The trial of a man charged with causing a three vehicle collision in St David’s has continued with both the prosecution and the defence making their closing speeches.While prosecutors alleged that 44-year-old barber Eric Dunkley was recklessly racing a second car, the defence argued the complainant, taxi driver Christopher Dailey, may have veered into the wrong lane.Mr Dunkley has denied a single count of causing bodily harm by reckless driving in an incident on June 5, 2011. At around 4.30am that day, three vehicles collided on Southside Road, with both Mr Dunkley and Mr Dailey suffering injuries.Making her closing speech yesterday, prosecutor Maria Sofianos told the jury the evidence shows the collision occurred because the defendant lost control of his vehicle while travelling at high speed.She said Mr Dunkley’s vehicle veered into the eastbound lane and directly into Mr Dailey’s taxi.Moments later a third vehicle, travelling a few feet behind Mr Dunkley, also struck the taxi, spinning it into the westbound lane.To back up the Crown’s version of events, she said a witness saw Mr Dunkley and the second vehicle travelling along the road “bumper to bumper” at high speed.“They looked to be in competition because of how fast they were going,” she said.Accident Investigators meanwhile confirmed that the accident took place in the eastbound lane, based on the distribution of debris, and that a gouge in the pavement suggested the taxi had been spun.Ms Sofianos dismissed claims that Mr Dailey had been drinking before the crash, saying there was no conclusive evidence and that officers on the scene did not smell alcohol on his breath.And regarding the defendant himself, she suggested that he had been evasive when cross examined, stating that he could remember the evening of the collision two years ago but not that he had cut a witnesses hair a week ago.However Victoria Pearman, representing Mr Dunkley, said the defendant was in the eastbound lane not because he lost control, but because he was trying to avoid a head-on collision from Mr Dailey, who she said was travelling east in the westbound lane.“The reason he was over there was to save his life,” she said.She criticised investigators, saying they failed to consider the defendant’s version of events.She noted that, even though Mr Dailey admitted having a beer at Gombey’s Restaurant and Bar before the collision, the police never looked into how much he had drunk.“Is this a situation where you can feel sure that Mr Dailey was not under the influence of drink?” she asked.“No one here or anywhere is saying he was stumbling down drunk, but no one is suggesting he didn’t have anything. The law says you can think you’re perfectly fine to drive and you’re wrong.”She also refuted Mr Dailey’s claim that he was driving at around 40kph, saying that in reality most drivers in Bermuda go faster than that, even if it is not legal.Ms Pearman also said there was absolutely no evidence before the court to support the Crown’s claim that Mr Dunkley had been racing with the third car.The trial continues today.