Driving Without Due Care (Careless Driving) in Adelaide

What is Driving Without Due Care?

Driving without due care or attention is an offence under section 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 (SA) and is sometimes referred to as “careless driving”. The offence is commonly charged with another offence, or where it appears the driver was careless or where an admission was made.

This offence targets drivers who fail to exercise the level of caution or care expected of a reasonably prudent driver. A person who was negligent in any way in driving a motor vehicle may be charged with driving without due care. Momentary lapses, or minor negligence may still attract charges, though the Court recognises not every small error automatically means a person was “driving without due care”.

Elements of Driving Without Due Care

The Prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that:

1. The individual drove a vehicle;
2. The vehicle was being driven on a road; and
3. The driver drove without due care and attention; or drove
4. Without reasonable consideration for other persons using the road.

Penalty & Disqualification

Penalties for driving without due care may range from small fines to imprisonment or extended licence disqualifications, especially in aggravated circumstances.

• No set maximum — but typically up to $2,500, 3 demerit points, plus possible licence disqualification.
• No mandatory disqualification — however, the court may impose a disqualification if warranted pursuant to section 168 of the Act.
• It is possible (though unusual) for the court to record no conviction or a non-conviction penalty (Roder v Police [2000] SASC 432 MVR 359).
• May also trigger a demerit point disqualification if you exceed 12 demerit points, or breach licence conditions (as a probationary or provisional licence holder).
• If the risk posed is deemed serious, the charge may be dangerous driving instead.

We get charges dropped and can negotiate with the prosecution or persuade the court to proceed without conviction for careless driving, including aggravated driving without due care. Book Your Free 30-Minute Consultation.

Aggravated Driving Without Due Care

Driving without due care carries more severe penalties if found to occur in aggravated circumstances, such as:

1. Drink Driving;
2. Drug Driving;
3. Driving Unlicensed;
4. Driving Disqualified;
5. Driving Under the Influence;
6. Driving at excessive speed (45km/h over);
7. The offence caused serious harm or death to a person;
8. Driving a stolen motor vehicle or without the owner’s consent;
9. Committing the offence while attempting to escape a police pursuit;
10. Committing the offence knowing there were one or more passengers in the vehicle; or
11. Committed the offence whilst holding a provisional licence, probationary licence or learner’s permit.

Proving Specific Aggravated Offences

Penalty & Disqualification

• Up to 12 months imprisonment
• Minimum disqualification — 6 months, however there is no upper limit and the Court may disqualify a driver far beyond 6 months if it sees fit (Thomas v Police [2010] SASC 18).
• Courts consider the seriousness of injury, the degree of driver’s blameworthiness, and any prior offences.

Unlike other traffic offences, the disqualification period cannot be be mitigated or substituted, meaning you must lose your licence at least for 6 months. However, the 6-month disqualification is not mandatory if the aggravating circumstances were that the offence caused harm to a person if that harm fell short of serious harm.

Defences

Avoiding Double Punishment

If someone is charged with an aggravated “due care” driving offence, but they have already been charged with other related offences—such as fleeing police, driving without a valid license, speeding, drink driving, or driving under the influence—they may be able to use a legal argument called autrefois convict. This essentially means they can not be punished twice for the same wrongdoing, protecting them from facing multiple penalties for overlapping offences.

 “Without Due Care”

Driving “without due care” means without adequate caution in all of the circumstances. It is the standard of the average person who has regard for the safety, and the rights of others.

This is an objective standard of care, meaning: “Would a reasonably prudent driver, faced with the same conditions, have driven differently? The law often refers to this as “defensive driving” (Stoeckel v Harpas (1971) 1 SASR 172), requiring you to anticipate potential hazards, not just react to them.

(If you fail to notice or advert to risk factors that a normal prudent driver would have seen, you might be found “without due care,” even if you genuinely did not realise it.)

It is not an issue of any liability of a driver to avoid a collision either, nor is any negligence of another driver which may have contributed to a collision relevant. The law requires driving in a reasonably competent, alert and defensive manner and there is no need for any accident to be caused.

A minor and common error judgment causing an accident however does not necessarily indicate a lack of due care, nor is an error of judgment in an emergency situation. The mere fact that the driver should have been more vigilant did not establish that the driving went beyond inadvertence and did not constitute driving without due care. However, if the risk posed is deemed serious, the charge may be dangerous driving instead.

For example, in Lajos v Samuels (1980) 26 SASR 514, the driver’s reversing error was minor and not blameworthy. Contrastingly, Crispin v Rhodes (1986) 40 SASR 202 emphasises the Court’s high standard for “defensive driving”.

What this prohibits is driving without observance of the standard of consideration for other road users that a reasonably prudent driver would observe in the circumstances, and it is no answer to the charge that the defendant was not aware of, or did not avert to, any inconvenience or risk from himself or herself to others.

“Without Reasonable Consideration”

Driving without reasonable consideration is another form of careless driving under section 45(1) of the Act. Here, the focus is on whether the driver’s conduct, objectively viewed, showed inadequate regard for the convenience or rights of others using the road.

Even if you did not realise you were creating a problem for others, you may be liable if a prudent driver would have. Here, a lack of awareness of inconveniencing or endangering others can suffice (Ladlow v Hayes (1983) 105 LSJS 205).

Book a Free 30 Minute Consultation

Driving without due care attracts demerit points, fines and even imprisonment. Book a free 30 minute traffic law consultation. Our Adelaide traffic lawyers can protect your licence, reduce penalties, and avoid imprisonment.