Going Too Slow Accident Prosecution

[aussiblue]

Will be interesting to see how this pans out:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-1...960?section=wa

Driver's frustration over tailgating led to death of teenager Jesse Phillis, court hears
By Joanna Menagh

Posted yesterday at 3:34pmMon 19 Jan 2015, 3:34pm

A driver's frustration about being tailgated led to a crash which killed a teenager, a Perth court has been told.

Robert David Allan and Blair James Annandale, are on trial in the District Court in Perth accused of dangerous driving causing the death of Jesse Phillis in Mundijong in June 2013.

The 17-year-old was a passenger in a red Suzuki Swift being driven by his girlfriend behind Allan's white utility.

It is alleged Allan deliberately decelerated his vehicle from 70 kilometres per hour to 40, because he was frustrated about being tailgated.

The red car was then hit in the rear by a green Holden Commodore and pushed into the path of a four-wheel-drive travelling in the opposite direction.

Mr Annandale was the driver of the green car and is accused of dangerous driving causing death by failing to pay proper attention.

In an opening address to the jury, prosecutor Nick Cogin said it was the state's case that Allan took his foot off the accelerator "for no other reason than his frustration" about being tailgated.

"That caused a chain reaction," he said.

"His driving created a dangerous situation. He put the red [car] and the green [car] in danger by his driving.

"There was absolutely no reason to slow his vehicle at that point."

Defendant blames sneeze for slowdown

The court heard Allan later told police he slowed down because he needed to sneeze, but Mr Cogin said the evidence did not support the proposition that he was acting in "an extraordinary emergency".

Mr Cogin said it was alleged Annandale was "travelling too close to the red car because he didn't avoid the collision".

"He was not paying proper attention to the road, to avoid the collision," he said.

The court heard Annandale told police he hit the red car because he could not stop because he was too close behind.

"The state says he was too close because he wasn't paying proper attention," Mr Cogin said.

He said there was no suggestion the red car was driving dangerously.

"The red car did not collide with Mr Allan's car, it did not hit anything until it was spun in to the path of the four wheel drive," Mr Cogin said.

Allan's lawyer John Hawkins described the case as tragic, saying his client "has been living a nightmare" since the crash.

But he said the evidence about his client "braking" had concluded that it was "no more than moderate".

"The red car didn't have any collision with the white van, even though it was driving quite close to it," he said.

Annandale's lawyer Tom Percy QC said his client maintained his driving was not dangerous.

"Mr Annandale's case is that he was, at the relevant time, travelling at an appropriate distance from the car in front," he said.

"If it had not been for the unanticipated heavy braking of the cars in front... no accident would have occurred.

"We say the accident and the tragic death of Jesse Phillis is the result of a combination of factors, on the part of other people, none of which can be attributed to Blair Annandale or his manner of driving."

The trial is expected to end next week.

[Itsme]

One lesson here is to keep a reasonable distance between cars when driving which obviously was not the case leading to an unfortunate accident.

[Xauterus]

How odes Mr Annandale have a defence? Supposed to drive with emergency stopping in mind.

[damo76]

Doesn't say what the speed limit was. If the driver was doing 70 in a 90km zone well deifferent story.

[aussiblue]

Slowed to 40 in a 70 zone I understand and as there in no minimum speed limit I think they are trying for dangerous driving on the basis he slowed suddenly and unnecessarily. More here https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...hain-reaction/

A driver's "sheer frustration" at being tailgated prompted him to deliberately slow his speed to 30kmh below the limit and resulted in a chain reaction of collisions which caused the death of a teenager, a District Court jury was told today.

~~~snip

But the State alleged there was "absolutely no reason" other than his frustration at being tailgated for him slowing down.


"The State says his driving was dangerous because for no reason other than his frustration he slowed his vehicle down from 70kmh to 40kmh and that caused the chain reaction, Mr Cogin said.

He said the State alleged that Mr Annandale was not paying proper attention to the road and was travelling too close to the Suzuki, which on the prosecution case could be inferred from the collision with the rear of the car.

He said CCTV footage from a camera inside Mr Allan's car, which captured the collision in it's side mirror, would be played during the trial.

[damo76]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Slowed to 40 in a 70 zone I understand and as there in no minimum speed limit I think they are trying for dangerous driving on the basis he slowed suddenly and unnecessarily. More here https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/wa...hain-reaction/

Doesn't say what the speed limit was.

[aussiblue]

If he slowed gently to allow a tail gating car to pass I think it would be unfair if he is found guilty. But if he braked heavily to annoy the tailgater that was stupid. As I said, it will be interesting to see how it pans out and what the actual circumstances were.

[Grunter]

What a ******. And by the sounds of it, attempting to weasel his way out of it by claiming he was sneezing.

[EgoFG]

If no car hit him, then in reality he was not at fault.

I could do doughnuts on a freeway, and if two cars in an attempt to avoid me, crash : it is not my fault - however I should be fined for doing doughnuts on a freeway.

[xxx000]

Originally Posted by EgoFG

If no car hit him, then in reality he was not at fault.

I could do doughnuts on a freeway, and if two cars in an attempt to avoid me, crash : it is not my fault - however I should be fined for doing doughnuts on a freeway.

I do hope that you're joking with that crazy 'logic' you've posted.

if not then hand in your license asap

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by xxx000

I do hope that you're joking with that crazy 'logic' you've posted.

if not then hand in your license asap

Sorry, based on a real incident (not me doing the doughnuts).

My statement stands -

If car2 avoids car1 in a manner that results in an accident, the the accident is not the fault of car1, rather car2.
If car1 was behaving illegally, then a fine may be handed down for that, but not for the accident.

If I am wrong, there must have been a change in the law in this area.

I have anecdotal evidence, does anyone have current law to quote ?

[malazn mafia]

Always thought that no contact between vehicles = no accident happened. Was Mr Allen even obligated to stop as the accident was between the cars behind him and in the opposite lane? Guess maybe under Australian law its probably still classed as some kind of crime, where things that "could have happened" are the basis for some laws.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by malazn mafia

Always thought that no contact between vehicles = no accident happened. Was Mr Allen even obligated to stop as the accident was between the cars behind him and in the opposite lane? Guess maybe under Australian law its probably still classed as some kind of crime, where things that "could have happened" are the basis for some laws.

Yeah I'm bemused at this one. Although he may have acted a little brashly......all cars are supposed to travel at a safe enough distance behind other cars to avoid this very thing.

Maybe the people 'tailgating' should be blamed for triggering...aswell as the 'rear end' offenders blamed aswell.
That goes by the laws as far as I know!

[aussiblue]

.. and as the Police here in WA have publically advised that the appropriate way to deal with a tail-gater is to either slow down or pull over to allow to pass, it would be very unfair to now prosecute him if slowed gently. If he hit is brakes and slowed abruptly it's another story.

[sixman]

So car 3 hits car 2 because car 1 was driving too slow. Surely, this is the fault of car 3. If 2 hit 1 then it would be the fault of car 2. I would have thought that car 1's speed is irrelevant. Unless car 1 suddenly pulled in front of car 2 and slammed the brakes. Surely cars 2 and 3 need to leave safe breaking distances for emergency braking?

[b0son]

Its made more complicated by the fact that car 1 deliberately slowed so as to cause a collision (can it be proven though...).

[aussiblue]

More in the print version of the West but the full facts are still very unclear.

Ms Elliot testified that the van in front of her was travelling about 90 km/h and under the 100 km/h limit on South West Highway and slowed to 40 km/hr on Watkins Road [Mundijong]. She said the van had not braked suddenly and she had been driving about 8 meters behind the Mitsubishi , not 4 meters as she initially told police. Ms Elliot said the car behind her approached to a close distance behind and she suspected the driver wanted to overtake her and the van, but it then dropped back. The distance between her again reduced when she had braked in response to the van in front slowing.

Note that both South West Highway and Watkins Road in this area are semi-rural areas with a mix of farms and 1 acre style outer suburban blocks where you will expect to see slow vehicles such as over-width semis and farm machinery (tractors etc). It's two lane (one each direction) but South West Highway has regular passing lanes where one side goes to 2 lanes so you can pass slower vehicles. If she was travelling only 4 meters or less behind at 100 km/h (it's not clear where this may have been) she was too close under the Police promoted 1 car length for each 10 km/hr suggestion (if so, why wasn't she also charged?). Watkins Road has a 70km/h limit but again no minimum speed limit (as the freeway has). You would think Mr Allan's camera that captured the third vehicle's image in his rear vision mirror would also show how close she was.

I have also driven in the area a few times and it is not uncommon for drivers to slow unexpectedly as they look for hard to find addresses in this semi-rural area and you drive accordingly. Other than that and a rural rail crossing (no boom gates) it is a very straight road so you can easily read the traffic ahead (have a look at the addresses; Watkins Road - South West Hwy Intersection Mundijong on Google Earth if you are interested).

All very tragic for all concerned whatever the outcome.

[ILLaViTaR]

I'd say it's the utes fault but if he was keeping left (not in the right lane) then blame definitely has to go to the green car and the ute is 100% clean. He can drive how he wants (although 40 may be considered too slow) as long as he's keeping left.

Otherwise the red and green car both had a right to be frustrated with the ute illegally hugging and self absorbingly whoring time out of their day as though his pace dictates everyone elses. There are many stresses and circumstances in life (eg. a job interview, hospital emergency) and it's unrealistic to assume in this event those people under that stress CAN actually remain calm in such a situation (they actually NEED to get past the hugger). That's why they allow a free lane ffs. His responsible for the entire thing as his illegal hugging has displaced the position of the vehicles tightly behind him 100% responsible for the accident occurring. The scrawny pale crackhead in the commodore wouldn't of actually hit anyone if the ute kept left, which was the first illegal event to spark the chain reaction of others.

[aussiblue]

better bloody hope he was keeping left for his sake.

Would not have mattered as the narrow asphalt strip and high traffic density generally makes it unsafe to pass anyway unless they pull completely off the road. It is also a tourist route out of and back into the city from the south west so you often find you are stuck in a queue behind a slow caravan and the oncoming traffic is similarly affected.

[Falcon Coupe]

Sounds like he brake checked the car behind and is trying to play innocent.

[danzvtil]

As a lawyer type person who does traffic cases once told me, it is every drivers right to hit the breaks and STOP for whatever reason, ANY time they see fit. It is ALWAYS the following cars responsibility to travel at a distance to allow it to stop or avoid the car in front. Argue the merits of this as you will but that's how the law sees it. In these cases it would be all but impossible to prove intent of driver.

[aussiblue]

Sounds like he brake checked the car behind and is trying to play innocent.

But the driver behind said he had not braked suddenly just slowed to 40 km/hr.

[69ISH]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

But the driver behind said he had not braked suddenly just slowed to 40 km/hr.

Quote from opening post

But he said the evidence about his client "braking" had concluded that it was "no more than moderate".

[Ben73]

Whether he brake checked or not, the Green car should of left a safe gap for emergency stopping or if their as a gap they should of been paying proper attention ahead.

I swear so many people tailgate without even thinking they are. I travel in cars with many different people, a couple of times now I have made a comment about how close different drivers were traveling to the vehicle in front and both times the response was something like "Its not that close, I've got enough room to stop" This is like a 1 to 1.5 second gap at 80kmh+


I have never brake checked because I don't trust people enough to not crash, the best thing I have found is keep accelerating but tap the brake on and off lightly with your left foot. Not enough to slow, just enough to activate the brake likes. Every time I have done this the car behind has backed off and never got aggressive.

[aussiblue]

Whatever the outcome it's likely to have implications for how we all drive in future, even if it just confirms what we understand is what we understand is the law now.

[deluxe_]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Whatever the outcome it's likely to have implications for how we all drive in future, even if it just confirms what we understand is what we understand is the law now.

Agreed. This will set a precedent for all other similar incidents in the future. It's a news we should all follow closely.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

Whatever the outcome it's likely to have implications for how we all drive in future, even if it just confirms what we understand is what we understand is the law now.

Quite simple, if people do not tail gate & allow safe distance between cars this would not have happened, we do get taught this!

[maylandsman]

Car 3 at fault for mine...wasn't reading the play. And tailgaters **** me to tears. I just stay on the speed limit and relax whilst they rage.

[MercurySilver]

I thought you could get done for travelling too slow
Eg.... 50 in an 80

Not saying this happened in this case, just asking the question?

[aussiblue]

I thought you could get done for travelling too slow
Eg.... 50 in an 80

Usually; only on the Freeway in WA. But this case may change things.