The National Transport Commission (NTC) is investigating whether changes are required to the current regulatory framework of the Heavy Vehicle National Law (HVNL) in order to improve heavy vehicle compliance with speed limits. The aim of these proposals is to better ensure all parties in the heavy vehicle supply chain comply with speed related requirements, and to reduce the number of heavy vehicle crashes where speed is a contributing factor. Heavy vehicle speeding remains a significant safety issue for the road transport industry. Despite significant improvements in road safety since the 1960s, the transport industry is still one of the most hazardous sectors in Australia. Heavy vehicle crashes impose significant costs on society through injuries to road users resulting in loss of work time, medical costs (and related impacts), road asset damage and the cost of traffic congestion due to crashes and breakdowns. Reducing the incidence of heavy vehicle crashes would lead to significant cost savings. Speed is a major cause of heavy vehicle crashes, and maintaining safe and appropriate vehicle speeds is critical in ensuring the safety of all road users. A range of tools already exist to manage and enforce heavy vehicles speed limits both in the HVNL and in state and territory road safety Acts and regulations. However, a number of stakeholders have proposed the inclusion of additional measures in the HVNL to complement other existing tools and to provide an additional deterrent to heavy vehicle speeding. To this end, the NTC is investigating the following two proposals for amendments to the HVNL: Proposal 1: An evidentiary provision that deems a speed limiter noncompliant if a heavy vehicle is detected travelling at or above 115 km/h Proposal 2: A power to immediately ground heavy vehicles travelling 15 km/h or more over posted or default speed limits. As noted in the National Road Safety Action Plan 2015-2017 Action 10, agreed by the Transport Industries Ministerial Council in November 2014, the NTC has been asked to assess these proposals to encourage safer road use by strengthening the speed compliance provisions of the HVNL. All heavy vehicles of more than 12 tonnes gross vehicle mass (GVM) and all buses more than 5 tonnes GVM are required to be fitted with a speed limiter that is set to 100 km/h. Proposal 1 would see the HVNL amended to include an evidentiary provision that deems a speed limiter noncompliant if a heavy vehicle is detected travelling at or above 115 km/h. Under Proposal 1, evidence of speeding at or above 115 km/h would be taken as prima facie evidence that the speed limiter was defective, and this evidence could then be used to prove the following offences under the HVNL: ??that the vehicle was noncompliant with vehicle standard requirements (section 60), or *?that the speed limiter had been tampered with (section 93). The purpose of this proposal is to create an evidentiary provision that avoids the challenges of determining speed limiter compliance. This means that an offence can be prosecuted more quickly and more simply than currently under either section 60 or section 93 of the HVNL. New South Wales has enacted a similar evidentiary provision in section 162 of the Road Transport Act 2013 (NSW) and considers that it provides an effective compliance tool that focuses on safety. Until the introduction of the HVNL, Queensland also had a provision that enabled a speed-limited vehicle to be issued with a defect notice if the vehicle was detected travelling more than 115 km/h. Proposal 2 involves amending the HVNL to include a power for enforcement officers to ground heavy vehicles (to stop them and prevent them from driving) if they are detected at 15 km/h over the posted speed limit. Grounding a vehicle in these circumstances would ensure that both the driver and the off-road parties in the driver’s logistics supply chain are able to be held responsible for the speeding offence. This proposal would be a change in current speed enforcement practice and would significantly increase penalties for both drivers and off-road parties. Although there are no directly equivalent provisions to Proposal 2, there are a number of comparable tools available under state and territory transport laws such as those relating to antihoon regulation and the suspension and cancellation of registration. In addition, the HVNL includes comparable tools regarding the grounding vehicles for mass, dimension and loading breaches and the grounding of heavy vehicles by defect notice and breaches of vehicle standard requirements. Stakeholder feedback is sought on these proposals, and the following questions: General: 1) Are current speed compliance tools for heavy vehicles effective in securing compliance? If not, why not? 2) Are any additional speed compliance tools required to enhance the existing measures to reduce heavy vehicle speed? Why? Proposal 1: 3) Do you support the introduction of an evidentiary provision that deems a speed limiter noncompliant if a vehicle is detected travelling at or above 115 km/h? Why? 4) Would the introduction of an evidentiary provision be consistent with the agreed amendments to the HVNL’s chain of responsibility regime? Why? 5) Should the existing speed threshold adopted in New South Wales (115 km/h) be re-evaluated? If so, why and at what level should this threshold be set? 6) What defences, if any, should apply if an evidentiary provision that deems a speed limiter noncompliant is introduced? Why? Proposal 2: 7) Do you support the introduction of an additional heavy vehicle grounding power for speeding heavy vehicles? Why? 8) Should this power be applied to all heavy vehicles detected at a level above any speed limit or should it only apply to those detected at a level above the 100 km/h speed limit? Why? What should the threshold be? 9) If a grounding power is created, how could the issue of sensitive, perishable or live loads be managed? How could the issue of liability for grounded loads be managed? 10) If a grounding power is created, what should the time period for grounding be? Why? 11) If you support the adoption of both proposals, should the evidentiary provision and grounding power operate together or separately? Why? Are there other means by which these proposals could be adopted? Submissions will be accepted until 24 June 2016 online at http://www.ntc.gov.au or by mail to: Att: Enforcement approaches for speeding heavy vehicles Heavy Vehicle Compliance and Technology Team National Transport Commission Level 15/628 Bourke Street Melbourne VIC 3000 Following receipt of stakeholder submissions, the NTC will prepare a policy paper for recommendations for transport ministers’ consideration in November 2016. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting