Driver behaviour
6.1
Serious concerns were raised throughout the inquiry regarding the role driver behaviour plays, and how it contributes to road crashes. Stakeholders called for further enforcement measures and education on various subjects, such as driver distraction, road sharing and safe driving.
6.2
Poor driver behaviour is a particular concern on rural and regional roads. According to Safer Australian Roads and Highways (SARAH) road users are far more likely to be injured or killed on rural and regional roads than they are in urban areas:
One thing we've been emphasising is what happens in our regional communities. As you would be well aware, the rate of injury and death in our regional communities is roughly five times what it is in urban areas. So we have to ensure that our rural and regional roads are built but also that the enforcement that occurs changes attitudes. We must focus on improving outcomes for those who live in regional communities. It requires improved technological enforcement.
6.3
The Australian Road Safety Foundation (ARSF) submitted that driver behaviour, and attitude is notably worse on regional roads in comparison to city driving. The committee was told that:
1 in 3 Australians admit they are more likely to break a road rule when driving on rural roads.
Drivers are 1.5 times more likely to speed on rural roads than they are on city or suburban streets.
Australian road users are twice as likely to overtake on a double line if driving on a rural road, compared to city or suburban streets.
More than half of drivers who admit they are more likely to break rules on rural roads would do so because they are less likely to be caught by police.
1 in 4 drivers believe that rural road rules should be relaxed to allow for higher speed limits, higher blood alcohol limits and mobile phone usage.
Safety perceptions and attitudes
6.4
The committee heard that community perceptions of the cause of road crashes have shifted substantially over recent years. In 2017, the Department of Infrastructure, Transport, Regional Development and Communications (Department of Infrastructure) conducted a survey of community attitudes to road safety which revealed that while speed (41 per cent), drink driving (39 per cent) are still considered prominent factors leading to road crashes, there has been a strong upward trend in the perception that distraction through mobile phone use is the principal cause of road crashes, with over one in three respondents (35 per cent) citing this, up from 22 per cent in 2013.
Distraction
6.5
Submitters highlighted that there are a wide variety of everyday activities that may contribute to driver distraction-related crashes. The committee heard that driver distraction can result from a number of sources such as in-vehicle distractions, including passenger interactions, mobile phone use and other electronic devices, and external sources of distraction, such as advertising and road signs or events outside the vehicle.
6.6
Both the Royal Automobile Club of Victoria (RACV) and Austroads submitted that distraction is a significant road safety risk which has been identified to be a factor in at least 16 per cent of accidents on Australian roads, while international research suggests that up to 37 per cent of road trauma involves driver distraction. The RACV cited a recent study which found that drivers engaged in a non-driving activity (while driving) every 96 seconds.
6.7
In relation to this, the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) submitted that "of the 'fatal five', driver distraction is the least understood, least enforceable, and has a far greater impact on fatal and serious road trauma than current data suggests". Aside from anecdotal evidence, there were no statistics available before the committee on the extent to which distraction causes crashes.
6.8
In its submission, the Insurance Australia Group (IAG) called for the Australian Government to commit to sustained public health campaigns on key behavioural issues influencing driver behaviour, including distracted driving.
6.9
In addition to the other general distractions discussed in this chapter, the Australian Motorcycle Council advised that signage placement is often a source of distraction for motorcycle riders. It was argued, however, that this issue receives less attention compared to other types of distractions such as texting or calling while driving.
6.10
The Australasian New Car Assessment Program (ANCAP) advised that technological solutions, for example, advanced driver distraction recognition systems, may offer a potential reduction in risk. While such systems will be made mandatory for all registrations from 2026 under the European Union General Safety Regulation, ANCAP was unaware of any work to assign Australian Design Rules (ADR) status to similar technologies in Australia. It recommended that Australia should mandate new vehicle safety technology in the same timeframe as the European Union.
Mobile phone use - attitudes and enforcement
6.11
Several stakeholders emphasised the need for more enforcement action – specifically, to support education around the use of mobile phones in vehicles. It was also noted that the impact using a mobile phone has on crash risk is difficult to ascertain, as is the proportion of drivers using mobile phones while driving.
6.12
The committee heard that data on mobile phone use is not routinely collected when a crash occurs. Maurice Blackburn also noted that anecdotal evidence from transport workers indicates an increase in the number of handheld devices used while driving. The Amy Gillett Foundation called for this data to be collected and used to provide insight into the involvement of distractions in crashes, particularly from mobile devices.
6.13
The committee was told that the continuing introduction of new electronic features on devices provide additional sources of potential driver distraction. IAG emphasised the importance of consumer education, and argued that "it's also about understanding how these features work and not being overwhelmed by too much distractibility in vehicles".
6.14
IAG also pointed to the need to change attitudes toward phone use, and submitted that "we need to 'de-socialise' mobile phone use in the car as an okay and acceptable thing". It was suggested that software-based solutions could block mobile phone use while driving:
In terms of the technology, whether it's at the manufacturer level, at the telco level or in various apps, it could stop access. A lot of it is still about consumer choice and consumers opting into it. I'm not sure how we bridge that it's not okay, unless we actually get people to understand, much like people understand the concept of a designated driver.
6.15
The committee heard that, at present, these devices and software solutions are largely unregulated from an automotive perspective and there are no industry or government guidelines currently in effect. The Federal Council of Automotive Industries (FCAI) suggested that mobile devices be designed to operate in an automotive environment. Specifically, it recommended that:
…governments need to consider developing a set of industry standards for portable and nomadic devices to prevent inappropriate use by a driver whilst in the automotive environment’.
6.16
Other submitters, including the Victorian Motorcycle Council (VMC) and SARAH supported the use of technology to reduce the impact of mobile phone use on road user distraction. SARAH recommended the use of mobile phone detection cameras to identify and enforce driver distractedness:
Camera enforcement is a mature technology and indeed can be used not just for speeding but for identifying both distracted driving and lack of seat belt wearing by drivers/front seat passengers so increasing the cost/benefit ratio.
6.17
The VMC concurred that a focus on detection, as well as penalties, would be a much more effective strategy:
Increased penalties may act as a deterrent, however we believe that improved probability of detection will be a more effective deterrent. With a wary eye to civil liberties and privacy concerns, we cautiously support the use of technology to reduce the impact of smart phone use on road user distraction.
Speed management
6.18
Evidence provided to the committee identified speed as a key risk factor in road traffic injuries. It was argued that higher travel speeds result in a greater risk of fatality or serious injury in the event of a crash.
6.19
The committee heard that speed management is an essential component of any road safety strategy that aims to reduce or eliminate road deaths and injury.
Speed limits
6.20
Stakeholders generally indicated support for improved enforcement practices, particularly to ensure a greater compliance with speed limits.
6.21
However, enforcement of current speed limits is not the only issue. Submitters also expressed concern that current speed limits may not be supported by appropriate road infrastructure.
6.22
The RACV, for example, submitted that "just because a road has always had a certain speed limit, doesn’t mean that the speed limit is safe for that road". The RACV argued that an urgent review of regional speed limits – prioritising roads where crashes are occurring, or are most likely to occur – is required.
6.23
Austroads submitted that "there is a 30 per cent improvement in road safety performance for every 10km/h reduction in speed".Austroads also argued that:
The speed limits in regional and remote areas are high and do not necessarily reflect the risks of travelling on lower quality roads or in the absence of adequate infrastructure.
6.24
The RACV expanded their point by suggesting that in lieu of better infrastructure, the focus should be on reducing speeds:
In areas where infrastructure investment is not economically sound, or may be some years away, the safety of the road can also be improved by reducing the speed limit.
6.25
The Australian Road Research Board (ARRB) told the committee that an informed discussion about an appropriate strategic response will require better data and improved intelligence on road conditions across the country. The ARRB argued that:
…funding is required for compiling data on local roads to map risk, speeds, crashes and road condition ratings of all major council roads in Australia.
Management of speed limits on rural and regional roads
6.26
It was noted that, on regional roads in particular, the speed that a driver chooses will affect their travel time.
6.27
The ARRB raised the issue of reduced speed limits in regional and remote areas specifically, and argued that:
This is a localised problem on high speed rural roads where there is a clear lack of infrastructure investment. Reduced speeds on these local roads will unequivocally result in reduced crashes. But for locals this may mean reduced connectivity, greater travel time, and more exposure time on the road.
6.28
To alleviate the "trepidation in reducing these limits" submitters called for community education about safe speeds, specifically in relation to the greater road safety benefits of reduced speeds (compared to the cost of slightly longer trips).
6.29
The Western Australian Local Government Association (WALGA) noted that while it is supportive of targeted speed limit reductions, the effectiveness of these measures is dependent on ongoing consultation with local government. In addition, WALGA stated that:
Underlying that ambition is the assumption that transforming the road network is simply a matter of upgrading roads from the current minimum standard to safe system quality; however, the effort and investment required to achieve this is largely unknown.
Speed limits and vulnerable road users
6.30
The Pedestrian Council of Australia (PCA) argued that "mobility is always the constant enemy of road safety. If we all did 10 km an hour, no-one would be killed on the roads. But that's impossible".
6.31
The Amy Gillett Foundation also argued that "lower speed and corresponding lower speed limits are vital for meaningful action on vulnerable road user safety". In addition, Victoria Walks advised the committee that the risk of serious injury to vulnerable road users is considerably reduced at speeds below 30 km/h.
6.32
According to WALGA, measures to lower speed limits in areas of high-volume use by pedestrians (or other vulnerable groups) are more effective when planned in consultation with the relevant local government and the community.
6.33
The National Road Safety Strategy (NRSS) Inquiry Report explored the impact of speed on vulnerable road users, and called for vehicle manufacturers and importers to be a part of the speed management solution.
6.34
The FCAI told the committee that in relation to in-vehicle technology, "vehicle systems are increasingly capable of informing drivers of speed restriction compliance through road sign recognition capabilities".
6.35
ANCAP submitted that various speed management systems, such as Intelligent speed assistance (ISA) systems (advisory system) should be adopted as Australian industry standard, and Speed Limit Information Function (SLIF) (advisory system) and Speed Control Function (SCF) are already included in ANCAP ratings from 2018.
Speed enforcement technology
6.36
Many submitters, including the RACV, Austroads and the Royal Australian College of Surgeons (RACS), argued strongly that the adoption of speed enforcement technologies would reduce road trauma – specifically speed-related crashes – and promote safer roads for all motorists.
6.37
Similarly, Transurban argued that:
…a focus on automated enforcement for speed through the deployment of average-speed cameras, mobile-phone detection cameras and closed lane enforcement will support safe driving behaviours.
6.38
SARAH also submitted that the increased use of speed enforcement technology would be an effective means of reducing death and injury – particularly on regional roads. It was argued that:
We must focus on improving outcomes for those who live in regional communities. It requires improved technological enforcement… Indeed, the camera enforcement technology that has just been implemented in New South Wales, with forward-facing cameras for people who are touching their phones, can also absolutely be applied to seatbelt use and speeding right now. If we can change behaviour on those roads because people have an incentive, we will save lives.
6.39
In addition, SARAH highlighted the need for "complementary community communication strategies to ensure that people recognise that it's their responsibility to look to the road ahead".
6.40
The RACV advised that it supports both covert and overt speed enforcement because "it reinforces the 'anywhere, anytime' message that drivers can expect their speed to be measured on a regular basis in all locations".
6.41
The RACV noted, however, that "fines are sometimes viewed as 'revenue raising’ by the public rather than a genuine road safety measure", and this is something that needs to be taken into account by policy-makers.
6.42
It was argued that education and transparency (in relation to the road safety camera system) would build public confidence. The RACV, for example, suggested a review of demerit points systems, and argued that consideration should be given to decreasing fines for low-level speeding and increasing demerit points, in order to reflect "that speed enforcement is about safety and not revenue raising".
6.43
Similarly, Dr John Crozier, stressed the importance of educating the public:
So talking in partnership, particularly educational fora; moving the message that speed control is actually a very significant part of a safe system and that enforcement infringement notices, point-to-point or other speed management processes, are not about revenue raising.
Point to point cameras
6.44
The committee heard that point to point cameras can operate over long lengths of the road network, and therefore can encourage compliance with speed limits across a greater length of the road network. The NRSS Inquiry, for example, found that the "under-used Time over Distance or Point to Point approaches have great potential for expanded operations".
6.45
A number of stakeholders, including SARAH, also agreed with the use of point to point cameras for all vehicles. When questioned in relation to the effectiveness of point-to-point speed technology, SARAH proposed that "as part and parcel of Commonwealth funding we should be requiring all new roads or all upgraded roads to have a point-to-point camera system".
6.46
Similarly, the Australasian Trauma Society (ATS) proposed that infrastructure investment should be linked to discreet KPIs, such as the introduction of point to point cameras. In evidence, ATS stated:
But say you see an area where speed is definitely linked to deaths on black spots and you could easily implement point-to-point speed cameras, and this will have the effect of slowing the traffic down and decreasing the deaths. That's the sort of initiative where if you say to the states, 'If you do this, we'll fund you for this,' and they choose those KPIs, they get the funding for the roads and for doing the job in reducing the incidence of deaths or serious injuries in particular areas.
6.47
The NSW Government submitted that speed cameras have been proven to make roads safer through improved driver behaviour by reducing speeding and, in turn, the number and severity of crashes. The committee heard that in NSW, speed camera enforcement includes fixed digital speed cameras, red light speed cameras, mobile speed cameras and heavy vehicle average speed cameras.
6.48
When questioned regarding the reason average speed cameras are not used for the general driving population, the NSW Government stated that:
At the time it was developed specifically in response to an increase in heavy vehicle crashes that were leading to fatalities on key freight routes across regional New South Wales… But that policy setting in New South Wales has been retained and so, at this point, part of that broader suite of the speed camera strategy is only being applied for heavy-vehicle enforcement.
6.49
However, it was acknowledged that, in relation to applying average speed cameras across the general driving population, "any increase in the level of safety treatments across the network is likely to improve road safety".
6.50
Similarly, representatives from the Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads (TMR) told the committee that the Queensland Government will be increasing the deployment of point to point speed cameras, capturing both light and heavy vehicles. The committee was told that:
We see it as a very highly effective manner in which to address the issue of speeding systemically on the network, and that's borne out in research that we're aware of from experiences in Europe, particularly the UK.
6.51
Dr Crozier also advised that "point-to-point was part of the agreed start point for the 2011-2020 road strategy", and noted that:
It's an essential element. It's a proven technology. It has cheaper recurrent installation cost. It's greatly appreciated by the countries that have road users who vote or comment on it. It will deliver recurrent proven benefits in an automated same-standard way for all road users.
6.52
The Western Australian Government advised the committee that its single point-to-point camera had made an impact, and had resulted in reduced speeds and improvements and reductions in crashes.
Committee view
6.53
Driver distraction, as a road safety issue, deserves to receive increased focus. Throughout the course of the inquiry, the committee noted that the causes of road accidents are varied and can often be attributed to a combination of factors. Specifically, it was noted that it is difficult for road safety authorities and researchers to accurately measure how a driver is distracted and whether such actions have been the main cause of a crash. A crucial step in reducing accidents due to driver distraction will be to improve public awareness about the risks of these activities undertaken while driving. There is also a need to develop a deeper understanding of crash causation and the role of distractedness, which could inform tailored road safety responses and treatments – particularly for local and regional roads.
6.54
It is the committee's view that accurate, readily accessible data is fundamental to an evidence-based Safe System approach to road safety. Data is critical to understanding the causes of crashes, developing appropriate countermeasures, and evaluating the effectiveness of road safety initiatives and strategies.
6.55
The committee recommends that the Office of Road Safety assist in the facilitation of research to identify the incidence, frequency and type of driver distraction in crash data.
6.56
The committee recommends that the Office of Road Safety work with states and territories to expand crash data collection and reporting on the incidence, frequency and type of driver distraction.
6.57
The committee accepts the evidence that achieving different speed regimes is not just a matter of changing the posted speed limit, but also relies on community buy-in.
6.58
The committee is of the view that improvements need to be made to crash data collection, including information on the incidence, frequency and duration of driver distractions. The committee also considers increased community awareness (of the impact using mobile phones while driving has on both driving performance and safety) is necessary.
6.59
The committee recommends the Office of Road Safety works with states and territories to fund community awareness campaigns on the impact of driver distractions on road safety.
6.60
The committee is strongly of the view that mobile devices themselves can be utilised more effectively to prevent their use while driving and calls on the government to continue to liaise with the technology manufacturers to enhance the safety mechanisms of their products.
6.61
The committee heard evidence that point-to-point speed cameras are a very effective speed management tool, but they are currently not fully utilised for all vehicles across the country. The committee is of the view that their use should strongly encouraged, and their installation tied to infrastructure funding where appropriate.
6.62
The committee recommends that the Australian Government continue to work with state and territory governments and police agencies to increase the number of point-to-point speed cameras and mobile phone detection cameras.
Technology
6.63
Stakeholders highlighted a number of technologies which can improve road safety. There is technology available which can significantly reduce or eliminate the type of driver errors which increase the likelihood of an accident occurring, as well as limit the severity of road trauma if an accident occurs. These include a wide variety of driver assistance and safety applications, as well as automated technologies.
6.64
The FCAI, for example noted that:
Automated vehicles have the greatest potential to provide a range of significant safety benefits to the Australian community by reducing and removing human error from the driving task. It is estimated that somewhere between 70 – 80% of accidents can be attributed to human error.
6.65
Maurice Blackburn also submitted that the introduction of automated vehicles has the potential to completely change the nature of road use in Australia:
Removing human error, fully automated vehicles have the potential to improve road safety, reduce road congestion and benefit those who cannot currently drive cars on the road due to disability.
6.66
ANCAP, along with the Electric Vehicle Council, outlined a range of new vehicle safety features and technologies which could play a significant role in reducing crashes and resultant injuries. These included lane assist, conditional speed limits, pedestrian avoidance, vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communication, blind spot monitoring and autonomous emergency braking.
6.67
Similarly, the RACV espoused the benefits of speed management technologies, such as Intelligent Cruise Control and Intelligent Speed Assist, and argued that "such systems can be set to help drivers not exceed the speed limit and adjust speeds when another vehicle is detected ahead".
Educating drivers about road safety technology
6.68
The committee received evidence from a number of stakeholders about the need for drivers to be educated about the benefits of road safety features, as well as how to use the technology designed to achieve these benefits.
6.69
The Electric Vehicle Council, for example, argued that educating consumers about the developments in vehicle technology is necessary, and would allow them to make informed decisions when purchasing vehicles. It was submitted that:
Given that approximately 90% of crashes involve some form of human error, education on the driving and safety benefits of electrification and automation is necessary to advance road safety and driving behaviour.
6.70
The RACV argued that limited awareness, rather than affordability, was impeding the update of newer vehicles, and the incorporation of driver assist technologies. It recommended measures to incentivise specific high-risk groups:
Younger and novice drivers who are over-represented in the crash statistics also tend to be those with less to spend on a vehicle. Used Car Safety Ratings, with its emphasis on rating older vehicles, is of particular benefit to individuals looking to purchase a safe vehicle on a budget. RACV would strongly support activities that promote this aspect of the ratings.
6.71
The Motorcycle Council of NSW argued that the benefits of braking technologies need to be realised, and that "educational campaigns to educate riders about the use of ABS are urgently needed".
6.72
ANCAP advised that it is working with member organisations – including the Australian Government – to promote the uptake of new automated vehicle safety technology. It noted that:
Through rewarding vehicle brands and educating consumers, ANCAP is able to encourage the early adoption of new safety systems that exceed any minimum regulatory standard.
6.73
In line with the recommendations of the NRSS Inquiry Report, submitters called for coordination of activities across key industry stakeholders, including manufacturers, importers and telecommunication bodies.
Committee view
6.74
There are a many potential road safety improvements available through advances in technology. However, these improvements will not be fully realised without education and promotion of these benefits.
6.75
The committee is of the view that the body of evidence in this area will only increase, allowing future policy decisions to be firmly grounded in evidence. The committee supports the development of a comprehensive understanding of vehicle technologies and associated benefits and to develop appropriate measures to promote increased uptake.
6.76
That committee recommends the Office of Road Safety liaise with the Transport and Infrastructure Council with a view to conducting further research into the potential benefits to be gained from various emerging driver assistance technologies.
Driver education and training
6.77
The committee heard that driver education is a central component of the Safe System approach. Many submissions commented on the content of current learner driver programs and how they might be improved.
6.78
For example, the RACV emphasised the importance of ensuring that driver training and young driver education programs are evidence-based and well evaluated. It proposed a number of alternatives to conventional driver training and education, such as increased supervised driving, graduated licensing and on-road driving experience, as effective ways to develop higher-order cognitive skills related to driving, especially for novice drivers.
6.79
The Victorian Motorcycle Council indicated its support for Victoria's graduate licensing scheme. It was noted that "the anecdotal feedback is that it is successful in preparing riders for road riding". It also expressed the view that riders licensed under the previous approach would benefit from experiencing the revised program. It was argued that:
Some kind of overt encouragement for riders to update their skills would therefore be beneficial and the existing rider training infrastructure would be available to take advantage of such programs.
6.80
A number of stakeholders questioned whether current driver education arrangements were satisfactory, and commented on opportunities for the implementation and improvement of road safety training programs for road users. The Australian Road Safety Foundation (ARSF) noted, for example, that "obtaining a license is recognized as the minimal level of competency", and there is "no incentive to undertake additional learning".
6.81
However, other stakeholders reflected on whether the value of professional driver training is overstated, noting that it may encourage overconfidence, particularly in young drivers.
Community-led road safety campaigns
6.82
The committee heard that as part of its 2021 Road Safety Plan, the NSW Government undertook an independent review of advertising programs to ensure that they are supporting the sorts of behaviours and outcomes that lead to people reducing their risk on the road. The review demonstrated that:
…informational, supportive and positive messaging of campaigns… has been very successful in supporting the full suite of behaviours around reducing alcohol-related crashes.
6.83
The committee was also advised that the length of a campaign also had bearing on its effectiveness, because "longer term campaigns of strategies which evolve over time have actually been very successful".
6.84
Locally developed campaigns were also promoted as a method for increasing community buy-in. For example, Road Trauma Support Services Victoria (RTSSV) explained that testimony from local road trauma survivors can increase community buy-in for new road safety measures and shift behaviours and attitudes. Survivor stories form a central component of RTSSV’s restorative justice programs, and the committee understands that the University of Melbourne is currently undertaking an evaluation of RTSSV’s volunteer program.
6.85
The committee heard that the low rate of licence participation in Indigenous communities contributes to a cycle of increased contact with the justice system. The availability of targeted programs, which work to divert Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people away from punitive prosecution and enforcement, and toward education and licensing, was raised by RTSSV. Licensing was described as a 'big issue' in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and the committee was told that:
In rural and remote areas where licensing is quite difficult…It's hard to go through that rite of passage, which is getting your driver's licence and becoming independent. We know driving is very much about independence, particularly in rural, remote, outer regional and outer suburban areas.
6.86
While acknowledging the importance of licensing programs, RTSSV described how support programs and community leadership – particularly in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities – are vital to improving road trauma for vulnerable users:
Having these types of support programs to make sure that everyone is on a level playing field is a really important way of reducing inequity in this area… People access programs that they feel comfortable with and that's generally if they're run by the local community. That's really important.
Road sharing
6.87
The Amy Gillet Foundation urged active revision regarding the way that learner drivers are taught and assessed about sharing the road with cyclists and heavy vehicles. Specifically, the Foundation promoted the need to increase awareness and improve attitudes towards vulnerable road users.
6.88
The Amy Gillet Foundation cited a study of cyclist-related content in the driver licensing process, which found that it contains very little which teaches new drivers about sharing the road safely. The group called for additional content to be included in the driver training process – particularly in relation to sharing the road with vulnerable road users.
6.89
The addition of vulnerable road user awareness training as part of the national heavy vehicle driver licensing process, was also recommended by the Amy Gillet Foundation. It highlighted Cycle Aware (a research project) and Sharing Roads Safely (a training program for heavy vehicle drivers) as two initiatives that have realised significant reductions in road incidents. It was explained that Sharing Roads Safely is already having a positive impact of drivers’ awareness, behaviour and attitudes towards vulnerable road users.
Heavy vehicle awareness
6.90
The ARRB provided statistics which indicate that heavy trucks were involved in 14.7 per cent of fatalities in 2016, despite making up just 3.13 per cent of registered vehicles and 7.2 per cent of vehicle kilometres travelled.
6.91
The Australian Trucking Association (ATA) highlighted research undertaken by National Transport Insurance, which found that 83 per cent of the fatal multi-vehicle crashes (involving trucks in its insured fleet) are not the fault of the truck driver. Despite these figures, the ATA informed the committee that heavy vehicle awareness is a significant gap in driver training.
6.92
NatRoad proposed a number of initiatives directed at improving light vehicle behaviour around heavy vehicles. These included the preparation of state and territory guidance material about sharing the road with heavy vehicles and school-based driver education. NatRoad called for education about how to share the road safely with heavy vehicles to be made a funding priority for governments, particularly when young drivers first apply for a licence.
6.93
NatRoad further advised that "obtaining consistency in messaging and conducting a suitable education programme would best sit with the newly created Office of Road Safety". The role of the Office of Road Safety (ORS) was considered in Chapter 2.
6.94
The National Heavy Vehicle Regulator (NHVR) noted its support for a competency-based approach to heavy vehicle licensing, rather than a 'time served' approach. It was submitted that, in relation to the National Heavy Vehicle Driver Competency Framework (NHVDCF) scheme, the units of competency should include a greater focus on non-technical driving skills, which are key elements of safe heavy vehicle operations. It was argued that this could include driver fatigue and distraction management.
First aid education
6.95
The issue of First Aid was discussed at various points during the inquiry, specifically in relation to increasing road users' awareness of what to do in the event of road trauma.
6.96
St John Ambulance Australia urged the committee to consider recommending that basic first aid awareness training be included as part of the licensing process for all road users. They cited the following statistics, as well as multiple sources for evidence on harm minimisation, and the value of pre-hospital care for crash victims:
the time that 90 per cent of ambulances take to arrive at emergency incidents ranges from 12.1 to 20.8 minutes;
the first three to five minutes following a road traffic collision are considered crucial and, in this time, there are a series of time-sensitive actions that are essential to preserving life;
it takes only four minutes for a person injured in a road traffic collision to die from hypoxia (a blocked airway); and
it is estimated that up to 85 per cent of preventable, pre-hospital deaths (resulting from a road traffic collision) may be due to hypoxia.
6.97
St John Ambulance Australia explained that it already runs two online training courses – Click to save and First@scene – which are designed to equip bystanders with the skills to deliver lifesaving first aid to victims of a road traffic collision:
These short courses directly target the first aid knowledge and skills for the types of injuries common to road traffic collisions. The aim is for bystanders to have the knowledge and skills to provide immediate treatment until advanced care arrives. These courses take around 30 minutes to complete and prepare participants to respond at a road traffic collision.
6.98
The committee was advised that St John Ambulance Australia already deliver online courses in Western Australia and the Northern Territory. Further, it was noted that basic first aid training is something incorporated into Norway's licensing system.
6.99
It is noted that the Senate Rural Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee previously considered St John Ambulance Australia’s proposal to integrate first aid awareness into the current driver licensing system. In 2016, the committee recommended that Austroads work with state and territory driver licensing authorities to introduce compulsory first aid training as a condition of receiving a learner's permit or renewing a driver's licence. The government noted the recommendation in its June 2020, but argued that there was "a lack of evidence that basic first aid would reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries".
6.100
This contrasts with some committee members' views, that are based on the evidence provided by St John Ambulance Australia during this inquiry.
Support for disadvantaged drivers
6.101
The committee was told that there are a number of vulnerable groups, including those from economically, cultural or geographically disadvantaged groups. For these groups, access to services and resources can be difficult, and have an impact on driver training and education. Factors cited as problematic include a shortage of licensed drivers able to act as supervisory drivers, lower rates of car ownership, the high cost of petrol in remote areas and the high cost of professional driving lessons.
6.102
The committee was advised that the Queensland Government funds activities which assist disadvantaged learner drivers to obtain and retain a driver's licence. TMR advised that it has developed a volunteer driver mentor program to support learner drivers who do not have access to a supervisor (or a registered vehicle) to complete their logbook hours. It was noted that the program:
…funds the learner's permit for identified at-risk youth and then puts them through a program where they will get a portion of their learner driver hours from a formal driving instructor from a driver training school.
6.103
The Australian Motorcycle Council told the committee that measures to promote advanced skills training for riders – such as subsidies – would provide "a good return on investment by government" by enhancing safety and reducing crashes.
6.104
The Victorian Motorcycle Council expressed concern about the cost of the Victorian motorcycle graduate licensing scheme. Noting that the scheme is expensive, the Council told the committee that "it is feared that this may directly increase the likelihood of unlicensed riding". To overcome this problem, it was proposed that subsidised advanced motorcycle rider training programs could be offered to riders: to update skills and, in turn, reduce the number of crashes.
6.105
IAG also encouraged states and territories to work together to share education and road safety campaign information, to align messaging and use resources efficiently to tackle the most urgent aspects of safety on the road.
Committee view
6.106
Driver education is vitally important: whether it be during the initial licensing stage, to promote ongoing development, to further driver/rider awareness of all other road users or to attain specific skills such as basic first aid. It is also an area that requires continued vigilance, and something that should be a priority for all levels of government.
6.107
Driver training is often viewed as a matter for inexperienced or novice drivers. However, evidence provided to the committee indicates that experienced drivers would also benefit from further training throughout their driving lives. This is particularly relevant for motorcyclists.
6.108
Education programs and campaigns are a crucial element of road safety, and have the potential to dramatically effect cultural change in driving behaviour. The development of these programs require ongoing investment by all stakeholders, and the committee urges the government to work with states and territories to ensure that programs are relevant, and targeted to reduce road trauma.
6.109
The committee recommends that the Australian Government support future driver education campaigns with an emphasis on the development and demonstration of safe driving attitudes that address the following topics:
road sharing and pedestrian, motorcycle, bicycle and heavy vehicle awareness;
safe driving in different environments, with an emphasis on regional and rural roads; and
the dangers of distracted driving and the need to remain alert to the driving task.
6.110
The committee received evidence that removing and reducing barriers to allow disadvantaged groups to access appropriate driver training and education would have a positive impact on road safety, particularly in rural and regional areas. While licensing is a matter for each individual state and territory, the committee urges the Australian Government to consider ways it can support programs which assist disadvantaged and vulnerable groups to access initial and continuing driver education, and awareness training.
6.111
The Committee recommends that Australian Government review funding for programs that reduce barriers to disadvantaged groups obtaining and retaining driver licences.
6.112
On the basis of the evidence before it, the committee supports online or in-person first aid training, not only for learner drivers, but also for drivers seeking to renew their licence. The committee notes that in responding to a similar recommendation – made by the Rural and Regional Affairs and Transport References Committee in 2016 – the Australian Government relayed the concern of state and territory road agencies regarding a perceived additional burden on learners. However, the committee is of the view that the potential benefits of the proposed 30-minute online training course, significantly outweigh the minimal burden placed on drivers.
6.113
The committee recommends that the Australian Government work with state and territory governments to introduce compulsory first aid training as a condition of receiving a learner's permit or renewing a driver’s licence.