Will Buddy get a week and a club fine like Jack?

[The OtherThommo]

http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news ... 22e9q.html

The law seems to rate the excessive speed similarly to Jack's alcohol level, given the length of licence suspension and the fine.

Plus, "Speed Kills".

[SainterK]

Just shows this stuff happens regardless of jumper colour, misbehaviour is never club specific.

Glad to see balanced media reporting, and this is getting the airtime it deserves.

[maverick]

Worse than Jack's for mine

[stinger]

Worse than Jack's for mine

this is deliberate...jack was just stupid.....

[plugger66]

Reckon more people speed than drive over .05.

[Spinner]

Worse than Jack's for mine

this is deliberate...jack was just stupid.....

Surely you two are not serious....

[Spinner]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

[Dr Spaceman]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

That's a little bit simplistic Spinner.

Some people can be 0.08% and it doesn't even affect them.

And you can cause a lot of damage travelling at 90kph in a side street if something or someone runs out in front of you, or a car reverses out of a driveway etc.

I'm not defending Jack and I'm not slotting Buddy. Just saying it's hard to say one is definitely more serious than the other.

[plugger66]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

That's a little bit simplistic Spinner.

Some people can be 0.08% and it doesn't even affect them.

And you can cause a lot of damage travelling at 90kph in a side street if something or someone runs out in front of you, or a car reverses out of a driveway etc.

I'm not defending Jack and I'm not slotting Buddy. Just saying it's hard to say one is definitely more serious than the other.

What is easier to say is jack had a prior.

[Dr Spaceman]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

That's a little bit simplistic Spinner.

Some people can be 0.08% and it doesn't even affect them.

And you can cause a lot of damage travelling at 90kph in a side street if something or someone runs out in front of you, or a car reverses out of a driveway etc.

I'm not defending Jack and I'm not slotting Buddy. Just saying it's hard to say one is definitely more serious than the other.

What is easier to say is jack had a prior.

Different argument but certainly relevant to how the club chooses to handle it.

[Spinner]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

That's a little bit simplistic Spinner.

Some people can be 0.08% and it doesn't even affect them.

And you can cause a lot of damage travelling at 90kph in a side street if something or someone runs out in front of you, or a car reverses out of a driveway etc.

I'm not defending Jack and I'm not slotting Buddy. Just saying it's hard to say one is definitely more serious than the other.

What's simplistic is people calling for Buddy to be suspended because Jack drove under the influence of alcohol.

Hands up who has received a speeding fine.... I bet there are more hands than drink driving. Oh thats right - We are all moral beings on the internet, I guess there will be hands up afterall.

[SainterK]

Hand up.

I accidentally drove 62 in a school zone at 2.31pm one day.

I had not slept all night with an upset 8 week old baby, was on the way to mums for help.

Was in my PJ's, hair was all messy, bet I looked a fright. Saw the lights, and had to get out in that state...I was sorry about the speeding, and sorry about the sight I must of been!

[Dr Spaceman]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

That's a little bit simplistic Spinner.

Some people can be 0.08% and it doesn't even affect them.

And you can cause a lot of damage travelling at 90kph in a side street if something or someone runs out in front of you, or a car reverses out of a driveway etc.

I'm not defending Jack and I'm not slotting Buddy. Just saying it's hard to say one is definitely more serious than the other.

What's simplistic is people calling for Buddy to be suspended because Jack drove under the influence of alcohol.

No disagreement there.

[Life Long Saint]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

Oh dear! Don't you watch the TAC ads?

50 zones are placed for specific reasons...suburban streets and shopping centres. If you are travelling at 60kph in these areas, it is too fast. Anyone could appear on the road from between two parked cars giving you not enough time to stop. Up that by another 30kph and you have NO chance of stopping in time and will most move the result of the accident from a serious injury to a fatality.

I am not condoning what Jack did but it was not like he got on the booze and drove home. It was 8:00am the morning after.

Out of the two specific incidents I'd have Buddy's slightly worse. He is doing 90kph on a tree-lined road with cars parked on the street in a densely housed area in the afternoon. Odds of kids being around would have been quite high. Jack's was 8:00am on a Sunday morning...very little traffic.

Nothing at all to do with jumper colours but everything to do with endangering innocent lives.

Once again, Jack was silly but inadvertent and AFL players should be more careful but I rank Buddy's worse because you don't accidentally do 90kph in a 50kph zone.

Also the Police view excessive speeding as very serious...In fact had Buddy been doing just 5kph more, he would have been subject to the hoon laws.

[plugger66]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

Oh dear! Don't you watch the TAC ads?

50 zones are placed for specific reasons...suburban streets and shopping centres. If you are travelling at 60kph in these areas, it is too fast. Anyone could appear on the road from between two parked cars giving you not enough time to stop. Up that by another 30kph and you have NO chance of stopping in time and will most move the result of the accident from a serious injury to a fatality.

I am not condoning what Jack did but it was not like he got on the booze and drove home. It was the 8:00am the morning after.

Out of the two specific incidents I'd have Buddy's slightly worse. He is doing 90kph on a tree-lined road with cars parked on the street in a densely housed area in the afternoon. Odds of kids being around would have been quite high. Jack's was 8:00am on a Sunday morning...very little traffic.

Nothing at all to do with jumper colours but everything to do with endangering innocent lives.

Once again, Jack was silly but inadvertent and AFL players should be more careful but I rank Buddy's worse because you don't accidentally do 90kph in a 50kph zone.

I got picked up for .069 recently and Sainter K drove 22km over the limit. Which one is worse. IMO mine and by a long way. And surely nearly everyone else would think so to.

[paddy]

agree that intent has a part to play,

Jack's was a lack of judgement

Buddy's was a desire to speed...

I think Buddy's intent indicates a greater concern, but Jack's actions are far worse...

[Life Long Saint]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

Oh dear! Don't you watch the TAC ads?

50 zones are placed for specific reasons...suburban streets and shopping centres. If you are travelling at 60kph in these areas, it is too fast. Anyone could appear on the road from between two parked cars giving you not enough time to stop. Up that by another 30kph and you have NO chance of stopping in time and will most move the result of the accident from a serious injury to a fatality.

I am not condoning what Jack did but it was not like he got on the booze and drove home. It was the 8:00am the morning after.

Out of the two specific incidents I'd have Buddy's slightly worse. He is doing 90kph on a tree-lined road with cars parked on the street in a densely housed area in the afternoon. Odds of kids being around would have been quite high. Jack's was 8:00am on a Sunday morning...very little traffic.

Nothing at all to do with jumper colours but everything to do with endangering innocent lives.

Once again, Jack was silly but inadvertent and AFL players should be more careful but I rank Buddy's worse because you don't accidentally do 90kph in a 50kph zone.

I got picked up for .069 recently and Sainter K drove 22km over the limit. Which one is worse. IMO mine and by a long way. And surely nearly everyone else would think so to.

In your cases they are both bad...If your 0.069 was just after you finished drinking then that is inexcusable. Speeding through a school zone when you're dead tired is probably worse. Because tests have shown that driving fatigued can have the same effect has being alcohol affected. Speeding when your reactions are dulled is a recipe for tragedy.

I am not judging the person only the situation...I am no saint here either, although I have never been caught for DUI. I have certainly been in Jack's position before...And I have been pulled over and booked for doing 118kph in a 100kph on a four-laned freeway on a Sunday morning at around 10:00am.

[Stillwaiting]

They will probably rub him out for this week, while he is injured.

[plugger66]

Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

Oh dear! Don't you watch the TAC ads?

50 zones are placed for specific reasons...suburban streets and shopping centres. If you are travelling at 60kph in these areas, it is too fast. Anyone could appear on the road from between two parked cars giving you not enough time to stop. Up that by another 30kph and you have NO chance of stopping in time and will most move the result of the accident from a serious injury to a fatality.

I am not condoning what Jack did but it was not like he got on the booze and drove home. It was the 8:00am the morning after.

Out of the two specific incidents I'd have Buddy's slightly worse. He is doing 90kph on a tree-lined road with cars parked on the street in a densely housed area in the afternoon. Odds of kids being around would have been quite high. Jack's was 8:00am on a Sunday morning...very little traffic.

Nothing at all to do with jumper colours but everything to do with endangering innocent lives.

Once again, Jack was silly but inadvertent and AFL players should be more careful but I rank Buddy's worse because you don't accidentally do 90kph in a 50kph zone.

I got picked up for .069 recently and Sainter K drove 22km over the limit. Which one is worse. IMO mine and by a long way. And surely nearly everyone else would think so to.

In your cases they are both bad...If your 0.069 was just after you finished drinking then that is inexcusable. Speeding through a school zone when you're dead tired is probably worse. Because tests have shown that driving fatigued can have the same effect has being alcohol affected. Speeding when your reactions are dulled is a recipe for tragedy.

I am not judging the person only the situation...I am no saint here either, although I have never been caught for DUI. I have certainly been in Jack's position before...And I have been pulled over and booked for doing 118kph in a 100kph on a four-laned freeway on a Sunday morning at around 10:00am.[/quote]


Doesnt make it right but I reckon just bout half the people who go through a school zone speed. Dont reckon half the people who go through a school zone are over .05. There is no doubt in my mind that drink driving is far worse than speeding. Anyway Buddy shouldnt miss a week for that and Jack may not have either had he not had priors.

[Spinner]

Buddy was speeding, but its not like he was doing 160km/h.

It was 90 in a 50 zone. How many times have you not even noticed a 'road works' sign on a 80km/h road while doing the usual speed limit, where 40/50 signs pop out of now where.

People suggesting he should be suspended need to get their heads check. I hate buddy but that's just downright bias and whinging because he is from another club.




Yep more serious than being intoxicated at the wheel...

Oh dear! Don't you watch the TAC ads?

50 zones are placed for specific reasons...suburban streets and shopping centres. If you are travelling at 60kph in these areas, it is too fast. Anyone could appear on the road from between two parked cars giving you not enough time to stop. Up that by another 30kph and you have NO chance of stopping in time and will most move the result of the accident from a serious injury to a fatality.

I am not condoning what Jack did but it was not like he got on the booze and drove home. It was 8:00am the morning after.

Out of the two specific incidents I'd have Buddy's slightly worse. He is doing 90kph on a tree-lined road with cars parked on the street in a densely housed area in the afternoon. Odds of kids being around would have been quite high. Jack's was 8:00am on a Sunday morning...very little traffic.

Nothing at all to do with jumper colours but everything to do with endangering innocent lives.

Once again, Jack was silly but inadvertent and AFL players should be more careful but I rank Buddy's worse because you don't accidentally do 90kph in a 50kph zone.

Also the Police view excessive speeding as very serious...In fact had Buddy been doing just 5kph more, he would have been subject to the hoon laws.

Bias at its best right here.

Are you seriously trying to argue that what Jack did was more accidental because it was the next day and speeding is more of a deliberate act?


What if the road conditions changed with Buddy noticing, what if they flow of traffic was going faster than normal, what if there were road works?'

Who knows.


And yes I do watch the ads. And it is serious. Does he deserve a week because Jack drunk drove... Most certainly not.

[Spinner]

agree that intent has a part to play,

Jack's was a lack of judgement

Buddy's was a desire to speed...

I think Buddy's intent indicates a greater concern, but Jack's actions are far worse...

That's crap.

From the moment I have had my licence I have never driven the next day if out till 3/4am on the drink.

I've done that every weekend. You know why? Because it isn't as 'accidental' as some people think.. There is media about it, and coppers target people the next day. Its not a hidden fact the people are intoxicated the next day after a big night.

[Beno88]

Reckon more people speed than drive over .05.

I reckon more people drive over 0.05 than do 40kph over the speed limit.

[plugger66]

Reckon more people speed than drive over .05.

I reckon more people drive over 0.05 than do 40kph over the speed limit.

What about .08?. Anyway I point is Jack had at least one prior so he got a week. Not sure Buddy has any priors.

[Beno88]

Reckon more people speed than drive over .05.

I reckon more people drive over 0.05 than do 40kph over the speed limit.

What about .08?. Anyway I point is Jack had at least one prior so he got a week. Not sure Buddy has any priors.

Touche.

[The OtherThommo]

I just asked a question on the basis that the law rates the 2 offences as similar - the licence suspensions are both for 6 months and the fine for Buddy is actually higher ($599 vs $423), so it could reasonably be argued the LAW rates Buddy's offence as more serious, albeit slightly.

In Jack's case the club fined him $5K (the maximum allowed by a club) and suspended him for a game. Some (like Porky Robinson) called for a longer suspension (Robinson said 4). While some of what was called for by others was on the basis of Jack's previous indiscretion, which put nobody at risk other than himself, and was not deemed by the law to be worth their intervention, the maximum fine and 1 game suspension was couched as mainly due to the severity/risk of what he'd done in the particular instance.

And, now Buddy has an instance that the law rates as slightly worse than Jack. It is rated that way because the law deems both to be of a similar risk to life and limb, particularly to the lives and limbs of others.

To me that suggests that is the standard by which everyone should be judged, should they infringe. Jack is an AFL footballer , so we banged him with some extras for infringing the legal standard set for the community in general. Fair enough.

On those grounds, and given the offences are similar in the standard breached (using the penalties as a reference) I can't see how Buddy can escape extra sanction from his club. If he does it would suggest there is one rule (standard) for him and another for lesser mortals.

And, that would be a crock. I'm not suggesting what extras he should cop, but it sure as hell can't be zip.