Careless Driving – The Law

Section 3 RTA – Careless Driving – The Legal Background

Section 3 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 makes it an offence to be guilty of what is generally termed ‘careless driving’. However, the section in fact envisages two quite distinct situations from which an offence can arise. First, it is an offence to drive a vehicle on a road without due care and attention1. Secondly, it is an offence to drive a vehicle on a road without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road. The ambit of this section is in fact wide, and it is considered to include all cases of bad or objectionable driving up to such cases which fall just short of reckless driving. Accordingly, a charge of careless driving may arise from lack of attention or judgment, momentary inattention or lack of concentration, or a simple mistake. Indeed it is not necessary to any charge under section 3 that there should be a collision or an accident as a result of the driving complained of. However, the fact that there has been a collision between two vehicles does not necessarily mean that one of the drivers has been guilty of careless driving. Section 3 cases are prosecuted summarily and the penalties include a fine, obligatory endorsement of the licence, discretionary disqualification and penalty points.

Driving without due care and attention involves an objective and fixed standard, and accordingly the same requirements are imposed on all drivers whatever their status and experience. It is a question of fact in all cases as to whether any particular driver was exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would show in the circumstances. The same general approach is adopted in cases of driving without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road (who may be passengers in the car driven by the offending driver).

Although each case must ultimately depend on its own facts, there are a number of reported cases in which guidelines have been laid down, or in which statements have been made by the court which were intended to have a general application. For example, it has been held that a driver who signals a manoeuvre which is liable to require another person using the road to observe and act upon that signal, is under a duty to see that his signal has been appreciated. A driver signalling a turn who drives straight on and collides with a vehicle which relied on his signal is guilty of careless driving in that he gave misleading signals on which the other driver was entitled to rely. A driver following another on a road is bound, so far as is reasonably possible, to take up such a position, and to drive in such a fashion, as will enable him to deal successfully with all traffic exigencies reasonably to be anticipated, particularly in relation to the vehicle in front. A skid is not prima facie evidence of negligence but is simply a factor to be considered in all the circumstances of the case as to whether the driving has been careless. There is no general rule of law that a motorist must drive at night at such a speed that he can stop within the limit of the vision supplied by his headlights. A driver on a major road may have to take into account the conduct of a driver on a minor road if that driver’s behaviour makes it clear that he is about to behave in such a way as will interfere with the driving of the vehicle on the main road, and the driver on the main road has reasonable opportunity to accommodate such interference. The circumstances of any particular case may justify the inference, in the absence of any proper explanation, that a driver has been guilty of careless driving.