Going Too Slow Accident Prosecution

[Dash_XR]

I think they all share some of the blame by the sounds of it.

I've had three nose to tails, two were in the wet with car in front stopping for no reason and one the car in front had no working brake lights. I was at fault for all of them.

Now I follow at a distance where I assume the person in front will more then likely do something stupid. Even today pulling out from a side street turning right car puts left indicator on to turn into my street then shoots straight past me and turns indicator off. If I had of assumed he was not going to do something stupid I would of pulled out and he would of T Bone me.

Assume the worst and avoid allot more drama.

[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 ?

[aussiblue]

I guess it is Reg. 18 of the Road Traffic Code
http://www.slp.wa.gov.au/legislation..._homepage.html

18. Reckless driving generally
The provisions of this Part do not justify a driver driving at a speed that —
(a) may constitute driving carelessly, recklessly or at a speed, or in a manner, that is dangerous to the public, having regard to all the circumstances; or
(b) exceeds any maximum speed applicable to the vehicle and fixed by, or under, the Act or any regulation.

Minimum Speed is only Reg. 12.

12. Minimum speeds on freeways
In a freeway speed zone, a person shall not drive a vehicle at a speed that is more than 20 km/h below the speed limit unless —
(a) traffic congestion prevents the person from driving the vehicle at a speed that is within 21 km/h of the speed limit; or
(b) for any other reason, it is unsafe or imprudent for the person to drive the vehicle at a speed that is within 21 km/h of the speed limit.
Modified penalty: 1 PU

Safe distance is Reg. 109.

109. Keeping safe distance behind vehicles
Except when overtaking and passing, the driver of any vehicle shall, when following another vehicle, keep such distance behind it as will enable the driver to stop the vehicle in an emergency with safety, and without running into the vehicle in front of him or her.
Points: 2 Modified penalty: 4 PU

Edit: just discovered this one though:

108. Obstruction of vehicles and pedestrians
(1) A person shall not, with intent to hinder or obstruct the passage of any vehicle or vehicles on a carriageway, park or stop a vehicle on the carriageway in such a manner as to cause the passage of any other vehicle on the carriageway to be obstructed or hindered.
(2) A driver shall not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian.
(3) In subregulation (2), a driver does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another driver or a pedestrian only because —
(a) the driver is stopped in traffic; or
(b) the driver is driving more slowly than other vehicles (unless the driver is driving abnormally slowly in the circumstances).
Example of a driver driving abnormally slowly
A driver driving at a speed of 20 km/h on a length of carriageway to which a speed limit of 80 km/h applies when there is no reason for the driver to drive at that speed on the length of carriageway.

[aussiblue]

So is 40 in a 70 zone the same as 20 in a 80 zone? I don't think so but we shall see I guess.

[JC]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

So is 40 in a 70 zone the same as 20 in a 80 zone? I don't think so but we shall see I guess.

I think it is. It is an unreasonable, abnormal speed without a good reason to reduce to such an absurd speed.

That being said, car 3 should have stopped and we wouldn't talking about this at all....tragic circumstances, but poor driving the cause.

[Spurious]

It reads as if all 3 were being idiots with a disregard for safety.

In my opinion the bloke in the ute up front can brake for what ever reason he wants, debris, wildlife....does it matter?

If the zuki was too close, their problem, but they obviously avoided hitting the ute.

The bloke in the commy was either playing catch up/speeding or simply wasn't paying attention & couldn't/didn't stop, he hit the zuki & the rest is history!

It's simple, if someone gives you the sheets just leave'em to it & give 'em space. Some idiots simply want blood when they get irritated on the roads.
Many a time I have simply pulled over & stopped when a driver in front is being a douche!

[aussiblue]

This is how the story originally broke back in June 2013:


http://www.news.com.au/national/west...-1226668337256
https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/la...n-fatal-crash/
http://www.watoday.com.au/wa-news/tw...623-2oqbt.html

If I am reading it right, it seems the Commodore driver hit the back of the Suzuki which then clipped the Mitsubishi van and veered into the path of oncoming traffic (Rodeo).

[irish2]

Originally Posted by FlivverFord

It reads as if all 3 were being idiots with a disregard for safety.

In my opinion the bloke in the ute up front can brake for what ever reason he wants, debris, wildlife....does it matter?

If the zuki was too close, their problem, but they obviously avoided hitting the ute.

The bloke in the commy was either playing catch up/speeding or simply wasn't paying attention & couldn't/didn't stop, he hit the zuki & the rest is history!

It's simple, if someone gives you the sheets just leave'em to it & give 'em space. Some idiots simply want blood when they get irritated on the roads.
Many a time I have simply pulled over & stopped when a driver in front is being a douche!

This is a rather simple statement. I often drive at times when traffic is light. I still manage to find groups of cars blocking multilane roads, whilst underspeed, sitting in each others blind spot. Sometimes you can see for a long distance and as they will not budge you have to move closer to them to show your intent to pass. This is when you get the occasional dick brain who decides to brake check you, rather than simply keeping left. You can see there is no reason for them to brake. It is inconsiderate behaviour like this that makes this country unique in its poor driving standard.

[zilo]

Originally Posted by burnz

so you deliberately caused an accident??

in NSW you would have been charged, "you must run over the dog" phantom one or not.

You bet, dispensing of an attitude adjustment was required and professionally delivered.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by irish2

This is a rather simple statement. I often drive at times when traffic is light. I still manage to find groups of cars blocking multilane roads, whilst underspeed, sitting in each others blind spot. Sometimes you can see for a long distance and as they will not budge you have to move closer to them to show your intent to pass. This is when you get the occasional dick brain who decides to brake check you, rather than simply keeping left. You can see there is no reason for them to brake. It is inconsiderate behaviour like this that makes this country unique in its poor driving standard.

The simplicity in your statement is "rather than keep left"

Tailgaters do it in any lane so the misnomer of holding up traffic only applies in some cases.
There is not and ever will be an excuse for tailgating, this just compounds a bad situation and makes it worse as this incident has shown.

[steve.zissou]

if it is reasonable belief that your actions are likely to cause an accident you will be in the poo. civil for sure - criminal maybe.

not quite the same but
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...s-9936511.html

get a car camera, your driving improves (i dont tailgate on the free way any more if there are jerks doing 90 in the right lane, i flash my lights while maintaining a safe distance.

Now if some one then proceeds to slow right down because i flashed them from a safe distance (or beeped as i under take them) , well thats a separate problem and it has happened on 2 occasions. In both occasions i stopped behind them when they stopped and got out I simply pointed to the camera and asked how they wanted to proceed and quickly explained NSW's predatory-driving laws (and punishments which are $100,000 k and or 5 yrs jail). I was also happy to make a citizens arrest if they took it one step further (always wanted to do one of those). .... pause...... gets in car and drives off.

but rule number 1 - get a camera. It makes you do the right thing as much as it deters the other guy

[aussiblue]

Yes; although the risk is the real thugs will just rip your camera off the dash/windscreen and take it with them after they rip your head off.

[steve.zissou]

wax on wax off

[MercurySilver]

Originally Posted by Bill M

The simplicity in your statement is "rather than keep left"

Tailgaters do it in any lane so the misnomer of holding up traffic only applies in some cases.
There is not and ever will be an excuse for tailgating, this just compounds a bad situation and makes it worse as this incident has shown.

just like there is not and never will be an excuse for doing 20kms under the speed limit in a right hand lane driving past signs that say keep left
and refusing to pull over

[DanielXR8]

Originally Posted by burnz

so you deliberately caused an accident??

in NSW you would have been charged, "you must run over the dog" phantom one or not.

Agreed. Sounds like Burnz just wanted to sound like a heroe online and its backfired.

[Bill M]

Originally Posted by MercurySilver

just like there is not and never will be an excuse for doing 20kms under the speed limit in a right hand lane driving past signs that say keep left
and refusing to pull over

Yes, I think most rational drivers would agree. It would be a huge benefit if the authorities conducted a long lasting campaign on this issue amongst others.
It would surely make for less stress for all concerned.
Bill

[GasoLane]

The general idea is to get from point 'A' to point 'B' without impeding anyone else's progress.

When more people work this out, life on the roads will be safer and less stressful.

[aussiblue]

One problem we have in WA is poorly designed highways and freeways that require people be in the slow right had lane to exit e.g. going west of the end of the Roe to go North on the Kwinana, getting into the polly tunnel or Charles Street when heading North on the Kwinana Freeway. It deters the slow and timid from staying in the left hand lane.

[XBROO]

3rd car inattention case close.

[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!

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

The general idea is to get from point 'A' to point 'B' without impeding anyone else's progress.

When more people work this out, life on the roads will be safer and less stressful.

And expanding on that....possibly 'helping' peoples progress......like indicating at roundabouts so that traffic flow is smooth.
That's my biggest pet hate on the road.

[1TUFFUTE]

Originally Posted by steve.zissou

(i dont tailgate on the free way any more if there are jerks doing 90 in the right lane, i flash my lights while maintaining a safe distance.

Flashing your lights is illegal isn't it? Could distract another driver and cause an accident killing......

[aussiblue]

Was Mr Allen even obligated to stop as the accident was between the cars behind him and in the opposite lane?

I think Mr Allen's car was clipped by the car behind him before it crossed the road and had the head on with the Rodeo.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/la...n-fatal-crash/

The Suzuki veered on to the wrong side of the road after clipping a car and was struck by a vehicle coming in the opposite direction.

As I read it the Commodore ran into the back of the Suzuki that then clipped the back of the Mitsubishi van before veering onto the other side of the road into the path of the Rodeo.

[EgoFG]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

Flashing your lights is illegal isn't it? Could distract another driver and cause an accident killing......

Flashing in NSW is OK to warn of danger.

Such as:
The danger posed by peoples reaction to a police car.
The danger of being in any lane other than the left unless overtaking.
The danger of being someone that in an act of stupidity drives with fog lights on in trafic.

[Itsme]

Originally Posted by 1TUFFUTE

And expanding on that....possibly 'helping' peoples progress......like indicating at roundabouts so that traffic flow is smooth.
That's my biggest pet hate on the road.

Be ok if the meat heads use the correct side indicator when going straight through.

[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]

Doesn't say what the speed limit was.

70km/hr; it's in one of the articles but you can see it on Google earth street view too. Location 32°18'17.89" S 116°00'21.09" E

[aussiblue]

http://www.fordforums.com.au/photos/...=64796&cat=500

[damo76]

Originally Posted by aussiblue

70km/hr; it's in one of the articles but you can see it on Google earth street view too. Location 32°18'17.89" S 116°00'21.09" E

That's pretty handy.

[Bonn]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

The general idea is to get from point 'A' to point 'B' without impeding anyone else's progress.

When more people work this out, life on the roads will be safer and less stressful.

Too right!

Rule-of-thumb; if you are being tail-gated, you are holding someone up.
Options:

• Change from right lane to left lane
• Speed up
• Pull off the road

Simple, really.
..but amazing how many drivers just do not get it.