Prev
Next

Mark Webber you are a knob

Tracey Spicer

by Tracey Spicer

30 Mar 05:45am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

14

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

50

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

122

Filed under: Formula One, Mark Webber, Nanny State, Road Toll, Sport

154 comments

Memo Mark Webber: Go back to the Motherland.

Mark Webber struggling with some finer points of table manners

We don’t want your insensitive, ignorant and thoughtless comments here.

Webber tipped the bucket on his homeland after fellow F1 legend Lewis Hamilton was charged with doing burnouts leaving the Albert Park track. 

“It pisses me off coming back here, to be honest. It’s a great country but we’ve got to be responsible for our actions, and it’s certainly a bloody nanny state when it comes to what we can do,” Webber whined.

Right.

So Mark, you’d be happy for there to be no road rules?

For testosterone-fuelled teens to drive like dickheads – to paraphrase the latest Victorian road safety campaign – because you’re sick of “the growing number of rules and regulations”?

Who’s the dickhead now?

I guess you thought it was cool when Justin Williams drove a stolen car at high speeds through the streets of Queanbeyan – your hometown – killing a family of three?

Justin also enjoyed breaking the rules.

He railed against the ‘nanny state’ on his Facebook page, bragging about leading police on wild chases through suburban streets.
We can’t ask him about his thoughts on your comments because, well, he’s dead.

Yes, Mark, you’ve come a long way from Queanbeyan.

You earn millions of dollars a year in prize money and sponsorship because you drive really, really fast – in the confines of a racetrack.

But part of this lucrative deal is being a good role model for impressionable young men.

Mocking well-intentioned laws, like Victoria’s anti-hoon legislation, is irresponsible and stupid.

Victoria’s top traffic cop says you’ve undermined the road safety message.

“Some of Mark Webber’s fan are probably alive today because of ‘nanny state’ road safety laws,” according to Deputy Commissioner Ken Lay.

Still – and this is the crazy bit – almost 80 percent of respondents to the story on news.com.au agree with Webber’s whinge.

This makes me laugh (admittedly, I do have a dark sense of humour).

The people who regularly rail against the nanny state are the same ones who want a crackdown on illegal drugs, and stronger sentences for offenders.

So let me get this straight: you don’t want so many rules and regulations when it comes to stuff you DO like (the right to smoke, drink and gamble with impunity), but you want more rules and regulations when it comes to stuff you DON’T like (say, young people taking drugs).

As Manuel would say in Fawlty Towers, “Que?”

The point is this: the state has a duty of care to its citizens.

Part of Big Brother’s job is to save us from the worst excesses of – well – ourselves.

For a terrific read on this issue (and a good belly laugh) this out:

The British are reportedly outraged over calls by doctors to ban smoking in cars, playgrounds and beaches where children are at risk from passive smoking.

As Cosmo Landesman recently wrote in The Times:

“‘Bloody nanny state! Infringing our civil rights!”’

“Sick kids, dead kids — they don’t even come into it. No, smokers see themselves as the real victims here.”

Hey – hang on for a minute – doesn’t Mark Webber live in Britain?

Didn’t he just criticise Australia for being a nanny state?

And wasn’t the term, ‘nanny state’, actually coined by a Brit, Conservative MP Iain Macleod?

Sigh.

Athletes – they’re just not that bright.

So Mark, the next time you talk to journalists after another of your stellar performances on the track, consider this: how about engaging your brain before putting your mouth into gear?

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

154 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • WKH says:

      04:58am | 30/03/10

      Athletes – they’re just not that bright.
      And who the hell does Tracey Spicer think she is? Why is it I can’t write an article calling you a brainless bimbo because thats exactly what I believe you are?

      Reply

    • MDB says:

      10:20am | 30/03/10

      You just did.

    • Robert says:

      05:46am | 30/03/10

      What a nasty, vindictive and pointless rant. You’ve got numerous facts wrong and are making ludicrous leaps from some mild comments Mark made on a blog (not to journalists but don’t let the facts get in the way of your tactless tirade).

      How on earth do you make the leap from his relatively mild rebuke of a “nanny state” to suggesting he thought it was “cool” that Jason Williams killed a family of three? How insensitive to the family’s relatives and utterly insulting to Mark. Where do you find any grounds to suggest Mark advocates illegal drug use?

      Tracey Spicer - definately just not that bright! Positively vile in fact.

      And you describe yourself as a journalist? You’re the knob lady!

      Reply

    • Paul says:

      02:54pm | 30/03/10

      No, Tracy’s just doing her bit from the Left to support the Victorian Government’s revenue stream, er I mean concern for road safety.

    • Justy says:

      03:37pm | 30/03/10

      Could not have said it better myself.

    • Andrew Goff says:

      04:12pm | 30/03/10

      Damn I wish they would just be honest about it beign a revenue stream.

      Personally, I can’t think of a better way to raise revenue than doubling fines for driving over the speed limit. Don’t destroy the hoons car, confiscate it and auction it off.

      Speed limits in Australia are conservative, but so what? Stay under the limit or cough up. Stop acting all outraged that you can’t get from Geelong to Melbourne 5 minutes faster by travelling 5 Km/h faster. Boo hoo hoo you poor baby.

    • Adam Diver says:

      09:39am | 31/03/10

      Disgraceful Journalism oh opinion piece. Just because its an opinion doesnt mean facts can go out the window and that you can make stupid links to emotive charged stories. 

      Mark Webber ” it’s certainly a bloody nanny state when it comes to what we can do”

      How do you come to the conclusion ” guess you thought it was cool when Justin Williams drove a stolen car at high speeds through the streets of Queanbeyan – your hometown – killing a family of three?”

      Lets See how tracy like this sort of treatment

      Tracey Spicer “Supports the democratic process of China and north Korea with thier safety first approach of removing rights from citizens”

    • annie says:

      05:52am | 30/03/10

      The people who regularly rail against the nanny state are the same ones who want a crackdown on illegal drugs, and stronger sentences for offenders. yes and yes. Sorry tracy but your the knob is your latte getting cold dear. what we dont want is to follow the uk, just take time to see the results of their nany state.

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      06:16am | 30/03/10

      “Who’s the dickhead now?”

      I can see road authorities Australia wide adopting this line as their new slogan. It ticks all the boxes, except you might want to add the words bloody and hell in there somewhere.

      Reply

    • Hmmm says:

      10:56am | 30/03/10

      Strange you mention it Nick…But in Victoria, that is one of the slogans (or something similiar)

    • wolf says:

      06:11am | 30/03/10

      “Victoria’s top traffic cop says you’ve undermined the road safety message.”

      Oh yeah, Ken “Lead Foot” Lay would NEVER do anything to undermine the road safety message.

      My understanding is Mr Webber thought that he was having a private conversation when he made those comments.  I don’t recall him calling a press conference to discuss our “nanny state”.  If he needed to engage his brain, it would be to remember that you can’t trust some journos.

      Although, in some respects he does have a point.  I’m not saying that you should neck a bottle of bourbon and go speeding down suburban streets at 160km/h, no sane person could argue that.  What I’m saying is that to check your speed to ensure you are within the limit you need to take your eyes of the road…

      Reply

    • acker says:

      06:25am | 30/03/10

      What Webber said has some truth, the car driver is getting screwed down by the law. Yet trucks which are involved in a lot of mishaps (RE: Tony Abbott) are hardly thought of. Revenue first I suppose.Trucks should be speed limited to 90kph on the open road.

      Reply

    • eddieb says:

      07:51am | 30/03/10

      Acker, You dont do much driving do you?  Think about what you said there. Already there is an army of caravan towing grey nomads out there dawdling along at 80kph on the open highway , frustrating other motorists and you say limit trucks to 90kph. All this would do is get more ipatient drivers overtaking where there is not enough room with all the carnage that will cause.
      We are already nanny state and the next step from that is the Big Brother state, Which tghe cops would relish but we may not enjoy.

    • mw says:

      08:20am | 30/03/10

      That is a great idea. Then freight services will take longer, and to get things where they need to be on time we’ll need more trucks on the road to compensate. This of course will increase the prices of domestic goods…

      And the Tony Abbott example is a poor one, that incident was entirely the fault of his driver.

    • iansand says:

      08:48am | 30/03/10

      What about giving drivers a conditional reduction in penalty (and no points) if they can prove that the schedules imposed on them make it virtually impossible to comply with the schedule without breaking the law.  Make it an offence to set such a schedule, and the reduction in the drivers’ penalty being conditional on co-operating to secure convictions for the trucking companies and clients who impose the schedules.

      I’m sure the truckies would like an extra couple of hours to get to their destinations.

    • acker says:

      10:40am | 30/03/10

      @eddieb ..I used to work for a stock and station agent and was clocking up about 100K a year in Western Queensland. I can assure you I would prefer to pass a B Double doing 90 kph than one dovetailing all over the road at 100-110 kph. A bloody caravan is a lot friggin shorter than a road train ...take a drive beyond the city limits one day sunshine !

    • Tom says:

      11:55am | 30/03/10

      mw, how was the Tony Abbott incident the fault of his driver? He was turning right. It is the responsibility of following drivers to keep a safe distance from the car in front so as they can safely stop or go around the car in front if it is turning right or stopping for an emergency. It was entirely the truck driver’s fault.

    • Craigles says:

      06:15am | 31/03/10

      Tom, Abbott’s car stopped suddenly in the right-hand-lane of a 2-lane open highway.  One is supposed to pull over to the left.

    • Dan says:

      06:37am | 30/03/10

      What Lewis Hamilton did was idiotic, and he deserved his penality. For Webber to call Australia a nanny state is simply absurd. Good article.

      Reply

    • Toby says:

      10:06am | 30/03/10

      What is so dangerous about one of the best drivers in the world doing a small burnout in a modern car?  Burnouts can still be illegal but perhaps a small fine would better reflect their seriousness.  Name another crime with such a disproportional penalty.

    • Craigles says:

      11:30am | 30/03/10

      What is dangerous, Toby, is
      (i) the significant number of bogans who copy leads like Hamiltons, and
      (ii) the number of people who hear Webber’s message and think and the law is to be ignored, and act, like Justin %$#@ Williams.

    • Tom says:

      12:04pm | 30/03/10

      Yes, but two points:
      a) A burnout isn’t particularly dangerous, as the car is near stationary. How many people have been killed by burnouts recently? I would guess the figure is somewhere around zero.
      b) Idiots will be idiots regardless of what laws are in place. The increasingly draconian road rules serve to disadvantage the majority, whilst doing nothing to prevent the minority of idiots from driving like, well, idiots.

    • BTS says:

      12:16pm | 30/03/10

      Tom,

      Best guesses on how many people have died isn’t acceptable.  Is the loss of one person too many?

      How are the majority disadvantaged by the road rules, since the majority follow them and have no problem doing so?

    • Asher says:

      12:19pm | 30/03/10

      Tom

      point a) - it takes a fraction of a second for the driver to lose his control, and the car will shoot off in who-knows what direction.

    • Toby says:

      12:24pm | 30/03/10

      Craigles,
      Please read carefully!  I didn’t suggest that burnouts on public roads be made legal I simply suggested a punishment more befitting the benign nature of the crime.  As for the comment about Justin Williams, well he was unlicensed driving a stolen car and clearly no amount of regulation was going to stop him.  That’s a bit calling for a ban on cricket because someone used a cricket in a fight!

      I will ask two questions
      1)  Can you honestly say that you believe the road rules in place (especially the hoon laws) are the government’s best effort to save lives and are in no way focused on revenue raising?
      2)  Do you believe that a drink driver caught three time deserves a lesser punishment than someone caught doing a burnout three time?  (no answer of both it’s one or the other!)

    • Toby says:

      12:19pm | 30/03/10

      Thanks Tom,

      You made my point much more efficiently I think.

    • Tom says:

      01:19pm | 30/03/10

      BTS, the road rules disadvantage the majority because it gets to the point where the solution to everything is tighter restrictions, and the idiot behaviour of a few is used for the justification of ridiculous laws such as pinging drivers for doing 3km/h over the limit. As for your comment that the majority of people follow the road rules, depends where you draw the line. Drive along any major arterial road in a capital city and most people are doing 5km/h or so over the limit, people are talking on their phones, running dodgy orange lights etc.

      The fact of life is that people act in stupid and idiotic ways, and some will be injured or killed as a result of this. No amount of regulation will change this.

      If the government truly cares about road safety and not revenue raising or populist attempts to control ‘hoons’, then why is the licensing system so pathetic? Wouldn’t have anything to do with the fact training people to drive properly would cost a lot of money, would it?

    • Chris says:

      06:30am | 30/03/10

      “I guess you thought it was cool when Justin Williams drove a stolen car at high speeds through the streets of Queanbeyan – your hometown – killing a family of three?”

      This sentence unwinds any credibility your article may have had. I may not agree with Webber, but, like all, he is entitled to his opinions.

      Reply

    • rod sexton says:

      06:35am | 30/03/10

      Weber is correct - Victoria is a nanny state; and who on this earth is Tracy Spicer?

      Reply

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      06:41am | 30/03/10

      Spinning the driving wheels of a car at traffic lights is not a dangerous activity. When the wheels are spinning, a car accelerates more slowly than it would do had the co-efficient of static friction between tyres and road not been surpassed. So in Victoria, the rules that save lives make it illegal to accelerate at a more leisurely pace than other drivers.  That makes no sense.  Perhaps it’s the noise that kills?
      Mark Webber did not suggest that there should be no rules. Conventions such as driving on the left side of the road save lives, so do give-way signs, traffic lights and speed limits even though they are often arbitrarily set. I accept, but shake my head in confusion at some of the road rules - limiting cars to 110 on sections of the Hume simply doesn’t make sense.  Why not 100, or 130? 40 km/h limits around school zones are more logical and even 50 zones in residential built-up areas but even they are arbitrary limits – walking pace would be safer, perhaps mandating a pedestrian carrying a red flag in front of a horseless carriage would save lives. Just see how many speed-limit changes there are on your commute to work.
      I’ll ignore the ridiculous link to the recent tragedy in Canberra because I’m not sure that a lower speed limit, more speed cameras, another warning sign, better TV advertisements or more policemen would have turned the driver into a law abiding model individual.  Use of that example in your article is just poor form.
      Driving a car is a skill that involves hand -foot - eye-brain coordination and some people are better at it than others. Just like catching and throwing a ball.
      We need to stop convincing young Australians that driving a car is the most dangerous activity that they will ever do and instead train them to do it safely.  Put them on a skidpan so they can feel what happens when you do lose traction in either your front or rear wheels; put them in a car without traction control so they learn to manage their throttle response, ditto with brake use in a vehicle without ABS or power steering.  All of these systems make cars safer to drive but they also compensate for the kid that can’t throw a ball. On-board computers can’t anticipate the unexpected, only humans can do that, and when a human is in charge of a vehicle they should also be capable of controlling it and not be totally reliant on computer programmers for their safety.
      Mark Webber may have been a little insensitive in some of his comments but he was absolutely right when he suggested there are too many illogical road rules.
      Better driver training will save more lives than will be saved by more road rules.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      08:03am | 30/03/10

      ‘Spinning the driving wheels of a car at traffic lights is not a dangerous activity. When the wheels are spinning, a car accelerates more slowly than it would do had the co-efficient of static friction between tyres and road not been surpassed.’

      Less grip = More Danger.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      08:50am | 30/03/10

      Danger of or from what BTS?  Stranger danger?  Spontaneous combustion?  I think your comment would have made more sense if you wrote ‘less training = more danger’, now that I would agree with.

    • BTS says:

      10:32am | 30/03/10

      Yes of course!

      Race car drivers never crash, do they?

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      12:32pm | 30/03/10

      Yes they do BTS but generally not while travelling at less than 60 kp/h doing a burnout.  I still don’t understand why Hamilton’s driving was dangerous.  I also think that people are free to question the validity of laws, not just to blindly obey.  That is not to say that people shouldn’t obey laws - I don’t do burnouts at traffic lights but I think the Victorian government have got it wrong with their anti-hoon legislation. Should I be thrown in prison for questioning a law?

    • BTS says:

      12:45pm | 30/03/10

      Nigel,

      That’s the point, you never know at what speed your driving could become dangerous or cause an accident, so the less you act like a buffoon the increase in chances you won’t have an accident.  Secondly, it encourages every other idiot who doesn’t have his ability to replicate his behaviour.  Why is it that when they race safety concerns are through the roof with regulations and requirements?

      Wouldn’t you think he would encourage safe driving at all times?

    • Kim says:

      03:00pm | 30/03/10

      Nigel, I agree.  Maybe we should looking at driver training in our schools or at least have it as part of a school program.

    • T.Chong says:

      06:50am | 30/03/10

      Tracey: that s something Ive also noticed at conservative leaning sites ( not here of course, where everyone is unbiased and objective) - that is the constant whining about the “Nanny State” and how it infringes on so many “rights”, while at the same time, these same self claimed individualists love the heavy boot of ” Lorenorder “
      for that they disaprove of.
      The subject of road speeding is prime example. Whenever “we” (us good “Punchers”) get pinged for speeding, we are all usually safe drivers, so its not fair, while any one doing a joint at home is the epitome of the end of society.
      As I said ,those self serving attitudes of right and wrong never appear at this site (well hardly ever), so please, no huffing or puffing folks.(pun intended).
      Agree about Webber.You were too polite in the apt title applied - the pic says it all. Very reminiscent of early Simpsons, featuring the more simian-like Homer.

      Reply

    • Cheech says:

      11:10am | 30/03/10

      T.Chong: “I’ve also noticed at conservative leaning sites that is the constant whining about the “Nanny State” and how it infringes on so many “rights”, while at the same time, these same self claimed individualists love the heavy boot of ” Lorenorder “ for that they disapprove of.”

      Name one. The major anti-Nanny state sites (the IPA, CIS, Catallaxy, Andrew Norton etc.) are libertarian. They think the Lauren Norder agenda is as bad. So T. Chong just a name one site that fits your description rather than the usual swipe the right on the way past.

    • T.Chong says:

      12:02pm | 30/03/10

      Easy Cheech .This site for one. Lotsa Right Punchers bemoan the nanny state, (as above, and below) while advocting harsh measures for what they dont like.
      Any discussion surrounding drug laws is a good example.
      BTW , Just because you are using a new screen name, doesnt mean that that you should have forgotten what the usual tone of commentary is at this site.
      Also, unlike many here, I dont preach different opinions should not be heard.

    • AFR says:

      07:05am | 30/03/10

      Are you seriously suggesting Lewis Hamilton doing a fishtail, or whatever he did, posed a threat to anyone? (albiet it was stupid).

      I would suggest Mark Webber has done substantially more for this country than you have, Ms Spicer. Calling someone a dickhead - yeah that’s quality journalism.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      08:07am | 30/03/10

      Perhaps the issues are these:

      1) Doesn’t matter who does it, it’s illegal.

      2) There are more than a few monkeys who will imitate the behaviour and they have less ability to control the vehicle.

      If one of these monkeys, kills your kids, I assume you will be overjoyed at the result and proudly cheer the demise of the nanny state?

    • Toby says:

      10:19am | 30/03/10

      I have lost a few friends to drink driving (before the insensitive rants come flying they were not all the drunks but they were killed all the same) but I have never lost a friend to a burnout!  Why don’t drink drivers get their cars crushed?  If the government really cared about saving lives it could implement an endless list of measures more effective than the hoon laws (i.e. effective speed limiters, breathalyser restricted ignitions, cars that wont start without seatbelts on and GPS controlled speed limits all of which are existing technology)

      The hoon laws were created to give baby boomers another reason to bag out gen X/Y while watching Koshie in the morning.

    • BTS says:

      11:10am | 30/03/10

      Lol,

      Ahh there we go, it’s a devious plot generated by the baby boomers.  Suddenly it all makes sense!  Genius!

    • Toby says:

      11:31am | 30/03/10

      Generated for them (to sell news, a story on how nice and responsible the younger generation is wouldn’t sell very well would it?) not by them.

      So BTS, you could honestly say the you believe that the road rules in place are the governments best effort to save lives and are in no way focused on revenue raising?

    • BTS says:

      12:10pm | 30/03/10

      Toby,

      100%.

    • Sean Williams says:

      07:09am | 30/03/10

      I’m confused Tracey are you pro-Nanny state or anti? I think you’re probably just annoyed because Webber has done the two things most guaranteed to get right under his hapless compatriots’ skin - 1) Live in Britain; 2) Criticise Australia. Yes the phrase “nanny state” was coined in Britain, your country is built on importing British culture. Then again, unlike you Tracey, Webber didn’t have Google (Pure filtered Aussie version) to hand so couldn’t. namedrop “Conservative MP Iain Macleod” as if it was a piece of knowledge forever at the forefront of his brain. There are plenty of people in Britain who rail against the “nanny state” (Jeremy Clarkson makes a living out of it) but having lived in both countries I have to say Britain does feel a lot free-er. Despite the stereotype of the anti-authoritarian larrikin Aussie and the prim uptight Brits I’d say it’s the other way round. British people are much less likely to take any BS from their government with a centuries-long history of protest and taking to the streets. Britons would certainly never put up with anything so anti-democratic as compulsory voting. At least one part of your article will have the desired effect: when you tell Webber to “go back to the motherland” you know that he will, with great pleasure by the sounds of it

      Reply

    • expat says:

      07:57pm | 30/03/10

      Spot on. Any Australian that has the audacity to leave the ‘lucky country’ and live somewhere else automatically loses the right to have an opinion (an objective one at that) on any matters in Australia.

      Mark Webber, you are absolutely right.

      Tracy, you should have kept reading news instead of writing it. You are obiously having some difficulty.

    • Watcher says:

      07:16am | 30/03/10

      It seems, Tracey, that you are reading my mind…  Although, “dickhead” is not strong enough…

      Reply

    • Formersnag The Child Protector. says:

      07:13am | 30/03/10

      Tracey, You made Marks point, almost perfectly. People sometimes do, stupid things. Like over, exaggerate what somebody, actually said.

      When the “nanny state” attempts to second guess, every possible, stupid mistake, somebody, might make & concoct an ever increasing list of over complicated laws. Sometimes the main game is forgotten about.

      That is often the deliberate intent, of incompetent &/or corrupt politicians, bureaucrats. To distract us, from their lack of solving, more basic, important problems.

      Usually ably assisted in this, by third class journalism. Which is the real reason, why conventional mainstream media, like newspapers & TV is dying.

      If you, were doing your job properly, i would not be blogging on this web site & neither would millions of other people around this wide brown, (more lately green) land.

      We might then be happier, reading our newspapers & watching, the 6 o’clock news. Instead of needing to spend our time, correcting your mistakes for you.

      Get all “Polly” staff stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      08:00am | 30/03/10

      If political spruikers were banned, this site would be rather empty ‘Snag.
      The Young Libs,for one, would need to set up an Oz version of Frontpagemag.

    • Peter says:

      10:27am | 30/03/10

      T. Chong, 100 bucks says your name is really something like B. Smith.

    • T.Chong says:

      12:13pm | 30/03/10

      Close Pete, though I prefer the prefix of Comrade, like in Comrade B. Smith

    • KH says:

      07:35am | 30/03/10

      Its funny, I have never had a parking ticket, let alone a speeding fine, or any other traffic offense.  And this after 25 years of driving.  Despite the number of rules.  Every day I see idiots -  talking on mobile phones whilst driving, tailgaiting, speeding and so on - just the other day I was nearly rear ended by some dimbo applying lipstick, while driving, because thats totally appropriate.  One guy did an illegal u-turn into traffic, over a median strip.  What the? 
      A car is a tonne of metal, that in the hands of idiots like these can become a lethal weapon.  Once you could appeal to common sense, and peoples’ sense of responsibility to others - sadly, these things no longer exist - a whole generation of spoilt brats were never taught this by their parents, and the infection has spread - there are plenty of middle aged and elderly idiots on the road too.  All equally self absorbed, doing whatever they want as if other road users are mind readers or something.

      Hence the rules.  There is no such thing as a ‘speed trap’ - you speed, you get caught.  You don’t speed, nothing happens.  You drink and drive, you lose your license.  You don’t drink and drive, nothing happens.  Interesting, isn’t it? 

      Mark Webber lives in a fantasy world, of high powered vehicles that he can drive, in controlled conditions, as fast as he wants.  Well, thats great.  Of course he has had years of training, in controlled conditions.  On race tracks, which are generally not in residential streets.  With teams of support vehicles and an array of safety gear that costs more than the average street vehicle.  With no crying kids in the back seat.  Or some fool suddenly popping out from between parked cars to cross the road, 20 metres from an actual crossing. 
      Clearly the man has lost a sense of reality -  maybe he needs to attend some accident scenes - maybe then he might understand the damage that is done.  Maybe he should spend some time in the stands instead of sipping french champagne in the VIP tent - have a look at the impressionable young (mostly) men who are his fans - and how his thoughtless words might just spur them on to do stupid things. 

      Stupid risks can cost lives; in Webbers’ case, just a race, as we saw on Sunday.  The rules are made because some people have become selfish and self-absorbed.  They just don’t care about anyone else, and the only way to make them think about it is to hit them in the wallet, or retract the privilege of driving.  Don’t break the law, and it will cost you nothing.

      Reply

    • Bob H says:

      07:58am | 30/03/10

      The road rules are very simple - if you can’t follow them, you shouldn’t be driving.  If you do not have the mental capacity to match a speed sign to a speedometer, then you should be walking the footpath as cars are beyond your capabilities.

    • Pinchey says:

      09:23am | 30/03/10

      Hear, hear KH.  Motorists (most aren’t ‘driver’s’ per se) continue to prove authorities right by acting like idiots. Act like children and get treated as such. If the nanny state criers want less imposed regulation - they should start regulating themselves then. But no they simply want to do what they want, when they want, how they want and to hell with how it impacts on others - yep, childish! While this do what I want, when and how I want continues, and continues to adversely impact others, then regulations and enforcement will abound.

    • Greek Snake says:

      09:35am | 30/03/10

      It’s all well and good to say “match the speed sign to your speedo” but perhaps the speed signs are at fault.

      There is no reason why our highways should be limited to 100 or 110 km/h. There are stretches of road where higher speeds are quite doable and police realise this and wait in bushes at said locations.

      It is a known fact, police would rather catch speeding drivers than increase road safety. If they were truly interested in road safety, they would wait in well-lit areas, making their marked cars visible and serving a warning to all that pass them. Instead hiding like spineless cowards at freeway on-ramps and behind bushes does nothing for road safety, only serves the state government coffers.

      Webber is right, this is a nanny state. I don’t agree with his comment about being pissed off having to come back though. It is a nanny state but that other bit was over the line. You don’t like it, don’t come back.

    • TwistedEar says:

      10:55am | 30/03/10

      Greek Snake - they DO stand out. Only Blind Freddy would not be able to see a marked police car on the side of the road. They do genuinely want to reduce the road toll - talk to TMU sergeants and they will give you very, VERY compelling statistics as to why they chose the setup points they do (usually due to fatal car accidents, or plain old statistics… like a 400m road in Werribee which is a 50 zone, will get about 500 cars every hour, is bordered by a T intersection at one end (its the arm of the T) and a large roundabout at the other - yet, people will be clocked doing over 80km/h - from the T intersection end. And those over the limit? in about 50 and hour there will be approx 200+ caught doing 60+, and about 100 doing 70+. )
      The MSC are even more blatant - theypark in the middle of nowhere, never have cars around and, legally, are the only ones on nature strips/footpaths etc. 100 and 110 are about as fast as you can go before your ability to react to an unexpected event will cause trouble (unlike parts of hte US where there are speed limits of 90mph… they don’t have the large animals like we do in those parts. Their deserts lack large animals - ours have fricken’ HUGE roos. Europe has Specifically barriered autobahns what large animals cannot enter…)

      We live in a nanny state because quite a few of the regulations are intrusive and pointless - Webber is right on that. Unfortunately, its not so much the road rules that cause this, its the other instututions like EEO and HR comissions and the anti-discrimination boards that ruin this state.

    • Simon the pieman says:

      12:57pm | 30/03/10

      @Greek Snake:  Speed signs are wrong?  I am glad you have enlightened me.  I shall drive at whatever speed I feel like in future,  those traffic engineers don’t no nuffink.  Keep finkin fings Snake yooos tops…. erher…. erher.

    • Greek Snake says:

      02:42pm | 30/03/10

      TwistedEar - Bull Sh!t about Police cars.

      Come for a drive down Ballarat Road and watch the police at work. They park in shop front driveways concealed by signs and billboards. They park on the nature strips between bushes.

      Go for a drive down the Tullamarine Freeway at night and watch them pull someone over after speeding in from the off ramp they have been hiding on.

      You may very have a few occasions where Police make themselves visible in Werribee but I would be willing to bet that for every visible and blatantly obvious Police car, there are at least 5 that are well hidden - the revenue raisers.

      Point taken re: interstate highways and large animals. However, don’t tell me the Western Ring Road is in danger of monster roo’s crossing it in peak time. Also the Monash has sections of it which are just marked 80 for collection benefits it seems.

      I can, and do, comfortably drive at up to 120-130 on these roads when traffic permits. If the speed limit was changed to something like that, people would need to understand to stick to their left if they don’t like it so that others that do, can overtake at will.

      You are right re: anti discrimination though. I agree that people take things like discrimination and equality way too far and the law generally favors the stupid.

      Simon the pieman - Yes. The signs are wrong. I have come across several roads that deliberately trap the driver by changing speeds so many times the driver loses track. On top of that they place mobile speed cameras at the top of a hill to catch drivers on the descent. This is plain revenue raising that goes hand in hand with the tactics I spoke about earlier.

      Speed signs with allocated times under them are also rubbish. By the time one gets close enough to read the font below the speed they have already been booked.

      Those digital speed signs on the Westgate freeway, Monash freeway and Western Ring road are also rubbish. Often the glare from the sun hits them at the wrong angle and all the driver can see is the outline of every digital imprint on the sign. Then the revenue raising machines Brumby has on the clock start to kick in, while the drivers can’t read the speed limit.

      By the way, out traffic engineers are rubbish. See the two articles below which outline why it isn’t the high speed that kills, it’s the wrong speed at the wrong time.

      http://www.caradvice.com.au/6756/speed-doesnt-kill-its-official/

      http://theage.drive.com.au/motor-news/speed-doesnt-kill-says-benz-20100304-pjin.html

      As I said, revenue raising at its best.

    • BTS says:

      04:39pm | 30/03/10

      ‘it’s the wrong speed at the wrong time.’

      Which would be speeding…

      The story isn’t about speeding, it’s about driving irresponsibly.

    • Justin says:

      07:43am | 30/03/10

      Webber’s just a victim of the average poppy syndrome that exists in this country. 9th placings & DNFs disqualify you from having your opinion taken seriously apparently.

      The guy wasn’t advocating demo derbies in suburban Australia, he was simply longing for the days where common sense applied. Mind you, he better watch what he hopes for, as common sense might see him out of a drive next year.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      07:59am | 30/03/10

      Maybe Bogan Webber should hook up with Lara Bingle, I heard somewhere, once, I think, that she might be available.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      08:06am | 30/03/10

      Idiot behaviour on the road, including speeding, kills people.

      We demand the Government provide a safe environment for our roof insulation installers, some of you don’t see how that applies to our roads.

      Reply

    • Toby says:

      10:35am | 30/03/10

      The WA cops had a speed camera set up on the freeway on ramp catching people accelerating up to merging speed.  Is that providing a safe environment?  Face it, the government doesn’t care about saving your life they want your money!

    • BTS says:

      11:12am | 30/03/10

      Why don’t you obey the speed limit?

    • Toby says:

      11:45am | 30/03/10

      Strange question BTs, I do obey the speed limit.  I like know drunk people aren’t driving and think most speed limits are reasonably appropriate, what I hate is stupid, discriminatory hoon laws.

      Do you think a back street burnout is a worse crime than stealing a car or driving drunk?

    • BTS says:

      12:21pm | 30/03/10

      Toby,

      I made the comment on speeding because that’s the example you provided.  I thought it appropriate given you raised the issue of speeding.

      No I don’t think doing a burn out is a worse offence (not crime) than stealing a car or drunk driving, but it is an offence and it endangers lives.

      Are you demanding the right to do burn outs?

    • Toby says:

      01:07pm | 30/03/10

      BTS,
      That was a comment made on your incorrect belief that government just want to provide us with a safe environment and not simply take all our money.  And so the cycle starts again.
      You read and commented to my posts above regarding lighter sentences for burnouts so you know I am not calling for anything like that.  I also know that you are simply stirring the pot, arguing for argument sake.  This can be fun at times I admit, I am just not sure this is the right time.  The problem is that that others don’t realise this and so form real opinions based on you taking the piss.

    • BTS says:

      01:57pm | 30/03/10

      Toby,

      I will solidify both blogs here for user ease.

      Rare is the driver who gets pinged for 3km/hr over the limit.  The majority of people don’t get a ticket or other traffic fine, they drive with the road rules and consideration of others in mind.  Simple mathematics would prove this, otherwise the revenue generated would be much higher.  Shouldn’t we do as much as we can to limit the people who act in stupid and idiotic ways? If it becomes no holds barred, won’t more die?

      What would you think about the government making it mandatory you undertake training and you pay?

      ‘That was a comment made on your incorrect belief that government just want to provide us with a safe environment and not simply take all our money.’  Maybe it’s you who’s belief is incorrect (not attaching malice to that statement), but maybe the government wants to create a safe environment, what credible evidence do you have to say this is not so?  Could they implement safer driving?  Sure.  If if were at your expense, how much support would they have from the community?  The most cost effective way is to fine those who can’t abide by the laws.  Why should everyone be made to pay a few hundred dollars, take off time from work to undertake a safe driving program because someone else can’t drive safely?

      ‘I also know that you are simply stirring the pot, arguing for argument sake… The problem is that that others don’t realise this and so form real opinions based on you taking the piss.’

      I am not stirring the pot, it’s my legitimate position, why can’t we in society encourage people to obey the laws?  If people acted more responsibly, less laws would be brought in to reduce irresponsible behaviour.  The hoon laws wouldn’t exist, if some people didn’t drive like hoons without sufficient care and consideration for themselves and other road users.  No burnouts = No Hoon laws.  The hoons have themselves to blame, yet strangely enough in this day and age refuse to accept that they were the ones who caused these laws to be introduced.  Responsible behaviour!

    • Toby says:

      04:44pm | 30/03/10

      BTS,

      Just a few things:
      1.  The so called hoons are already breaking the law and as such could be charged with other offences.  Why do we need a law that discriminates against young people and car lovers handing them tougher sentences for the same offence, regardless of whether they are the ones who are doing the wrong thing the most!  To take that further (and I am only trying to make a point and not trying to offend), statistically aboriginal people are more likely to be involved in break and enter in WA, should they be punished more harshly than other races based on police discresion?
      2.  Your rebuttal (“Could they implement safer driving?  Sure. If were at your expense”) actually supported my argument.  They introduced seat belt at the user’s expense and it has saved lives.  Technology has improved and there are systems around that won’t let you turn on a car if you are over the limit that cost $2000.  Nissan GTR has technology that controls the speed according to certain GPS zones; this could be modified to only allow for maximum speed limits in an area.  Safety measures are enforced by government regulation in the work place at the user’s expense but not on the roads.  Why?
      3.  Why does the fact that burnouts exist automatically mean that hoon laws should too?

    • BTS says:

      08:04pm | 30/03/10

      Toby,

      How does it discriminate against young people and car lovers?  Surely, if anyone commits the offence they face the same consequences. 

      User expense - At the moment, only the irresponsible drivers are suffering financial loss.  How great would the uproar be if the responsible drivers who obey the law have to get the breath test ignition system, the speed limiters, the driver training and they haven’t done anything wrong?  If the government thought they could implement it without being voted out of office, they would.

      Hoon laws exist because previous attempts to get irresponsible drivers to change their habits have failed.  It will get worse, there will be more laws if the current Hoon Laws fail to curb this idiot behaviour.

      What do they get out of doing a burnout?  Does it make you feel masculine?  Prove your sexuality?  Are you a better person for having done one?  Are you that insecure in your own self esteem? (not you personally)

      It serves no logical purpose, yet endangers peoples lives.

    • Toby says:

      11:22am | 31/03/10

      BTS,

      My 23 yr old friend in a HSV got done for hooning doing 140 in a 100 zone but a 40 something bloke [work colleague] doing 95 in a 60 zone in a Getz is only speeding?  This was not a hypothetical story it happened and I have heard many more stories like this as I have many car loving friends.  That is discrimination pure and simple. 

      You personally believe that the government cares about you, I don’t so our opinions differ, that’s fine.  Our opinions also differ on whether people would pay for safety.  I believe that the majority would be happy to pay a bit extra for breatho lockout in new cars (retro fit is a different matter but still possible) knowing that in 10 years time there will be virtually no chance of getting cleaned up by a drunken knob.

      As for playing in cars, it is just pure fun.  No sexual connotations no Napoleon complex just plain and simple fun.  I think people forget the simple joy of life and try to place hang ups on things that don’t exist.  Travel around the winding roads of Tassie in a skyline and you will smile for a week.  CARS ARE FUN they would only make Subaru if it was just about being particle.

      Life would be pretty boring if we only did the logical thing – we’d all steer clear of chick’s wouldn’t we!

    • Andrew says:

      08:53am | 30/03/10

      My understanding of what Mark Webber said was that stupid road rules (ones that increase gov’t bank balance, but do nothing to save lives) should be scrapped, and I agree with him. I doubt he was advocating doing 200km/h down a freeway, but doing 113km/h (when it’s a 110km/h zone) isn’t the end of the world, especially as most cars speedo’s are not calabrated, and thus can easily be out by 4 or 5 km/h anyway.

      Furthermore, excessive checking of speedo’s which is required to make sure you don’t accidently go over by 3km/h takes away from the attention required to drive the car. If you want proof of that look at all the ex speed camera sites where accident rates went up when the speed camera was installed.

      Reply

    • Jason says:

      09:01am | 30/03/10

      I’d love to play you at chess Tracey - you don’t seem to be able to think outside a small defined box, let alone a few steps ahead.  The laws are ridiculous - the young (and older) people who have major fatal accidents are BREAKING THE LAW at the time - the laws themselves are not relevant to this issue as they are ignored.

      Setting overzealous laws on drivers does not stop those who would break them, in the same vein as taking the guns away from legit owners does not prevent the criminals from carrying them.  It would make more sense to set balanced rules for the majority (safe drivers who prefer to be alive) and identify and target those with poor impulse control.

      And having a go at Webber’s on-track performance?  When you reach the very top level in your chosen field (and win), be sure and let us know what you think about the road rules.

      Reply

    • KD says:

      09:14am | 30/03/10

      Good on you Tracey.  I agree wholeheartedly - he’s an absolute tool, and so are the 80% who agreed with him yesterday on news.com.au.  I, too, was amazed that this poster boy for mediocrity has such a following.  Sad to see there’s such a large bunch of like-minded small-men wannabe revheads out there, but not surprising, given the absolute carnage that’s happening on our roads.

      Reply

    • Tim says:

      09:41am | 30/03/10

      Mark Webber is right.

      Whatever happened to the concept of personal responsibility? The state cannot and should not regulate every activity of our lives. Yes Tracey,  the state has a duty of care to its citizens, but the pendulum has swung too far and we are indeed becoming a police state. What’s next?

      Reply

    • Craigles says:

      11:42am | 30/03/10

      How can “duty of care” correlate with “should not regulate”; and, we’re not talking about ‘every activity’, are we? We’re talking about a car possibly spinning out of control on a city street and into pedestrians, aren’t we?

      I am beginning to wonder if it had been better if Hoon Hamilton had put it into a pole or a wall.

    • Guy David says:

      09:41am | 30/03/10

      To suggest that tougher laws are the panacea to the carnage on our roads when the issue is that those very laws are being ignored in the first place is to suffer from such cognitive dissonance so as to be operating on another plane of existence entirely. Those who would deride Mark Webber and support Tracey Spicer’s views—that obeying the road laws is a simple, black and white option—while ignoring other glaring issues such as driver inattentiveness, driver skill, road and vehicle condition and so forth would be better off floating back down to Earth with the rest of us before their bloated, self-important egos cause them to leave the orbit of our Moon entirely.

      Reply

    • Susan says:

      09:45am | 30/03/10

      tracey..just a comment on you saying re “80%” of news.com.au readers. Unless it was a poll (and please check the wording of some of the news.com.au polls because they skew results), not all comments are posted on articles. In fact, on certain articles I would claim particular points of view are posted. Look at some articles and wonder why male monikers are almost exclusively published. Females not interested or just not given equal publishing space? On individual pieces I’ve posted comments as have several female friends only to have none at all published. Today on an article a comment criticising a ‘journo’ specifically wasn’t published but broader condemnation of a show was. In sum, what you see published could be skewed (even if moderators are told not to pick and choose).  Secondly, many readers skim articles. Loads of comments every day show that not all readers actually read the “facts” as published.  People often respond to impressions rather that fulsome articles. Thirdly, news.com.au is upping it’s ante on cheap and empty (often daily replicated) entertainment pieces. I suspect many reading articles on Webber etc take it with a grain of salt just like they wound up doing over the Bingle bungle.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      01:46pm | 30/03/10

      Susan, while there is often some type of moderation (or censorship) going on, from all I have read, it does not appear gender based.eg Maggy Grey, Radical Chick and (Little) ? Annie often make appearances, along with many others who use female or neutral names.
      Read somewhere at a US site that many women on the ‘net use male names in order to feel freer to publish more extreme POVs which they , the author , think would be unacceptable for a woman to express.

    • Jimmy says:

      09:53am | 30/03/10

      It is shocking to see so many actually applaud and defend someone for breaking the law. No wonder some people drive like they do; they do not care about the laws or the people around them.

      Yes, driving skills are important, but if you are an idiot the skills will not help you; because an idiot will take risks anyway and put others in danger.

      Reply

    • Toby says:

      10:02am | 30/03/10

      Mark Webber just said what everyone with half a brain was thinking!  The hoon laws are stupid and discriminatory and I’ll explain.  Stupid: drink driving and not wearing seat belts account for the majority of fatalities yet they attract lighter sentences than the odd burnout?  Discriminatory: there are already rigidly defined laws to apply to all aspects of so called hooning (i.e. speeding, dangerous driving etc.) yet if a cop so feels he/she can apply the more serious charge of hooning, this police discretion seems to be applied more readily to young people in powerful cars!  My 23 yr old friend in a HSV got done for hooning doing 140 in a 100 zone but a 40 something bloke doing 95 in a 60 zone in a Getz is only speeding?

      Tracey your comment on “well-intentioned” hoon law remind me of a line in my favourite song; “good deeds and good intentions are as far apart as heaven and hell”!

      Reply

    • Jamie says:

      10:32am | 30/03/10

      Well done Toby.
      My father was killed by a drink driver that was more than 4 times the legal limit. She received 14 Months Weekend Detention and a $5000 fine.

    • rene says:

      12:08pm | 30/03/10

      Very well said Toby,  Also, constantly looking at your speedo to make sure you dont go over the speed limit even by a few kms is the norm nowdays as doing 64 in a 60 is only for revenue raising. What I would like to know is, these are speed limits yes?  So that drivers drive who do say 40-45 in 60 zones or 60-65 in 80 zones are good drivers?  No,  these are bad drivers and they do is frustate good drivers who at least want to do the speed limit.  The amount of times I sit behind a driver on a 60km road doing under 50kms is more common tha not nowadays.  If they cant control a car doing 60kms an hour, they should not be driving. Likewise, the drivers who get on freeways and do 90-100kms and stay in the right lanes. If you cant handle your car doing at least 100kms stay off the freeways.  And Victoria? They have the strictest road rules, more speed cameras and cops yet they have the highest road toll.  Obviously, somethings not working.

    • BTS says:

      12:18pm | 30/03/10

      Rene,

      Because only you should determine how people drive on the roads?

      You appear to be saying that the laws infringe on your rights to drive how ‘you’ like, but other people can’t drive how they like (slower than the limit), which defeats the thrust of your argument.

    • Huh says:

      01:39pm | 30/03/10

      Is this the same BTS who not so long ago had a problem with schools banning nuts and other life threatening food stuffs on the basis that BTS didn’t want a nanny state?!?!

      As for Ms Spicer, I may or may not agree with Mark Webber’s views, but I cannot take a journalist seriously when the article begins with a personal insult, is followed by a series of verbal assualts, questions another human’s intelligence and finishes with a woeful stereotype.  Poor form Ms Spicer, poor form indeed.

    • BTS says:

      02:04pm | 30/03/10

      Huh,

      Is this the same BTS who not so long ago had a problem with schools banning nuts and other life threatening food stuffs on the basis that BTS didn’t want a nanny state?!?!

      Please provide me with any example of where I mentioned the words ‘nanny state’, inferred the words ‘nanny state’ or made even an indirect reference to the concept of a ‘nanny state’.  Would that be you placing your interpretation of what I said?

      If your kid has an intolerance to nuts, you do something about your kid, but everyone else has to do so.

      Next we all go to driving training schools, at our expense, because you won’t do something about your driving behaviour.

      The message remains the same, take responsiblity for your behaviour and stop affecting everyone else.

    • Rocket Surgeon says:

      05:00pm | 30/03/10

      BTS, I did do something about my driving behaviour. I went to a driver training school at my expense. Why would you not want to have as much training as you could get for something as important as driving?

    • BTS says:

      08:12pm | 30/03/10

      Rocket,

      Sure, I have to, I just don’t think the majority of the population will be pleased to attend, based on the idiot behaviour of a small proportion of drivers who cause risk to everyone else.  Do you think the hoons would attend?  I somehow doubt it because most it seems, don’t need to be told how to drive.  In addition, having done the course will it change their behaviour and make them stop driving irresponsibly?  I doubt that too.  What hurts is their hip pocket and loss of their vehicle.  They seem to forget it was them and their behaviour that brought these rules in, in the first place.

    • Kelly says:

      10:27am | 30/03/10

      Ahh Tracey, we definitely have the same sense of humor. Loved it

      Reply

    • PJK says:

      10:33am | 30/03/10

      I thought Webber had a point. Aus is becoming a nanny state. all because the politicians want cheap votes. No I’m not saying drive irresponsibly and I don’t think that was Webber’s point either. more the plethora of civil laws being bought in. I suppose while it is the minorities, people don’t care. but they are encroaching on us ever so slowly. this article was just nothing commentary.

      Reply

    • PJK says:

      10:33am | 30/03/10

      I thought Webber had a point. Aus is becoming a nanny state. all because the politicians want cheap votes. No I’m not saying drive irresponsibly and I don’t think that was Webber’s point either. more the plethora of civil laws being bought in. I suppose while it is the minorities, people don’t care. but they are encroaching on us ever so slowly. this article was just nothing commentary.

      Reply

    • Nathman says:

      10:54am | 30/03/10

      In any other country, an F1 world champ doing a fishy in his awesome Merc would have been celebrated!! What a terrible excuse for a ‘state’ we live in.

      Reply

    • Tone says:

      11:37am | 30/03/10

      only if it had been on the track, or perhaps not?

    • Mark says:

      11:05am | 30/03/10

      I dont care what Webber says but we need to become a nanny state just because of our population size. If there were less people we would have more freedom but instead we have decided to cram as many in as possible and consequently we have to give up freedom and quality of life to make room for them.

      Reply

    • Ginger Mick says:

      11:29am | 30/03/10

      You can take the boy out of Queanbeyan, but you can’t take Queanbeyan out of the boy!

      Reply

    • Nathan H says:

      11:32am | 30/03/10

      Given the nature of Tracy’s insulting comments, and Victoria’s new permissiveness of swearing insults in tax-payer advertising, I hope the mods will let this one through, as I intend to follow her example. To deny us the right to counter-abuse would be rather hypocritical.

      He never said we should have no road rules. He’s not a role-model, and never was; that’s a parent’s job. Mocking anyone standing up for basic liberities is irresponsible and stupid. China says it’s laws are well-intentioned, so I don’t give a tinkers what Ken Lay SAYS the laws are all about. They’re stupid, draconian and in need of an overhaul. Mark was also talking about parking fines, restrictions on back-yard camping and all the other nonsese we have to put up with these days. A stupid law, with good intentions is still a stupid law; just like a stupid columnist with good intentions is still stupid.

      Before you write again tracy, try to engage your brain, and try not to be such a massive “dickhead”.

      Reply

    • GTR-zzzz says:

      11:44am | 30/03/10

      Since when did Tracey Spicer become a journalist?

      Im afraid Mark’s comments have gone right over your head love, much like the majority of brainwashed twats on this page. Speed doesnt kill, the idiots behind the wheel do. But thats not what the govt and authorities are concerned with. If they were, a lot more planning and funds would be directed towards more effective driver training and improved roads and infrastructure. But no, that takes time, effort and most importantly money. Rather than spend money, they introduce and apply rules and regulations that generate revenue to line their fat pockets.

      As for your comments Tracey, you seem to personally attack Mark more than provide an informative discussion (no surprise really). Did he stand you up once or something love? You are keen to mention he has come a long way and earns millions of dollars? Jealous much? And he lives in Britain… so what is your point?

      Reply

    • Dave says:

      12:05pm | 30/03/10

      Tracy

      After reading that headline I have a lot more respect for you.

      Although that may have been the sub editor.

      Well put.

      Reply

    • antman says:

      12:08pm | 30/03/10

      Actually, I’d prefer to listen to Mark’s comments over the spin and doublespeak of our politicians and top public servants.

      Let me get this straight: just because Mark Webber says what most people think; that Victoria (and, let’s face it, Australia as a whole) has become an over-regulated nanny state where people no longer feel compelled to take personal responsibility, he is against all laws and regulation? Nice kindergarten level debating skills there, Tracey. Discarded journos (if you can call a talking head a journalist) - they’re just not that bright. Who’s the knob, exactly?

      Why should Mark be expected to support a “road safety” message that is one dimensional, misleading and, despite cars being many times safer these days the road toll is rising, clearly ineffective? Many road rules are not well intentioned, they’re just made to look that way and sold to the public that way. Instead they’re vote-buyers pandering to non-discriminating, knee-jerk “Laura Norder” voters and, more so, revenue raisers.

      Quite a pathetic piece, Tracey. Possibly the worst researched and constructed argument I have ever read outside of a primary school class room.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      12:16pm | 30/03/10

      “Mocking well-intentioned laws, like Victoria’s anti-hoon legislation, is irresponsible and stupid.”

      Really Tracy? What if you disagree with such laws? No one is arguing that people doing 140km//h in 60 zones shouldn’t be punished, but ultimately most so - called hoon behaviour is not particularly dangerous. I fail to see how a burnout is dangerous enough to warrant a car being confiscated.

      “Part of Big Brother’s job is to save us from the worst excesses of – well – ourselves.”

      Oh good, yet another member of the ‘save us from ourselves’ crowd. If you truly believe the government can successfully prevent idiot behaviour, then you are truly naive. Do you think idiots like Justin Williams really care about the fact they are breaking the road rules? All tighter restrictions serve to do is suck revenue from perfectly safe drivers whilst doing nothing to curb idiotic behaviour.

      Of course the government could start by implementing a decent driver training and attitude program, but that of course would cost money. On the other hand, tighter penalties bring in revenue and show the government to be doing something without actually doing much at all.

      “Hey – hang on for a minute – doesn’t Mark Webber live in Britain?

      Didn’t he just criticise Australia for being a nanny state?

      And wasn’t the term, ‘nanny state’, actually coined by a Brit, Conservative MP Iain Macleod?

      Athletes – they’re just not that bright.”

      I fail to see the point here - Webber complained that Australia was moving towards a nanny state mentality. How does the fact it is a British phrase detract from the message?

      Reply

    • JG says:

      12:22pm | 30/03/10

      Well, he does come from Queanbeyan

      Reply

    • Ms M says:

      12:57pm | 30/03/10

      Enough people.  Do what you’re blOOdy told!  That’s just how it is!  If we had no rules for anything this world be in total anarchy.

      Reply

    • Dylan says:

      01:57pm | 30/03/10

      That sounds like something Adolf Hitler or Kim Jong-il would say.

    • Rod J'That says:

      12:51pm | 30/03/10

      Mark Webber’s comments are indefensible, and the people trying to defend them here ought to be ashamed of themselves.

      Let me suggest three things to those of you defending Webber. Firstly, anti-hooning laws would not have been necessary in the first place if drivers in fact drove responsibly. Secondly, stop treating your car as an extension of your personality, and start treating it like a machine designed to get you safely from A to B without killing someone along the way. Thirdly, you might want to spend more time polishing your arguments, and less time polishing all your shiny knobs.

      Reply

    • Michelle says:

      01:28pm | 30/03/10

      Here here!  People should look at a car/vehicle like a loaded gun.  A deadly weapon waiting to go off if not handled with care.

    • Nigel Catchlove says:

      01:43pm | 30/03/10

      Michelle, firstly love your spelling, ‘here here’, are you playing Marco Polo?  The second and more serious point is that there is a clear difference between a car and a gun.  A gun is designed to take life, pure and simple, a car is designed to transport people quickly and safely.  A car is no more a deadly weapon than electricity, a firework or a pillow any one of them can kill if not used sensibly. 

      If you live your life in fear of motor vehicles you can’t live much of a life. I enjoy driving, although I am very wary of indecisive, overtired and distracted drivers on the road, I’m guessing you would be one of them.

    • BTS says:

      02:07pm | 30/03/10

      ‘A gun is designed to take life, pure and simple’

      I am sure that the Sporting Shooters would disagree with you vehemently.

      Do you ever cross the road without looking out for cars?  That would be fear that one might run you over if you walked straight out.

    • Abbey says:

      10:44pm | 30/03/10

      That instinct of looking before you step onto a road is not to do with “poor drivers” or “hoons”. Any 60km/h span of road could kill someone if pedestrians don’t also take care. Roads were primarily made for vehicles not people, so to use this as a basis of your argument is purely ludicrous.

    • BTS says:

      07:53am | 31/03/10

      Abbey (do you think changing your name fools people into believing it’s somebody else),

      I never said that the ‘looking before you step onto a road’ was ‘to do with “poor drivers” or “hoons”.’  In fact not once in the blog did I mention poor drivers or hoons.  You might want to pay closer attention.

      Thanks for your ‘ludicrous’ contribution.

    • Abbey says:

      09:56am | 01/04/10

      Rod maybe you should, I was defending your argument by taking down that of BTS. He DID say that.

    • Clete Purcell says:

      01:43pm | 30/03/10

      It just isn’t on to abuse and demean Mark Webber or anyone else for holding an opinion that happens to be shared with many professional and highly experienced drivers. Ms Spicer shallowly presumes far too much for a mere media personality . If she had any qualifications or credibility other than to read an autocue, I may have been more impressed. These anti-hoon laws were originally aimed at the morons who come into a suburban area in the wee small hours and abuse everyone’s right to peace & privacy. Like all unneccessary extra powers given to Police by gutless and unimaginative politicians that would do anything to get an extra vote, the Police then abuse that extra power. Sure, Hamilton demonstrated childish hubris here but this is an international embarrassment and a vivid example of our immature society that has turned into a classic Nanny State. No-one is above the law, even politicians. But this is BAD policy and used inappropriately to hit the wrong target. In NZ a Grandmother who chirped her tyres was arrested also and had her car impounded. Zealots and an over-abundance of tostesterone in Police ranks, coupled with the gullibility of the general public who have been propagandised to swallow many road safety myths, do us no good and considerable harm. Just a thought - how and where did a camera crew spring from so very quickly? Vic Police badly needed a bit of good PR for a change and they ensured they got it.

      Reply

    • NPR says:

      01:49pm | 30/03/10

      Memo Tracey Spicer: We don’t want your oversensitive, ignorant sensationalising here.

      Tracey says - “So Mark, you’d be happy for there to be no road rules?”

      Wow that has got to be the most lamest, poorly constructed straw-man I have ever seen. Tracey did you finish Year 12 English? Can’t believe this passes off as ‘journalism’.

      To all the nanny wowsers who love having the government tell them what to do (whilst blaming minorities in society for these so-called ‘necessary actions’) - look at the mortality rate on the road for the past 30 years and also look at the increase of automobiles on the road. Road mortality rates have fallen ABSOLUTELY and PER CAPITA, there is no problem; it is made up you fools! It is the Jacks’ main form of revenue raising and PR management, trying to look important and of course the numbers don’t correspond with their sob stories. What a joke.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      02:16pm | 30/03/10

      If you didn’t disobey the law you wouldn’t have to pay any fines.

    • Rod J'That says:

      02:25pm | 30/03/10

      NPR, stop me if this is oversensitive, ignorant sensationalising. Assuming you’re prepared to concede that one road death is equivalent to at least one sob story, there were 1,496 sob stories in Australia to the end of February 2010. No problem?

    • Toby says:

      05:06pm | 30/03/10

      So Rod, we should ban all cars then

    • BTS says:

      08:14pm | 30/03/10

      No we should ban the ones who can’t drive responsibly.  If you can’t drive properly, why should you be entitled to drive at all?  Only the ones who disobey the law are suffering here.

    • Toby says:

      11:19am | 31/03/10

      BTS,

      Responsible people die in cars too, your argument implies that they were doing the wrong thing!  Very uncool!

    • Mike says:

      02:23pm | 30/03/10

      Tracey, you worked at TEN for a number of years. I would suggest that the TEN network has done more damage to the Youth of our society than Webber ever would. So why didnt you speak up then?

      Reply

    • dot says:

      02:35pm | 30/03/10

      Rod J’That
      “Mark Webbers comments are indefensible etc….......” I just took time away from shining my knob to reply to your post.
      You say that the anti-hoon laws would not have been necessary in the first place if drivers drove responsible. Well it does not take a rocket scientist to figure that one out, you’re running the whole Ambulance at the bottom of a cliff scenario here. Responsible drivers are born out of training and experience not anti-hoon laws, the governments of today seem to deny the benefit of training over enforcement.
      My driving training was not just on my Learners, but in the back paddock of the farm, on the country road, driving in convoys. I have taken extra training in the forms of defensive and advance car control, all have made me a better driver less inclined to speed and better at AVOIDING accidents. Why the introduction of Hoon laws is the priority of legislative bodies in this country? Why not advanced driving courses before you get to your opens, night time driving lessons, a great example is Finland, they have no hoon laws but have some of the most stringent license training requirements in the world, end result is a nation with a crash fatality rate of 70 per million of population compared to VICTORIA ALONE with 67 per million in 2007.
      And Tracy, your paragraph and sentence structure for a “Journalist” is pathetic, stick to reading from a teleprompter. Blogs like the punch are nothing but Alan Jones with words, totally single minded and opinion driven that no self respecting journalist should ever be involved in.

      Reply

    • Aj says:

      02:33pm | 30/03/10

      Mark Webber, clearly a very talented man and a good athlete. Whether quoted out of context or not maybe he should adopt as general policy a “no comment” response in these situations. It would save us all some time and we wouldn’t have to read Spicer.

      BTW, I was in Melbourne for the GP and it was alot of fun. Every person I spoke to thought Hamilton was an idiot and a very good example of what happens when you give someone very young everything the could wish for and place almost no controls on them.

      Reply

    • NPR says:

      02:42pm | 30/03/10

      BTS says - “If you didn’t disobey the law you wouldn’t have to pay any fines. “

      I haven’t been fined for anything, not one single speeding ticket; you assume too much.

      Rod J’That says - “...there were 1,496 sob stories in Australia to the end of February 2010. No problem?”

      Considering there were approx. 10 times that amount of deaths on the road 60 years ago (with approx. 10 times less the amount of cars), yes I will argue there is no problem. You will never get it down to zero so quit trying to crush liberty in the process.

      Rod, next time try and make a factual arguement, rather than relying on emotive appeals (and a flimsy rhetorical question).

      I will reiterate: deaths on the road are the lowest they’ve been - Per capita and absolute deaths.

      Cars have never been safer, road conditions have never been better. Yet the sensationalising from the Fourth Estate and the Jacks continues.

      Here’s a closing anecdote: The Northern Territory, which not so long ago had no speed limits on major highways, introduced speed limits from mid-2007. In 2008 the Northern Territory’s road toll increased by 29.3 percent!

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      03:11pm | 30/03/10

      Perhaps it’s because cars are safer, that the per capita deaths are down (that’s if we accept your numbers are accurate).  Why did they make cars safer then if everyone is so responsible at driving safely?

      Don’t break the law, don’t pay a fine. It’s not rocket science.

    • Tom says:

      03:37pm | 30/03/10

      Exactly right. The declining road toll is mainly due to safer cars and roads, not draconian speed limit enforcement.

      And if anyone doesn’t believe that penalties aren’t revenue raising, according to the NRMA revenue from fines in NSW went from $118 million in 2001 to $312 million, whilst the number of drivers only increased from 3.6 to 4.03 million. I wonder why that happened…

    • BTS says:

      02:46pm | 30/03/10

      If Lewis Hamilton thought it was totally acceptable to do a burn out and fish tail up the road…why was he cowering in the back of a police car, trying not to be filmed?  Guilt?  Regret?

      Even he knew it wasn’t the right thing to do.

      Reply

    • S.L says:

      02:47pm | 30/03/10

      To imply even in jest that Mark Webbers comments (whether valid or irresponsible) on hoon laws suggest admiration for what that nobody (I know his name but will not bring myself to write it) did in Queanbeyan recently is just very, very poor journalism. Mark was a fair target after what he allegedly said but why was mentioning that losers name and his actions warranted for your story?

      Reply

    • NPR says:

      02:48pm | 30/03/10

      BTS says - “If you didn’t disobey the law you wouldn’t have to pay any fines. “

      I haven’t been fined for anything, not one single speeding ticket; you assume too much.

      Rod J’That says - “...there were 1,496 sob stories in Australia to the end of February 2010. No problem?”

      Considering there were approx. 10 times that amount of deaths on the road 60 years ago (with approx. 10 times less the amount of cars), yes I will
      argue there is no problem. You will never get it down to zero so quit trying to crush liberty in the process.

      Rod, next time try and make a factual arguement, rather than relying on emotive appeals (and a flimsy rhetorical question).

      I will reiterate: deaths on the road are the lowest they’ve been - Per capita and absolute deaths.

      Cars have never been safer, road conditions have never been better. Yet the sensationalising from the Fourth Estate and the Jacks continues.

      Here’s a closing anecdote: The Northern Territory, which not so long ago had no speed limits on major highways, introduced speed limits from mid-2007. In 2008 the Northern Territory’s road toll increased by 29.3 percent!

      Reply

    • Rod J'That says:

      03:44pm | 30/03/10

      Sorry, NPR, sometimes I do get a bit emotive when I’m busy crushing liberty.  And thanks for taking the time to reiterate your point that all those dead people - including the kids - aren’t a problem.  I know you loved my last question, so here’s another couple. First, how many road deaths per annum do you reckon would constitute a problem? And second, how many Mark Webber posters should you have in your bedroom before it becomes an unhealthy obssession?

    • Toby says:

      05:21pm | 30/03/10

      Rod, 
      I assume that you are implying that zero death are the right nuber.  That is what we should aim for but how do the hoon laws save any lives?

    • Rod J'That says:

      07:36pm | 30/03/10

      Toby, they save lives by deterring you and your mates from attempting things that you’re not capable of doing safely.

    • Toby says:

      11:50am | 31/03/10

      Rod,
      You flawed logical jumps in this tread the people who are against the hoon laws are somehow advocates of drifting around every corner killing kiddies is ridiculous.  Please learn to read. 

      I am opposed to the hoon laws not in favour of killing people.  Hoon laws carry harsher punishments than much more serious crimes including the major contributor to fatalities on our roads, drink driving.  In fact, the crushing of a $60k+ car is effectively more serious punishment than a lot of break and enter, trafficking, assault and rape cases get.  Applying your own flawed logic then you must think those crimes only minor compared to a burnout.

    • Rod J'That says:

      03:56pm | 31/03/10

      Toby, mate, I’m sorry they crushed your car, it breaks my heart.  Don’t do any wheelies on your BMX, they might take that off you as well. Looking forward to your next thoughtful, articulate, and well-reasoned post.

    • Rod J'That says:

      02:42pm | 30/03/10

      Dot, although I don’t get the ambulance/cliff analogy, I agree with you 100% about the necessity for training - the more the better. I’d go further and say that training is far more effective than anti-hoon laws. But I don’t see why anti-hoon laws should not exist as a further deterrent. At the very least those laws demonstrate that our society - through its elected representatives - finds irresponsible driving to be unacceptable.

      Reply

    • BTS says:

      04:04pm | 30/03/10

      Lock outs are coming in force in NSW and the times are getting earlier.  Next will be closing hours will be sooner.  All because people can’t behave responsibly.  It’s the same here with motor vehicles.  People can’t drive responsibly.  Your behaviour affects others.  When they introduce speed limiters on cars, will the same bogans who want to do burn outs will whinge that it’s becoming a nanny state?

      Reply

    • Toby says:

      05:31pm | 30/03/10

      In your analogy lock outs would be the hoon laws.  Responsible service of alcohol would be the speed limiters etc.  Still no good argument about why the hoon laws are needed, if people break the law anyway how does adding another law help?  Clearly harsher penalties don’t work or there would be no crime in Texas!

      P.S. suggesting that only bogans like burnouts is like saying only gays like Lycra.  It’s just not true.

    • BTS says:

      08:21pm | 30/03/10

      Hoon Laws are need because irresponsible drivers (including those who do burnouts) are too stupid to know that they are putting themselves at risk when they do so, they are too stupid to realise they are putting others at risk when they do so and previous attempts to change their behaviour have evidently failed.  I think harsher penalties do work, if you don’t have a car anymore, you can’t drive irresponsibly.

      Ask the victims of Domestic Violence if adding another law has reduced the suffering they have gone through.

      Still haven’t had you explain why it is necessary that you drive irresponsibly?

    • Toby says:

      12:06pm | 31/03/10

      Not really sure what you mean by the domestic violence comment?

      “if you don’t have a car anymore, you can’t drive irresponsibly” can’t argue with that, point to BTS.  I should stick to my main message; I am against the hoon laws but I hate drink driving.  The hoon laws are too harsh, why don’t drink drivers get their cars crushed?  Instead drink drivers get to keep their cars and in some cases even get given bloody E plates.  Don’t even get me started on the crock of crap the is E plates.

      Why is it NECESSARY to do anything?  I am just suggesting the punishment should fit the crime.  There are already laws in place to deal with irresponsible drivers.

    • Stan Wills says:

      04:47pm | 30/03/10

      Just doesn’t all this hoo haa to do with these guys who treat their car as a sex object make you wonder ......the little boy ( no matter how skilled he is behind a wheel ) just has to show off to the forelock touching yobbos on the street .
        It’s just a bloody car and we have rules to protect the clowns applauding irresponsible drivers

      Reply

    • Mark says:

      05:25pm | 30/03/10

      “I guess you thought it was cool when Justin Williams drove a stolen car at high speeds through the streets of Queanbeyan – your hometown – killing a family of three?”

      Mark Webber didn’t say that, allude to that, or in anyway indicate that. So why did you write it Tracey? Easier than real research? The facts don’t suit your agenda, so hey, you will make the person’s point of view up and present it as fact? Ah, today’s journalism.

      Reply

    • Eric says:

      06:42pm | 30/03/10

      Indeed, Mark.

      We’ve seen journalists on The Punch simply making up stuff, and attributing it to people who never said it. This is one example - and the fiction of “dogwhistling” is another.

      I do have to wonder why making up things that people never said is needed, if the journalists’ cause is just.

    • Jon says:

      06:36pm | 30/03/10

      Tracy Spicer, Obviously you have missed the point Mark Webber was making. Personally, I believe your style of sensationalised wowser journalism is the main reason as to why we have laws specifically designed to protect us from ourselves. Did Lewis Hamiltons burnout kill anyone? Have the hoon laws got any relevance to Justin Hamilton? Could have he been charged under them? Has there been a significant reduction in road deaths since the hoon laws were inacted? no? How about since the penalties have been increased? Still no. Hoon Laws are an abhorrent miscarriage of Justice, where the presumption of innocence is done away with and the police are judge, jury and executioner on the side of the road, punishment is served before the allegations have been proven in a court of law and where the punishment is not fair and balanced (the value of the car confiscated is not the same).

      The Government also wishes to remove our civil liberties with stop and search powers, increased controls on the sale of alcohol and cigarettes, an internet filter which is non optional and the banning of R Class videogames.

      Removing ones ability to think for themselves and laws which protect people from themselves is what a nanny state is. So Mark Webber is quite right.

      Reply

    • More cameras please says:

      08:54pm | 30/03/10

      More Idiot Tax please.  i like the idea of revenue raising from dumb drivers breaking rules, I think all the fines should be increased substantially with a view to reducing income tax.  Driving a car is Plss easy , tax the ones that can’t drive properly.

      Reply

    • Timbo says:

      09:05pm | 30/03/10

      Has anyone talked about the experiment done in a german town where they have completely removed all road signage and actually leave the driving decicion making to the drivers (link here: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,2143663,00.html)

      They talk about people actually slowing down and taking more care with their driving and the town’s accident rate lowering dramatically. Its and interesting thing about the way humans think - give them more rules/signs/laws to follow and they become complacent and more likely to break those rules, but remove the rules and you make the person think about their actions. Think about what you do if you are in a unfamilar area without signage or indicators - you’d probably slow down and take a bit more notice of whats going on around you.

      Its a interesting idea

      Reply

    • Dave in Perth says:

      09:57pm | 30/03/10

      Victoria’s hysterical Road Safety campaigns are the most ridiculous in Oz.
       
      Victorian State govts, of all persuasions, are the most addicted to fine revenue. (And pokies? Go figure)
      From the snippets of news I’ve seen on the subject, it would appear that Victorian Politicians are the most shamelessly opportunistic in Oz.
      How can you NOT make fun of Victoria ? 
      It would seem the whole state is drinking the Kool-Aid.

      Reply

    • Peg says:

      02:57am | 31/03/10

      Tracy you provide the answer to the nanny state question within your own article.
      “For testosterone-fuelled teens to drive like dickheads – to paraphrase the latest Victorian road safety campaign – because you’re sick of “the growing number of rules and regulations”?”
      Is precisely what many of the “nanny state” arguments are about, not an anarchy with no rules but by allowing people to determine there own life and realise the consequences of there actions without having it rammed down there throat by a distant bureaucracy. dont drink and drive, dont take drugs, dont eat to much junk food, dont rape people… what kind of society needs these these points constantly drilled into it? one that has had the power to think for itself wrenched away from it by government that thinks it knows best.
      sometimes it pays to read the reactions of the people tracy, we arent all mindless knuckle draggers desperately waiting for the government to tell us what to put on our toast.

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      03:58am | 31/03/10

      spins the wheels for a sec off the lights and you lose your car, drink drive and u dont, i wonder what is more dangerous

      Reply

    • Nick says:

      04:17am | 31/03/10

      i agree with Mark Webber, Australia is becoming such a crap place to live, even more so if you drive a car

      i drive a modfied car, i get so many ditry looks and people call me a hoon (people have stoped there car in the middle of the road to call me a hoon) because the media make it look like because of the car i drive im a murderer, police harass me and do what ever they can do get my car and me off the road because of what car i drive not how i drive it

      hoons laws are abused so much its not funny, make some tyre noise going around the corner and if you have p plates or you are driving a modified car then you can say goodbye to it

      Reply

    • Tiff Needell says:

      06:52am | 31/03/10

      maybe if he won something more than once in a blue moon, he’d feel better about himself and not have to run others down ( no pun intended) to make himself feels better.
      Seriously, you’re a wanna be tosser who has been close to being ditched before for lack of results. Concentrate on your own performance before you go lauding it over on the rest of us, eh?

      Reply

    • Robert says:

      07:31am | 31/03/10

      I’m very disappointed Tracey did not respond to any of the above comments on her column. Slander and run? I think the nonsense suggesting Mark approved of the red light runner killing the family in Canberra, and suggesting he supported the use of illegal drugs warrants an apology.
      Not only were those remarks totally unsubstantiated and defamatory they represent appalling standards of journalism.
      If you were really a journalist Tracey you would know the maxim: “Opinion is free but facts are sacred”.
      Where’s your integrity?

      Reply

    • Sammy J says:

      09:33am | 31/03/10

      Tracey, you just don’t get it. Mark’s commenting about how ineffective our laws really are. They are geared for revenue raising, not saving lives. The government feed propoganda to gulible people such as yourself that if you stick to the speed limit, you are completely safe, and that if you break the speed limit, you are a dickhead who’s going to run up the footpath and kill a bunch of schoolkids. In the mean time thousands of underqualified, poorly trained people with stupid attitudes towards driving are given licences to drive on our ridiculously poor quality roads. And then a formula one world champion chirps his wheels when pulling out of a carpark and his car is impounded? If you can’t appreciate the irony you are a dickhead, or just stupid.

      Reply

    • dan says:

      03:08pm | 31/03/10

      Nice rant Tracey. Perhaps you should submit your CV to ‘A current affair’ or ‘today tonight’. The sensationalist rubbish you have written would really suit that type of audience. Really nice job.

      When was the last time you traveled to another western country? Perhaps if you have then you could compare what is happening here compared to other western countries and understand the Webber’s point of view.

      Webber probably travels to more cities around the world per year than you have had home cooked meals, so he is in a position to be able to make the comparisons with first hand experience. No Australian wants to bag the ‘homeland’ unless there is a reason to do so.

      Keep up the good work. We need journalists like you to amuse us daily. Keep up the entertaining work.

      Reply

    • Nathan says:

      02:37pm | 08/04/10

      Typical emotional oestrogen-filled rant. No common-sense anywhere to be found.

      Speeding might hurt a baby, therefore excessive penalty for all who break the law no matter what the reason.

      Please, won’t somebody please think of the children!

      Let’s just ignore the false positives, like people getting fined for jay-walking or fined for ‘using a phone whilst operating a vehicle’ even though the car is in park, but the engine is still running. I would rather see 10 hoons get away with speeding than one innocent citizen have to pay a fine for the non-crimes of jaywalking, slightly creeping over the limit accidently or mobile phone use.

      We are a pathetic nanny-state who pass laws that are ant-freedom and imply that adults couldn’t possibly know what is best. And we have oestrogen-eyed women who can’t see straight like Tracey to thank for that. After all, safety is far more important that personal freedom. Living in fear of the police is a small price to pay. If only we could trade all our freedoms for immortality.

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

122

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed