1. Ms. R drove through 2 red lights at the speed of 100 km per hour and then collided with a stationary vehicle on the opposite side of the road. Upon being charged with dangerous driving, Ms. R argued that trees blocked her view of the red lights, and then she lost control of the vehicle and it dashed into the other side of the road although she had tried her best to keep it on the right side of the road. Assuming that is true, would Ms. R be able to get away with the charge?

1. Ms. R drove through 2 red lights at the speed of 100 km per hour and then collided with a stationary vehicle on the opposite side of the road.  Upon being charged with dangerous driving, Ms. R argued that trees blocked her view of the red lights, and then she lost control of the vehicle and it dashed into the other side of the road although she had tried her best to keep it on the right side of the road.  Assuming that is true, would Ms. R be able to get away with the charge?

If Ms. R’s view of the red lights was indeed blocked by trees, she should slow down her vehicle in order to ascertain the prevailing light signal.  Every sensible driver should consider that proceeding with an unclear view is potentially dangerous.  Further, the fact that Ms. R had driven through 2 red lights at an excessively high speed also reinforced the impression that she was driving in a manner that showed no regard for the safety of other road users.  The consequence of Ms. R’s act of driving, i.e. crashing into a stationary vehicle on the opposite side of the road, is another fact from which the Court would likely draw an adverse inference against her in this case.  A “competent and careful driver” should be well aware that loss of control of a vehicle is a predictable consequence of driving at such excessive speed.  Even though Ms. R might have tried her best to control the vehicle, that itself cannot avail her in defending herself against the charge of dangerous driving.