Dangerous driving
Discussion
No:
S 2 Road Traffic Act 1988, amended by Road Traffic Act 1991, states:
Any person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place commits an offence .
There are a number of defences to this offence
automatism
unconsciousness/sudden illness
assist in arrest of offenders
duress
sudden mechanical defect
authorised motoring event
The term 'mechanically propelled vehicle' has a wider meaning than 'motor vehicle' as the former does not have to be 'intended or adapted for use on a road'.
The offence has two distinct parts and two separate questions for the jury or magistrates to answer. First, there is the actus reus (guilty act) of the offence. They must consider whether a defendant's driving fell far below the fixed and objective standard of a competent and careful driver, irrespective of their experience. The standard expected is the same for a learner driver holding a provisional licence as it is for a driver who has passed his driving test or even an experienced professional driver.
Although the standard of driving required is fixed and objective in the sense that it must always be that of the competent and careful driver, it may vary according to road and driving conditions. It is perfectly possible for driving to be held to be competent and careful in one situation and to have fallen below that standard in another. The weather, visibility and traffic conditions are examples of factors which affect the degree of care required. For this reason, juries and magistrates decide each case on its own facts. The standard of driving required, and failure to reach it is easier to recognise in practice, than to define generally.
Any aspect of a defendant's driving (control of the vehicle) may fall far below the standard expected, whether it be by excessive speed, failure to comply with a road sign, etc.
The second question for the jury or magistrates is whether it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in the way the defendant drove would be dangerous.
DANGEROUS
in this context refers to danger of injury to any person or serious damage to property.
The test is what would be obvious to the hypothetical competent and careful driver. However, in determining what would be obvious to a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the defendant. This provision introduces an element of subjectivity into the objective test and enables the jury to fix the hypothetical 'competent and careful driver' with the defendant's actual knowledge before asking whether it would be obvious to the former that the defendant's driving would be dangerous.
The owner of the vehicle, by allowing it to be driven dangerously, is guilty of aiding and abetting and is liable to be convicted as a principal offender.
MODE OF TRIAL AND PENALTY: Either Way
SUMMARY: Six months imprisonment and / or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
INDICTMENT: Two years imprisonment and / or a fine.
OBLIGATORY DISQUALIFICATION and OBLIGATORY ENDORSEMENT with 3-11 penalty points.
The offence is subject to the general conditional powers of arrest (S25 PACE 1984).
>> Edited by Dibble on Saturday 3rd July 00:50
S 2 Road Traffic Act 1988, amended by Road Traffic Act 1991, states:
Any person who drives a mechanically propelled vehicle dangerously on a road or other public place commits an offence .
There are a number of defences to this offence
automatism
unconsciousness/sudden illness
assist in arrest of offenders
duress
sudden mechanical defect
authorised motoring event
The term 'mechanically propelled vehicle' has a wider meaning than 'motor vehicle' as the former does not have to be 'intended or adapted for use on a road'.
The offence has two distinct parts and two separate questions for the jury or magistrates to answer. First, there is the actus reus (guilty act) of the offence. They must consider whether a defendant's driving fell far below the fixed and objective standard of a competent and careful driver, irrespective of their experience. The standard expected is the same for a learner driver holding a provisional licence as it is for a driver who has passed his driving test or even an experienced professional driver.
Although the standard of driving required is fixed and objective in the sense that it must always be that of the competent and careful driver, it may vary according to road and driving conditions. It is perfectly possible for driving to be held to be competent and careful in one situation and to have fallen below that standard in another. The weather, visibility and traffic conditions are examples of factors which affect the degree of care required. For this reason, juries and magistrates decide each case on its own facts. The standard of driving required, and failure to reach it is easier to recognise in practice, than to define generally.
Any aspect of a defendant's driving (control of the vehicle) may fall far below the standard expected, whether it be by excessive speed, failure to comply with a road sign, etc.
The second question for the jury or magistrates is whether it would be obvious to a competent and careful driver that driving in the way the defendant drove would be dangerous.
DANGEROUS
in this context refers to danger of injury to any person or serious damage to property.
The test is what would be obvious to the hypothetical competent and careful driver. However, in determining what would be obvious to a competent and careful driver in a particular case, regard shall be had not only to the circumstances of which he could be expected to be aware but also to any circumstances shown to have been within the knowledge of the defendant. This provision introduces an element of subjectivity into the objective test and enables the jury to fix the hypothetical 'competent and careful driver' with the defendant's actual knowledge before asking whether it would be obvious to the former that the defendant's driving would be dangerous.
The owner of the vehicle, by allowing it to be driven dangerously, is guilty of aiding and abetting and is liable to be convicted as a principal offender.
MODE OF TRIAL AND PENALTY: Either Way
SUMMARY: Six months imprisonment and / or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum.
INDICTMENT: Two years imprisonment and / or a fine.
OBLIGATORY DISQUALIFICATION and OBLIGATORY ENDORSEMENT with 3-11 penalty points.
The offence is subject to the general conditional powers of arrest (S25 PACE 1984).
>> Edited by Dibble on Saturday 3rd July 00:50
Dibble said:
authorised motoring event
Surely this would not be a defence in the case of a road rally / link section on a stage event / trial.
Therefore are we not speaking about closed road events? In which case the definition of a public road / place comes into question.
I know UK law has some wierd and wonderful conundrums scattered around the place but I can just imagine the beak's white faced expression when faced with....
"So Mr Gronholm/Solberg/A N Other, you are charged with driving a motor vehicle on Letsby Avenue with only three wheels at speeds over 120mph, how do you plead?"
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff