ADRA Fight for your rights

It has come to our attention that the Office of Road Safety is currently reviewing the legality of the use of Radar Detectors in Western Australia. Any ban on radar detectors is a revenue generating exercise. Over the last few years, outdated laws banning radar detectors in the UK and USA have all been repealed. Why? There is no evidence anywhere in the world to show that banning radar detectors improves road safety or reduces the road toll.

Evidence to the contrary and tests undertaken by ADRA show that the use of radar detectors assist drivers with staying alert and being more aware of the posted speed limit.

A recent survey of members of the Australian Drivers Rights Association (ADRA) throughout the WA reveals strong opposition to any proposed changes in Legislation, which would result in a ban on the sale or use of detectors in Western Australia. Any ban on the rights of WA drivers to utilise a radar detector will be vigorously defended.

There appears to be a widely held misconception as to the type of people who use radar detectors. A stereotype seems to have been created of radar detector users as inveterate speeders, contemptuous of the law and defiantly determined to endanger their own lives and the lives of others. This stereotype is far from the truth.

Instead of being a means of encouraging speed, our research indicates that radar detection devices are, in fact, a valuable tool in the quest to increase driver awareness and modify unsafe driving behaviour. Furthermore, the enormous safety benefits that flow from the use of the Safety Warning System contained in each device must not be overlooked.

Statistics clearly support our contention that any move to ban the use of Radar Detection Units would not achieve the desired impact on road crashes, fatalities and injuries. Indeed, such a ban could well prove counter-productive to road safety, as it would deny the motoring public the right to utilise a valuable road safety device.

A survey by the respected research firm of Yankelovich Clancy Shulman of 2,00 individuals from all parts of the USA found that detector owners had 23% fewer accidents per mile than non-owners, and drove almost 60,000 miles further between accidents. The study also found that detector owners made significantly greater use of safety belts, confirming their enhanced concern for safety. The typical radar detector user in the USA is a well-educated, middle-aged person holding a sales professional or managerial position.

A 1990 study by Roxani M Gillespie, Insurance Commissioner for the State of California concluded "No credible evidence was presented that radar detector users, as a class, are high speed drivers or that, as a class, they tend to drive in a manner which endangers themselves or others. Indeed the evidence did not show that automobile drivers who use detectors, as a group, travel faster than the general population of motorists". ₂

A random Western Australian sample of almost 200 detector users in 1998 revealed the majority to be self employed males between 25 to 55+ who drive late model cars – the largest group being the Holden Commodore. ₃

The WA Police Service has been alerting drivers to the location of its speed detection devices through the media for some months. Police Media Spokesman, Greg Yench, advised that the Police Service’s decision to publish the locations was one of the means by which the Police hope to achieve a modification in driver behavior. "We want to modify driver behavior. Telling people where the speed detection units are is a way of making drives aware that speed monitoring devices are out there. We hope that this will make them generally more aware of their speed".

We support the Western Australian Police Service’s view and submit that the radar detection aspect of the devices simply mirrors what the Police Service itself does, that is, alert drivers to the location of speed detection devices and make them generally more aware of their speed.

In 1989, the Insurance Commissioner for the State of Maryland (USA) concluded, "A radar detector is a surrogate for a visible patrol car and nothing else". ₄

A "visibility" policy is also employed in the United Kingdom where the location of speed detection devices is brought to the attention of the motoring public through numerous signs warning of their presence.

Peter Kipling of the Auckland Police, Central Traffic Branch, stated that the New Zealand police do not consider the devices to be a problem and had no intention of seeking to have them outlawed.

In the USA, legislators in 40 States have rejected proposals to ban radar detectors.

It has been established in a number of jurisdictions that banning the use of radar detection units does not result in a reduction in the number of road crashes, deaths and injuries.

For example, the use of detectors was banned in Queensland from 1 January 1991. An examination of Queensland’s road accident statistics reveals that the number of crashes, deaths and injuries actually increased in the three years following the ban. ₅

As stated above, we must not overlook the fact that each Radar Detection Unit also contains a Safety Warning System (SWS). The SWS is a valuable aid to motoring safety. The system can be programmed to alert drivers to a number of approaching hazards and motoring conveniences. The SWS will generate an audible warning, which is accompanied by a visual reading specifying the precise nature of the approaching hazard/convenience. To list but a few examples, the SWS has the capacity to inform drivers that they are approaching:

Crosswalks, school bus and school zones.
Railroad crossings (guarded and unguarded).
Road work vehicles.
Construction sites and vehicles.
Service Stations.
This is particularly useful to combat driver fatigue on country roads. Drivers will have the benefit of advance notice of the approaching facility and be encouraged to consider whether they need to "stop, revive, survive".
Emergency vehicles. It will also provide a description of the nature of the emergency vehicle, eg ambulance, fire engine, police car.

The alert will register at least 500m away from the stationary hazards (such as cross walks and railroad crossings), and at least 200m away in the case of mobile hazards (such as emergency vehicles).

On the civil liberty aspect of this issue, we must point out that traffic radar is not privileged communication. It is electronic surveillance and, except in exceptional circumstances, we believe that every citizen has the right to know when the government is monitoring his or her actions.

In summary, while we support our legislators’ admirable desire to make our roads safer, we believe great care must be taken to ensure that we do not "throw the baby out with the bath water". Any action taken to reduce the number of crashes, deaths and injuries on our roads, should not include a measure which has, at best, proven to be ineffective and which could, in fact, prove to be counter-productive.