Dangerous driving

Warm Edge

I got pinged for speeding the other night on the M7. No complaints - it was a fair cop but at gone midnight it was a rather unpleasent surprise.
The Garda said my speed was borderline dangerous driving. He was a decent bloke and didn't give me a sermon about it but said it in a matter of fact sort of way. Figuring I was on pretty thin ice already I didn't ask him to elaborate in case he thought I was getting bolshy. He left me with the feeling that I was lucky I was only getting the 2 points and making an €80 contribution to the 22bn deficit. I'm curious to know what speed is actually considered to be dangerous driving and what that means in terms of points/fines. Could somebody give me an 'informed' opinion. Thanks

coach23

there is no limit set for speed being a dangerous driving but it is a factor in the manner in which you drive making it dangerous driving and can be an aid in the garda making a recommendation to the dpp along with other factors to proceed with a dangerous driving charge. you have to understand that increased speed reduces reaction times for you and other drivers around you and increases the amount of force when you hit someone else.

Mr. Presentable

You also need to consider road conditions. What might only be speeding on a dry summers night, could be dangerous driving on a frosty November one.

Reloc8

The offence is phrased as follows :

"A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public."

So speed is just one possible factor, and it doesn't matter if there is actually nobody else around on the road.

Turner

Moved to Legal Discussion, plenty of solicitors and barristers here who will explain it.

Get into any pursuit, ramming a Garda car, overtake like a lunatic, park in a dangerous place or speed along at 150mph on the motorway will get you arrested for Dangerous Driving. (and many many more instances)

Getting convicted is up to the Judge.

TheNog

Reloc8 wrote: »

The offence is phrased as follows :

"A person shall not drive a vehicle in a public place at a speed or in a manner which, having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the nature, condition and use of the place and the amount of traffic which then actually is or might reasonably be expected then to be therein) is dangerous to the public."

So speed is just one possible factor, and it doesn't matter if there is actually nobody else around on the road.

Actually I believe members of the public have to be present in order for a dangerous driving prosecution. This is highlighted in the last 5 words of the definition of dangerous driving in your quote.


OP

dangerous driving is taking into consideration all factors such as weather, traffic, speed, road type/condition etc etc

One example would be driving at 200kph on a motorway with a speed limit of 120kph. The speed is far in excess of the limit and it would be reasonable to assume to present an unnecessary and realistic danger to other members of the public.

Victor

TheNog wrote: »

Actually I believe members of the public have to be present in order for a dangerous driving prosecution. This is highlighted in the last 5 words of the definition of dangerous driving in your quote.

I disagree "or might reasonably be expected then to be therein"

So 100km/h down Grafton Street day or night would fit the criteria.

Reloc8

TheNog wrote: »

Actually I believe members of the public have to be present in order for a dangerous driving prosecution. This is highlighted in the last 5 words of the definition of dangerous driving in your quote.

Yeah...its not my quote...its the charging section of the Act which describes the offence. I don't go around making this stuff up.

You're entitled to your belief :rolleyes: but you're completely mistaken if you believe that the offence requires members of the public to be present.

The section itself does not even refer to members of the public - just 'the public' which is indicative that present of a natural person is not required. That's probably the weakest point in contradiction of your belief though.

In any event, the phrase 'traffic which might reasonably be expected then to be therein' is quite clear in providing for an objective test which does not require any actual traffic whether foot or road to be present. That's probably the strongest point in contradiction of your belief and arises from the plain, ordinary and obvious meaning in law of the section.

In any event, the section has been around for quite a while now and unsurprisingly has been interpreted as described in the two paragraphs directly above over the course of that time.

To be clear, the offence can be committed if the manner of driving is dangerous in law, even if no one else is around, if it is reasonable to expect that there might well be some one around at that time in that place on another occasion.

You are of course into listening posts set up for trees falling in forest territory as in the vast majority of cases there will of course be someone present (otherwise there would be no eyewitness) but there have been prosecutions for dangerous driving based solely on speed camera evidence.

You of course remain entitled to your belief :rolleyes:

TheNog wrote: »

dangerous driving is taking into consideration all factors such as weather, traffic, speed, road type/condition etc etc

One example would be driving at 200kph on a motorway with a speed limit of 120kph. The speed is far in excess of the limit and it would be reasonable to assume to present an unnecessary and realistic danger to other members of the public.

Yes. Once we're clear that no members of the public in fact have to be put in actual danger for the offence to be committed.

TheNog

Reloc8 wrote: »

Yeah...its not my quote...its the charging section of the Act which describes the offence. I don't go around making this stuff up.

You're entitled to your belief :rolleyes: but you're completely mistaken if you believe that the offence requires members of the public to be present.

The section itself does not even refer to members of the public - just 'the public' which is indicative that present of a natural person is not required. That's probably the weakest point in contradiction of your belief though.

In any event, the phrase 'traffic which might reasonably be expected then to be therein' is quite clear in providing for an objective test which does not require any actual traffic whether foot or road to be present. That's probably the strongest point in contradiction of your belief and arises from the plain, ordinary and obvious meaning in law of the section.

In any event, the section has been around for quite a while now and unsurprisingly has been interpreted as described in the two paragraphs directly above over the course of that time.

To be clear, the offence can be committed if the manner of driving is dangerous in law, even if no one else is around, if it is reasonable to expect that there might well be some one around at that time in that place on another occasion.

You are of course into listening posts set up for trees falling in forest territory as in the vast majority of cases there will of course be someone present (otherwise there would be no eyewitness) but there have been prosecutions for dangerous driving based solely on speed camera evidence.

You of course remain entitled to your belief :rolleyes:



Yes. Once we're clear that no members of the public in fact have to be put in actual danger for the offence to be committed.

Ok I put my hands up and admit I misinterpretted it. I made a mistake. No biggy.

I dont think my reply to you comes across as insulting, however your post above with the :rolleyes:'s added in shows you as quite an arrogant person.

Reloc8

TheNog wrote: »

Ok I put my hands up and admit I misinterpretted it. I made a mistake. No biggy.

I dont think my reply to you comes across as insulting, however your post above with the :rolleyes:'s added in shows you as quite an arrogant person.

I didn't say your reply to me was insulting - I don't know why you think that I did.

I'm not going to get into trading personal comments with you as regards what kind of a person you are or I am - your decision to go down that road is your own. If the rolling eyes smiley speaks that much to you perhaps there should be an option to disable it.

You posted to say that a legal definition which somebody asked for, and which was of course provided, was incorrect. I couldn't care less personally whether you are right or wrong, but I do have a minor interest in making sure that my words (you quoted my reply) are not being used as the basis for giving wrong information in response to a factual query.

I have a far broader interest in trying to keep content which is offered up as an answer to a legal query accurate - because if people arn't willing to at least try and give right answers there is little point to this forum. Equally, if people are willing to cast doubt (in fact downright assert) that information being given is wrong (based on uninformed beliefs), the same arises only more so. Bear in mind the OP did ask for an informed opinion.

TheNog

Reloc8 wrote: »

I didn't say your reply to me was insulting - I don't know why you think that I did.

I'm not going to get into trading personal comments with you as regards what kind of a person you are or I am - your decision to go down that road is your own. If the rolling eyes smiley speaks that much to you perhaps there should be an option to disable it.

You posted to say that a legal definition which somebody asked for, and which was of course provided, was incorrect. I couldn't care less personally whether you are right or wrong, but I do have a minor interest in making sure that my words (you quoted my reply) are not being used as the basis for giving wrong information in response to a factual query.

I have a far broader interest in trying to keep content which is offered up as an answer to a legal query accurate - because if people arn't willing to at least try and give right answers there is little point to this forum. Equally, if people are willing to cast doubt (in fact downright assert) that information being given is wrong (based on uninformed beliefs), the same arises only more so. Bear in mind the OP did ask for an informed opinion.

I never get into the habit of trading personal insults with anyone so I apologise for calling you an arrogant person. Instead I should have said your post struck me as arrogant.

None of us here are infallible, Gardai or solicitors alike. I believed your first post was in error but now I know it was not. I didnt post it to disrespect you.
Also I hate the use of the :rolleyes: even if its not directed at me but hey thats just me.

Anyway, totally of topic.

NUTLEY BOY

Was there not a case in Donegal in the last few years where the driver was recorded doing some lunatic speed (150 mp.h. plus ?) and the dangerous driving charge was actually struck out !!

Ultimately, the judgment of "dangerous driving" really does depend very much on the particular facts of the individual case.

jasonpbmw

it depends what all the conditions are, speed, road/wether conditions, amount of traffic, condition of said vehicel, what a lot of people do is wait until they get the fine in the post, dont pay it, they get a summons for not paying it, go to court give evidence that they never recieved the fine and it will get struck out = no fine = no points!! i watch this happen every day in court and never seen it fail yet, i dont know what kind of a legal system is here at all

pirelli

NUTLEY BOY wrote: »

Was there not a case in Donegal in the last few years where the driver was recorded doing some lunatic speed (150 mp.h. plus ?) and the dangerous driving charge was actually struck out !!

Ultimately, the judgment of "dangerous driving" really does depend very much on the particular facts of the individual case.

One similar case to your NUTELY BOY where a business man was doing 120 mph on a stretch of motorway.He was stopped for speeding by two gardai. The gardai charged him with Dangerous driving due to his excessive speed and the defence was that the offence occured at 3am and there was no traffic.

The judge said that had the gardai charged the driver with careless driving that he would more than likely convict, but that he could not convict for dangerous driving.

So careless driving and or driving without due care and attention would probably be at the discretion of the garda stopping the speeder but i wonder would it be an additonal 2 penalty points to the speeding penalty point or would it replace the charge of speeding.

It seems to be much of a muchness really unless you get 4 penalty points and two penalty notices.

Reloc8

Pirellis as you note, 'your mileage may vary' subject to the court lol. From what you say about that case, the judge seems to have considered that the traffic which it was reasonable to expect to be present was nil.

Regarding multiple offences and penalty points, under the legislation if you are convicted of a number of offences out of the same incident, (actually or even on the same day in court from memory, even if different incidents are involved but I'll check that), you get the points on the charge which carries most points, you don't get the rest. So nope it wouldn't be an extra 2 points.

jasonpbmw

well thats definitly wrong anyway, dangerous driving is the most serious offence, careless driving is a lesser offence, careless driving can result in a fine or mabey even the benefit of the probation act depending on the incident whereas dangerous driving will result in an endorsment and depending on the incident, a ban, a fine or a jail scentence

Reloc8

The probation act can be applied and has been for dangerous driving as well. You can be banned and jailed for careless driving and people have been (rarely to never for a first time RTA offence of course).

Dangerous driving causing death or serious injury (which is the most serious offence the driver of a vehicle lawfully owned can commit under the Road Traffic Acts) probably not - but that's almost invariably dealt with on indictment.

jasonpbmw

well ive had alot of charges for both so ive had more then enough experience on this and dangerous driving has a manditory endorsement and can have either a large fine/ban/jail, i know that for a fact. careless driving doesnt carry an endorsment and usually just a fine, as thats why in some cases when a person is charged with dangerous driving, when the solicitor reads over the case and thinks fit he can argue and have the charge reduced to careless driving (which has also happened me)

careless driving usually refers to offences such as even not using indicators for example, or other offences that would be considered more carelessness than actually being dangerous, as any solicitor will tell you if you ever get a dangerous driving charge reduced to careless driving you should consider yourself very lucky

Reloc8

Yep I wouldn't disagree with you in principle with any of that - you can be endorsed on careless as well but its not mandatory to the best of my recollection.

freefromgov2009

Warm Edge wrote: »

I got pinged for speeding the other night on the M7. No complaints - it was a fair cop but at gone midnight it was a rather unpleasent surprise.
The Garda said my speed was borderline dangerous driving. He was a decent bloke and didn't give me a sermon about it but said it in a matter of fact sort of way. Figuring I was on pretty thin ice already I didn't ask him to elaborate in case he thought I was getting bolshy. He left me with the feeling that I was lucky I was only getting the 2 points and making an €80 contribution to the 22bn deficit. I'm curious to know what speed is actually considered to be dangerous driving and what that means in terms of points/fines. Could somebody give me an 'informed' opinion. Thanks

these ones make me laugh, you can do what ever you like as long as you dont cause damage or lose to another man. if you are being fined or charged i would want to know who the injured party is, and what loss or damage i have caused him.then i would ask why he is standing at my car enforcing policy, thats not his job , he is a guardian of the peace. but we are trained to do as we are told, so thanks to us man and woman of the land his quota will be ok this month again. and the fine money will keep on rolling. quality how people can forget who they are with a bit of grooming

Victor

freefromgov2009 wrote: »

these ones make me laugh, you can do what ever you like as long as you dont cause damage or lose to another man. if you are being fined or charged i would want to know who the injured party is,

Society, individually and as a whole. I was a back seat passenger in a car accident. On a number of occassions after it, I was afraid to use the public road because of the speed of traffic. Such people hurt me mentally. You can't see all injury.

and what loss or damage i have caused him.then i would ask why he is standing at my car enforcing policy, thats not his job , he is a guardian of the peace.

And driving down Grafton Street at 100km/h is a breach of the peace.