of Western Australia? (2) Will the minister define the criteria used to place or remove traffic wardens; for example, is it a minimum of 20 students and 750 cars equalling a product of 15 000? (3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(2) Will the minister define the criteria used to place or remove traffic wardens; for example, is it a minimum of 20 students and 750 cars equalling a product of 15 000? (3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(1) Will the minister table the report on the independent review of the children’s crossings program of Western Australia? (2) Will the minister define the criteria used to place or remove traffic wardens; for example, is it a minimum of 20 students and 750 cars equalling a product of 15 000? (3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(2) Will the minister define the criteria used to place or remove traffic wardens; for example, is it a minimum of 20 students and 750 cars equalling a product of 15 000? (3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(3) Considering that 43 000 cars travel on Canning Highway each day, what dispensation did the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee give to that fact when making its decision to axe the crossing guard at that location? (4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(4) Will the minister review the decision to withdraw the traffic warden from St Benedict’s Primary School before a child using that unguarded crossing is killed? (5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(5) If not, will the minister apply the same criteria to government members’ schools? Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
Mr J.C. KOBELKE replied: I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
I thank the member for some notice of the question. (1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
(1)-(5) I received a copy of the report today. I was told that we had only one, but I give the member an undertaking that I will get another copy produced. I do not have the report here today, but as soon as I can I will provide her with a copy. Members are probably well aware that the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is chaired by a WA Police inspector and was established by Parliament. It basically follows guidelines. Its recommendation two years ago was that there were not the requirements for a type A crossing at the location in question. Main Roads had already moved to put two pedestrian signals either side of that location. The location did not meet the criteria because the number of students required is at least 20 and a requisite number of vehicles is required, and then the multiplier, of which the member is aware, is applied. I know that the member is very keen that they should change, but those criteria have not changed and the judgment was made on that basis. Thirteen student pedestrians were using the crossing in 2001, which was short of the 20 students required. Another audit taken in May of this year found that the largest number of student pedestrians using the crossing was 10, so the crossing clearly falls short of the criteria. The role of the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee is to protect students of all 1 072 schools across the state. The question is how we allocate resources. It is most appropriate that a set of parameters must be met, and it is appropriate that those parameters must be reassessed from time to time. However, under the current criteria this crossing clearly falls short of the requirement for a type A crossing. As the member is aware, a type B crossing has been offered. I understand that people have been willing to put up the money so that it could take place, but apparently the school is not interested in that. A role that I take very seriously - and I support the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee in the role it plays - is that of trying to find the best method of providing protection for all our students crossing thousands and thousands of roads and getting to thousands of schools across the state. It is only appropriate that if we are to protect all those students, we do it by a proper process under which criteria are set and enforced. In this case it was very clear two years ago that the St Benedict’s school was not meeting the criteria. The then minister indicated that the crossing would continue because the school would run a campaign to get more students to use the crossing. As is apparent from the numbers I have given, the numbers have continued to decline. In light of the work undertaken by Main Roads to install two sets of signalled pedestrian crossings on either side of the location, it seems it would not meet the criteria. If the school can provide evidence that the numbers have changed, I am happy to have the School Crossing and Road Safety Committee re-evaluate the crossing.
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.