14 February 2007

Carney plead guilty to drunken burnouts in Goulburn

| johnboy
Join the conversation

ABC Sport has a story on the Raiders’ Todd Carney pleading guilty in Goulburn.

“Police documents tendered to the court show that on December 16, Carney and his friends were drinking and in the evening he drove his car at speeds estimated in excess of 100 km/h in a 50 km zone and did burnouts.

When taken back to the Goulburn police station, he blew a blood alcohol reading of 0.145.”

Sentencing on 7 March.

Join the conversation

All Comments
  • All Comments
  • Website Comments
VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt9:14 am 19 Feb 07

” think your return-on-investment for cutting down on their baleful influence is a hell of a lot higher than going after plonkers who fail to indicate. “

I have no problems with accepting that as an alternative opinion, but is there any real rationale to back it up? I would be disappointed if ‘provability’ was a major driver (no pun intended) to determining which law breaches to target.

I think the reason they pursue drink driving and speeding is that they are metrics that can be proven. I’d say it would be hard to make some charges that are at the officers discretion stand up in court (e.g. reckless/inattentive driving). Pursuing those kinds of charges would have a hell of a resource implication.

I’m not apologising for it – but I can see the rationale. Do you think if they had a “fatigue-o-meter” they wouldn’t be hammering tired drivers? Or a dickhead-o-meter, for that matter?

Besides, speeding and drink driving are two of the biggest contributors to fatal accidents there are. I think your return-on-investment for cutting down on their baleful influence is a hell of a lot higher than going after plonkers who fail to indicate.

I should point out, I’ve been pinged twice for not wearing a seat belt, so, yes, police are definately enforcing laws other than drink driving and speeding.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt2:12 pm 16 Feb 07

I have no problem with enforcing compliance with the law. My problem is that I see virtually zero efforts being directed towards anything other than speeding and drink driving, and I think this gives many a false sense of security, and impacts our prioritisation of safety measures.

On a more positive note, I see the ads for double demerit points including seatbelts, which are probably the most effective safety technology we have.

I guess I am against the whole fearmongering that is the anti-speeding campaign. I’m much more in favour of a more balanced approach.

It’s not just that you are more likely to crash while speeding. It is also that the crash is more likely to be fatal or really bad if you crash at high speed.

And really what do you gain – 5 minutes?

Being harsh on speeding helps create a culture where speeding is regarded as a really stupid thing to do. Kinda like drink driving. I know that the introduction of the .05 limit and the breathalyser was regarded by many at the time as a drastic violation of human rights – but it sure as hell cut the road toll.

Likewise with speeding. The same arguments are trotted out; “I’m a good driver – I can speed” and “Being a little bit over the limit is okay”. Replace speed with “have a few and drive” and you’ll see what I mean.

By all means we should come down harder on people driving carelessly and inattentively – but let’s keep coming down hard on speeding. You might think that a little bit of speeding is okay – but you can’t fight the harsh and immutable laws of physics.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt10:27 am 16 Feb 07

No worries vg. Next time get I cut off by some moron at 98km/h in a 100 zone, with no indicator I’ll be sure to look at my speedo. After all, if my speed is 100 or less I MUST be safe! Frankly, this sort of rhetoric doesn’t achieve a thing.

If you drive at 50 over the speed limit, then yeah, you’re in a very high risk situation. No one is disputing that. And I don’t envy you having to visit fatal crashed. But perhaps if we removed some of the emotion, and got back to the facts, we would all be a bit better off.

I’d love to see you forward your argument regarding speed at the next fatal I go to. Try talking to an actual expert in actual accident investigation (like I do every day) instead of a net expert with an agenda.

Better still explain it to the parents of the kids that got killed on Hindmarsh Drive a few years ago when they lost it at Mach 10.

Generally agree with you VY – inattentive drivers trundling along at the speed limit can be just as dangerous.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt1:26 pm 15 Feb 07

oops – change ‘work’ to ‘amongst’. Don’t know what happened there!

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt1:25 pm 15 Feb 07

I believe we shouldn’t be so harsh on speeding for the simple reason that it conveys to the masses that speed control is the only risk mitigation strategy out there. If we were to spread the compliance work other risk mitigations (such as driver capability, impairment such as drink/drug driving, use of signals, lane discipline, etc), the overall effect would likely be to make the roads a safer place. I believe that most risk mitigations work on the 80/20 rule: for 20% effort or committment you get 80% of the benefit. To translate – if people spread their concentration more evenly across the spectrum of what they were supposed to do behind the wheel, and didn’t focus on staring at the speedo, the roads would be a safer place.

Understand that I don’t condone deliberate speeding or breaking of the rules. It’s simply that I support a balanced approach that make the roads as safe an convenient as possible.

No doubt we shouldn’t rely on speed as the sole indicator of road safety, VY, but you still haven’t provided a reason why we shouldn’t continue to be harsh on speeding.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt12:58 pm 15 Feb 07

Noone’s disputing that its a very dumb thing to do – to carry the risk management view forward, he has removed two very effective risk treatments: speed control and driving effectiveness.

100 in a 50 zone AND drunk?

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt12:24 pm 15 Feb 07

Fair enough, but to equate speeding with russian roulette is a bit silly. In reality, millions of people speed every day. The risks involved in driving a car are vastly different and more complex – including the risk mitigation measures that are employed.

Ultimately speed limits are a risk mitigation method set at a defined level. There are a range of other mitigations available. A better solution is to consider a range of mitigations, rather than simply relying on one.

In all honesty, the drink driving worries me more than the speeding.

No, but he was far more likely to have an accident than he would have been had he not been speeding.

Kind of like not everybody playing Russian Roulette shoots themselves in the brain every time. But it’s much more likely than, say, not picking up a loaded gun and pointing it at your scone.

VYBerlinaV8 now_with_added grunt11:22 am 15 Feb 07

While I do not condone or agree with this type of behaviour, isn’t it interesting that even though he was speeding he didn’t have an accident? Who woulda thought?

Bogan is the most polite thing I could say

‘D I C K H E A D’ would probably be more appropriate VG, given his BAC reading and high speeds in (I’m guessing by 50km/h) residential areas.

Gimme a B
Gimme an O
Gimme a G
Gimme an A
Gimme an N

Daily Digest

Want the best Canberra news delivered daily? Every day we package the most popular Riotact stories and send them straight to your inbox. Sign-up now for trusted local news that will never be behind a paywall.

By submitting your email address you are agreeing to Region Group's terms and conditions and privacy policy.