Webber sticks it up the Nanny State
in [Aussie Drivers]
|
From: D Walford on 30 Mar 2010 06:49 On 30/03/2010 9:35 PM, Neil Gerace wrote: > D Walford wrote: > >> Spinning the wheels and accelerating quickly makes him a bad driver? > > A good driver should be able to prevent it. Of course he could have prevented it if he had wanted to but he probably wasn't familiar with Vic law which makes wheel spin a hanging offence, it still doesn't make him a bad driver. Daryl
From: Noddy on 30 Mar 2010 06:45 "D Walford" <dwalford(a)internode.on.net> wrote in message news:4bb133c5$0$8775$c3e8da3(a)news.astraweb.com... > That is true but what I'm saying is the law is wrong and its also wrongly > applied especially in this case. > Police do have discretion with "hoon" legislation, my son was given a > warning when he got his AE86 a bit sideways going around a roundabout but > it appears that in the Hamilton case the cop was out to make a name for > himself. The cop probably had no idea who was in the car, and would have pulled it up regardless. > I don't have an issue with the law if there is danger to people or > property but that clearly wasn't the case with Hamilton. So louts lining the carparks of industrial estates with rubber late at night is okay with you then? -- Regards, Noddy.
From: Noddy on 30 Mar 2010 06:53 "Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message news:1269910824.801196(a)idlwebserver.idl.com.au... > When they do it in an F1 car, on the race track, the video footage is > used in TV ads. When the same driver does far less in a road vehicle, > the car is impounded. Something just doesn't add up. Yeah, the fact that they're permitted to do it in one venue and not the other. -- Regards, Noddy.
From: D Walford on 30 Mar 2010 06:59 On 30/03/2010 9:34 PM, Neil Gerace wrote: > Doug Jewell wrote: > >> But isn't the point of webber's comments that we are in a nanny state, >> with lots of stupid laws governing everyhting you can and can't do. > > Yes, they are stupid laws. But stupid laws should apply to famous people > the same as the rest of us. Correct but in this case it seems they were applied more harshly simply because he was famous. Littering is a more serious offence than what he did but I doubt throwing some rubbish on the ground would have created a media frenzy as there would be nothing in it for Vic's chief nanny (Ken Lay). Daryl
From: Noddy on 30 Mar 2010 07:10
"Athol" <athol_SPIT_SPAM(a)idl.net.au> wrote in message news:1269921358.127394(a)idlwebserver.idl.com.au... > To plenty of young drivers, seeing an F1 car do a full 360 under a > camera on TV about 20 times a day, as was used in ads a few years ago, > is more likely to result in them trying the same stunt on the road > than seeing some guy light up the back tyres of a Merc off the line at > traffic lights. Very possibly, but then you could also argue that if the F1 driver (I've forgotten his name) was allowed to do what he did in front of a car full of coppers and *not* be charged it might also encourage some to think that such behaviour wasn't considered "hooning" and okay to do on a public road. -- Regards, Noddy. |