Driving without Reasonable Consideration

SweetCaliber · 10-08-2020 9:32pm #1

Hi all,

Had an accident with a cyclist a while back. Wasnt major but got a FCN today for 80 euro for Driving without reasonable consideration contrary to section 51(A) of the Road Traffic Act, 1961.

I accept the 80 euro fine, but does this carry points? I was led to believe its 2 points but when I look up the act, section 51(A) it goes on about animal drawn vehicles?

To quote:

51.—(1) A person shall not, in a public place—

(a) drive or attempt to drive, or be in charge of, an animal drawn vehicle, or

(b) drive or attempt to drive a pedal cycle,

while he is under the influence of intoxicating liquor or a drug to such an extent as to be incapable of having proper control of the vehicle or cycle.

Just confused if its only an 80 euro fine or if its a fine and points?

Any help would be appreciated!

Lenar3556 · 10-08-2020 9:54pm

The act has been amended more times. There is 2 points associated with the offence.

SweetCaliber · 10-08-2020 9:58pm

Thank you. Do insurance companies generally up the premium by much with 2 points, in anyones experience?

I assume also I'll receive another letter from the RSA confirming the allocation of the points and that they will only be allocated 28 days after I receive this letter? (or from the date on the letter).

Thanks.

starbaby2003 · 10-08-2020 10:00pm

I cannot believe you get more points for going slightly over the speed limit than you do for ( presumably) knocking down a cyclist. WTAF !

SweetCaliber · 10-08-2020 10:52pm

starbaby2003 wrote: »

I cannot believe you get more points for going slightly over the speed limit than you do for ( presumably) knocking down a cyclist. WTAF !

Theres a lot more to the story, hence the small fine and light points.

I'd imagine if it were a bad collision it would be classed as dangerous or careless driving.

(And no I'm not one of those cage drivers that hate cyclists as I'm a cyclist myself, it was an accident).

Potential-Monke · 10-08-2020 11:39pm

I got 3 points for doing 62 in a 50 (ironically, on the first day I was driving home from where I was stationed as a Garda after quitting), didn't affect my insurance at all. Think yer man quoting me said they ignore the first 3 (used to be 2) because anyone can make a small mistake, but above that it does affect it. They expired last year, and my insurance stayed the same.

Here's the amended 51A section. Here's the penalty points list, it's 12th on the list, 2 points.

Uncle Pierre · 11-08-2020 12:42pm

Whether or not your insurance premium will go up probably depends on your insurer. I'm with Aviva myself, and they give a 27% discount if you have no penalty points:
https://www.aviva.ie/insurance/car-insurance/discounts/#:~:text=No%20penalty%20points%3F,on%20your%20car%20insurance%20premium.

So, if your "base" insurance price is €500 and you've got no penalty points, you'd get that discount, and it would bring the price down to just €365. But pick up a couple of points like you did, and the price would go back up to €500 again. And if you do the maths on it, it may be a 27% discount when the price comes down, but that's actually a 37% increase when it goes back up. Significant.

Obviously don't know what insurance company you're with, but you might find similar details on their website. Basically, the "price" itself might not be affected, but you might lose a discount, which means the price you actually pay goes up anyway.

On penalty points in general - the one I find strange is that you can get away with just two points for driving the wrong way on a motorway, but you can be hit with three if you're a few weeks late in booking your NCT. But that's a whole other issue.

SweetCaliber · 11-08-2020 1:46pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Whether or not your insurance premium will go up probably depends on your insurer. I'm with Aviva myself, and they give a 27% discount if you have no penalty points:
https://www.aviva.ie/insurance/car-insurance/discounts/#:~:text=No%20penalty%20points%3F,on%20your%20car%20insurance%20premium.

So, if your "base" insurance price is €500 and you've got no penalty points, you'd get that discount, and it would bring the price down to just €365. But pick up a couple of points like you did, and the price would go back up to €500 again. And if you do the maths on it, it may be a 27% discount when the price comes down, but that's actually a 37% increase when it goes back up. Significant.

Obviously don't know what insurance company you're with, but you might find similar details on their website. Basically, the "price" itself might not be affected, but you might lose a discount, which means the price you actually pay goes up anyway.

On penalty points in general - the one I find strange is that you can get away with just two points for driving the wrong way on a motorway, but you can be hit with three if you're a few weeks late in booking your NCT. But that's a whole other issue.

There's a few on the list where the points just don't do any justification to the offence itself, some of them are just pure madness.

Uncle Pierre · 11-08-2020 1:53pm

Another crazy one is just one point for failure to turn left when entering a roundabout.

Surely if you don't turn left, you're either ploughing across the middle of it by going straight on, or even worse, turning right and into the face of oncoming traffic?

Just one point????

Credit Checker Moose · 11-08-2020 9:34pm

Makes no sense at all.

punisher5112 · 11-08-2020 9:38pm

Drive down a dual or motorway it's 2 points if going the wrong way....

Potential-Monke · 14-08-2020 3:33am

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Another crazy one is just one point for failure to turn left when entering a roundabout.

Surely if you don't turn left, you're either ploughing across the middle of it by going straight on, or even worse, turning right and into the face of oncoming traffic?

Just one point????

This one I've used during my time as a Garda. Wording is a bit off putting, but basically, it's for those arseholes who don't go around a roundabout when going straight (for 2 lane roundabouts). Most people do it, whether deliberately or subconsciously. Excuse my terrible paint skills, the picture was small to begin with, blue "car":

The red car would have been wrong to exit straight because it's a 2 lane entry, 1 lane exit rounabout, so the right lane (from every direction in this rare perfectly aligned roundabout) is only for turning right. Also, note where the red car changes lane before exiting? Yeah, about 2% of the population do that, the rest cut across the lane to exit instead of moving into the left before exiting. They're roundabouts, not cut-the-cornerabouts.

punisher5112 wrote: »

Drive down a dual or motorway it's 2 points if going the wrong way....

Yeah, that one is stupid. I've no idea why that's included.

antix80 · 14-08-2020 7:41am

Potential-Monke wrote: »

This one I've used during my time as a Garda.

Thanks for explaining this. "failure to turn left when entering a roundabout" is terrible wording.

Esel · 14-08-2020 8:06am

antix80 wrote: »

Thanks for explaining this. "failure to turn left when entering a roundabout" is terrible wording.

Pretty sure it includes turning right onto a roundabout too. :eek:

Uncle Pierre · 14-08-2020 8:57am

Yeah, thanks for explaining that one about the roundabouts. You're right: the wording of it is very confusing then. I'd always read it the way I said above, that if you didn't go left, then surely you were either going straight across the central reservation or else turning right into oncoming traffic.

Wording like "improper use of a roundabout" might be better, but then again, maybe that's not specific enough. I don't know.

Uncle Pierre · 14-08-2020 8:59am

Esel wrote: »

Pretty sure it includes turning right onto a roundabout too. :eek:

Oh, I'm pretty sure there'd be consequences if you did that too!

I'm just heartened to learn that it's not seen for some bizarre reason as just a minor thing that only warrants one penalty point. I'd consider it dangerous driving myself, which I think brings a mandatory court appearance?

thelad95 · 14-08-2020 9:01am

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Another crazy one is just one point for failure to turn left when entering a roundabout.

Surely if you don't turn left, you're either ploughing across the middle of it by going straight on, or even worse, turning right and into the face of oncoming traffic?

Just one point????

I think it's in reference to roundabouts which are simply a big white circle painted on the ground, you wouldn't do any harm to your car by driving across it, plenty of motorists do this short cut.

If everyone did it though it can lead to a clash between north and south traffic, because if neither bother to move to the left of the painted circle then they could both crash.

In reality, like people crossing hatched lines, I think you've a better chance of winning the lottery than being pulled up on it.

antix80 · 14-08-2020 9:07am

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

I'm just heartened to learn that it's not seen for some bizarre reason as just a minor thing that only warrants one penalty point. I'd consider it dangerous driving myself, which I think brings a mandatory court appearance?

It's not necessarily dangerous any more than speeding is "dangerous".. consider 80kph past a preschool, vs 121kph on the motorway.
So it's the context that makes it the difference between a fixed penalty and a court appearance.

thelad95 wrote: »

I think it's in reference to roundabouts which are simply a big white circle painted on the ground, you wouldn't do any harm to your car by driving across it, plenty of motorists do this short cut.

It's not.

Uncle Pierre · 14-08-2020 10:13am

antix80 wrote: »

It's not necessarily dangerous any more than speeding is "dangerous".. consider 80kph past a preschool, vs 121kph on the motorway.
So it's the context that makes it the difference between a fixed penalty and a court appearance.

Yeah, you're right. I've just been picturing a busy roundabout that I used every day myself before working from home, and which I still use regularly anyway, where there's a constant flow of traffic every day from early morning until late night. Turning right instead of left when entering there could be considered dangerous during any of that time.

But do it at 3 a.m. when there's no other traffic around, and it wouldn't actually be dangerous. Would still be bloody stupid, though!

Peregrinus · 14-08-2020 10:52am

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Yeah, you're right. I've just been picturing a busy roundabout that I used every day myself before working from home, and which I still use regularly anyway, where there's a constant flow of traffic every day from early morning until late night. Turning right instead of left when entering there could be considered dangerous during any of that time.

But do it at 3 a.m. when there's no other traffic around, and it wouldn't actually be dangerous. Would still be bloody stupid, though!

Going the wrong way around a roundabout is always dangerous. I think antix90's comment was more aimed at the habit of not observing lane discipline - taking as near to a straight-line course through the roundabout as is possible without actually mounting the central reservation.

Uncle Pierre · 14-08-2020 1:21pm

I'm having to clarify and/or correct myself a lot here. Shouldn't be surprised. It's legal discussion, after all.

What I meant was that doing it into the face of heavy daytime traffic could be construed as dangerous driving to the point where you might reasonably expect a person would be charged with that exact offence. But if they did it at 3 a.m. with nobody else around, they might not be charged with dangerous driving, and just be charged with a lesser offence instead.

At least nobody's disagreeing with my assertion that doing it at any time would be bloody stupid!

Peregrinus · 16-08-2020 4:52am

There isn't "nobody else around" at 3 am; just relatively few other people around.

The offence of dangerous driving involves driving "which having regard to all the circumstances of the case (including the condition of the vehicle, 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 in it) is or is likely to be dangerous to the public".

So the question comes down to, given the relatively light amount of traffic on the road at 3 am, is going the wrong way around a roundabout dangerous, or likely to be dangerous, to the public?

I'd argue yes, it is. The chance that somebody may enter the roundabout at just the wrong moment may be low at 3 am, but it's a real chance; it's not nil. And, if they do, they certainly won't expect to meet you coming around the wrong way. Plus, they'll be looking to their right, not in the direction from which you will be coming. Although the chance of this happening may be low, the consequences if it does happen could be very severe. Case-law suggests that in assessing whethe driving is dangerous the courts will consider whether the risk of harm is "justifiable", but it's hard to think of a justification for going the wrong way around a roundabout.

Spook_ie · 16-08-2020 12:57pm

Uncle Pierre wrote: »

Another crazy one is just one point for failure to turn left when entering a roundabout.

Surely if you don't turn left, you're either ploughing across the middle of it by going straight on, or even worse, turning right and into the face of oncoming traffic?

Just one point????

Probably refers mainly to mini roundabouts where you aren't supposed to just drive over them, any slight turn to the left would comply for larger GVs, Buses etc. as they would need to use the roundabout to complete the turn but the initial movement must be to the left.

Driving without Reasonable Consideration

Comments