>**Road Safety Act 1986** >**Section 65 Careless driving** >(1) A person who drives a motor vehicle on a highway carelessly is guilty of an offence and liable for a first offence to a penalty of not more than 12 penalty units and for a subsequent offence to a penalty of not more than 25 penalty units. >(2) A person must not drive a vehicle, other than a motor vehicle, on a highway carelessly. Penalty for first offence = 6 penalty units, subsequent offence = 12 penalty units. >(3) In this section, vehicle does not include a non-motorised wheel-chair; or a motorised wheel-chair that is not capable of speed of more than 10km/h. # Overview Careless driving is a common driving offence. It addresses parking mishaps, rear-end collisions and distracted driving, making it a wide-ranging offence. # Elements of the offence 1. The offence occurred at the *place* and *time* alleged; and 2. The offender was *the accused*; and 3. The accused *drove a motor vehicle* on a *highway*; and 4. The vehicle was driven *carelessly*. The provisions of s. 65(2) make a separate offence for careless driving of a vehicle other than a motor-vehicle. That has the same elements (just replace point 3 with a vehicle other than a motor vehicle). ## Carelessly Careless driving cannot be inferred as just when an accident/collision occurs. There are other circumstances in which careless driving can apply. The test for careless driving originates from Simpson v Peat [1952] 2 Q.B. 24: > The question for the justices is: was the defendant exercising that degree of care and attention that a reasonable and prudent driver would exercise in the circumstances. A minor/common error of judgment, such as bumping into a stationary vehicle behind when attempting to reverse into a parking space *is not enough to establish the offence* as found Lajos v Samuel (1980) 26 SASR 514: >To hold that such a minor and common error of judgment is sufficient to constitute an _offence_ of driving without due care is, in my view, to make a mockery of the law. Such a common and minor occurrence in modern congested traffic conditions cannot of itself be said to involve any substantial departure from the standard of care expected of a _reasonably_ competent and skilful driver. Such a test does not appear to have been considered by the learned Special Magistrate, who was more concerned to find whether or not there had been an “accident” but the fact of an accident cannot of itself be conclusive. Edging across the centre line of a road while waiting to make a right-hand turn and having a consequent collision with an oncoming car, can be considered careless as found in Burgess v Dunsmore (1974) 9 SASR 29: >The driver of a motor vehicle was about to turn right at a junction across a main road, which had two traffic lanes on each side of the centre line. He stopped to allow traffic approaching from the opposite direction to pass, and, upon the lane nearest the centre line becoming clear of traffic, edged his vehicle slightly across the centre line. Another vehicle, which was approaching from the opposite direction, changed its course to the lane nearest the centre line, and a collision occurred with the turning vehicle. The driver of the turning vehicle was convicted by a court of summary jurisdiction of driving without due care, contrary to [s 45 of the Road Traffic Act 1961-1972](https://anzlaw.thomsonreuters.com/Link/Document/FullText?refType=U5&docFamilyGuid=Ibdd40111039c11e99495db3043f758b0&pubNum=1100190&originationContext=document&transitionType=DocumentItem&docVersion=Law+in+Force&ppcid=d2d64c2f40434c7792cf875e5dfacc50&contextData=\(sc.DocLink\)). On appeal, Held, on the facts, that it was open to the court of summary jurisdiction to find that the driver of the turning vehicle had driven without due care, and that the conviction should be affirmed. Observations as to the duty of the driver of a motor vehicle turning across a line of approaching traffic. Driving on the wrong side of the road and having no explanation for doing so amounts to careless driving, as found at HWC v Police [2010] SASC 101, paragraph 17: >The observations of the investigating officers established that the collision between the defendant's motor vehicle and the motorcycle occurred entirely on the defendant's incorrect side of the road. The evidence established that there was nothing at the scene to suggest that the motorcyclist was riding his motorcycle in other than an appropriate and careful manner. An examination of the motor vehicle did not reveal any mechanical reason for the vehicle to be on its incorrect side of the road at the time of the collision. There was an abundance of objective evidence from which inferences could be drawn to justify the Magistrate's conclusion that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. In appropriate cases, the defence of necessity/duress can be available to this charge, as found at R v Backshall [1998] 1 W.L.R. 1506.