Category: Automakers

Case Is Closed. Questions Remained

2023

Table of contents:

Video: Case Is Closed. Questions Remained
Video: 007 Asking open and closed questions 2023, February
Case Is Closed. Questions Remained
Case Is Closed. Questions Remained
Anonim

MOVE THE MERCEDES WITH A PERMISSED SPEED; HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO STOP. THIS MAKES THE BASIS TO ASSUME THAT THE ACTIONS OF THE DRIVER OF THE "MERCEDES" DO NOT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RULES AND ARE IN CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT FACT (PARTS 10.1 and 10.3 SDA RF)

On February 3, a court in the Zonal District of Altai Krai named Oleg Shcherbinsky, the driver of the accident, and sentenced him to four years in prison with a sentence in a penal colony. The defense filed a cassation appeal against the conviction in the Altai Regional Court.

On March 22, the Regional Court examined the complaint. The panel determined that the Zonal District court correctly established the situation on the road, but gave it an incorrect legal assessment. The court did not agree with the fact that the driver Zuev was carrying out an urgent task: he was taking the Evdokimov couple to the village of Polkovnikovo to events on the occasion of the anniversary of cosmonaut German Titov. As a result, the judge announced his decision: to terminate the Shcherbinsky case for lack of corpus delicti!

Probably every car enthusiast heard about this case, and many took part in the protests. But at the same time, the closed court for unknown reasons in Zonalnoye could not figure out the causes of the accident, establish who was really guilty of it, and only generated discontent and unnecessary rumors. The regional court did not delve into the matter, which immediately dismissed the lawyers' request for additional automotive technical expertise at the scene of an accident. Earlier, a similar request was rejected by the judge of the Zonal Court of Shcheglovskaya …

So, the decision was made - the questions remained. The editors “At the wheel”, at their own peril and risk (and at their own expense), decided to conduct automotive research, for which experts in automotive technology Alexander Gladyshev and Sergey Mukimov were invited. The study was conducted according to all the rules a few days before the Altai court acquitted Oleg Shcherbinsky; then, in Moscow, its results were processed by a group of experts.

WHO IS GUILTY? VERSION ЗР

Car experts say Alexander Gladyshev, Sergey Mukimov and director of the law firm “Legal protection“Driving”Sergey Volgin.

- As a part of a group of specialists, we left for the place and tried to figure out how events developed that day and what caused the tragedy. To do this, we must very clearly imagine how the cars moved before the collision, what position they occupied at the time of the impact, etc. We did not have such information until someone posted it on one of the sites on the Internet (at your own risk and risk, the case is closed!) scanned copy of the scheme of the incident, expert opinion and the verdict of the court of first instance. It is from this that we pushed off in our investigation.

So, the Mercedes car of Governor Evdokimov was moving along the oncoming one with the flashing light on. Some witnesses do not confirm this, but there is no data at all that the audible signal was also turned on. Toyota Shcherbinsky’s Toyota car was ahead at the crossroads. He was about to turn left, towards the village of Pleshkovo. As the experts of the investigation showed, before the start of braking, the speed of the Mercedes was not lower than 149 km / h. On the scheme of an accident, his brake track was recorded with a length of 84 (!) Meters. And the most probable place of collision of two cars was determined. By the way, it was Toyota crashed into the rear right door of the Mercedes, and not vice versa. After the collision, a limousine flew off the roadway and crashed into an earthen rampart.

For the experiment, we took two cars - the right-hand drive Toyota and the Volga (it was most suitable in size). We could not determine exactly where to begin the maneuver of Shcherbinsky’s car, so we were repelled from the place from where Shcherbinsky could make a maneuver in accordance with traffic rules. The measurements were carried out in statics. “Toyota” stood in a certain place, and “Volga” slowly drove out from behind the hill. At the moment when the driver of the Toyota saw the Volga in the mirrors, he pressed the brake. As soon as the "Japanese" brake lights came on, the Russian car also braked. After that, we measured the resulting distance, which the experts took into account in the calculations.

Now turn to the rules of the road. As follows from the case file, the Mercedes car was moving with the flashing light on. In accordance with paragraph 3.1 of the Rules, the driver of the limousine had the right, when performing an urgent official assignment, turning on the “beacon”, to deviate from the requirements of traffic rules, including exceeding speed and moving in the oncoming lane. True, only subject to road safety. The collision with Toyota alone does not mean that the driver of the Mercedes did not provide this safety. Formally, if the "Japanese" did not turn, the limousine would just pass by. With any speed you like, even in the oncoming lane. Therefore, one of the reasons for an accident can lie in the Toyota maneuver - paragraph 8.1 of the SDA obliges drivers to make sure that it is safe before starting the maneuver.

It is clear that the Toyota car turning to the left creates a danger for the Mercedes driver, who is moving straight. Therefore, in such a situation, Zuev should have been guided by paragraph 10.1 of the SDA and reduced speed. From the case materials it is clear that he was trying to slow down, but this did not help to avoid a collision. Experts have shown that, if you drive a Mercedes with the permitted speed, he would have managed to stop. This gives reason to believe that the actions of the driver of the Mercedes did not meet the requirements of the Rules and are causally related to the fact of an accident (paragraphs 10.1 and 10.3 of the SDA of the Russian Federation).

At the same time, the results of our experiment confirmed the results of investigative actions: the visibility in the rear-view mirrors of the Toyota car was sufficient! We were able to determine that at the time when her driver was supposed to see the Mercedes, the distance between them could be from 315 to 323 meters. Thus, even if the governor's limousine was moving at the highest possible design speed of 250 km / h (69.4 m / s) without braking until the moment of collision, Shcherbinsky had at least 4.5 seconds to abandon the maneuver - turning left. This just means that the driver of Toyota was able to detect the danger in the form of a rushing Mercedes, was obliged to slow down and refuse to maneuver (turn), “so as not to create a danger to traffic and not cause harm” (paragraph 1.5 SDA). And from a formal point of view, it didn’t matter at all whether Mercedes violated the Rules or not. Shcherbinsky had time to stop, but this did not happen. Moreover, it was Toyota crashed into a Mercedes, which means that at that moment it was moving. Hence it can be assumed that the actions of O. Shcherbinsky did not comply with the SDA of the Russian Federation (clauses 8.1 and 10.1, part 2).

But our experiment raised far more questions about the governor's Mercedes. It is a pity that for some reason they stubbornly did not interest the investigation. For example, the brake system of a Mercedes-Benz S420L (W140 body) has an anti-lock braking system ABS. However, an analysis of the materials available to us showed that in the place of the accident there were "traces of the arc-shaped skid." That is, most likely, ABS did not work and the car skidded. So the malfunction of the brake system could be one of the causes of death. The investigation does not consider these issues. Investigators and the judge also ignored the information that the permission for the beacon for the governor’s car was long expired. And if the emergency light is illegal - there can be no talk of a “deviation from traffic rules”.

In any case, in our opinion, from a legal point of view, it can be concluded that the drivers are mutually guilty in this accident. Zuev, even with the flasher turned on, was obliged to ensure road safety, but by his actions he actually put himself in a situation where he did not have the technical ability to avoid a collision. Scherbinsky had enough time to soberly assess the situation on the road and either just stop or continue straight ahead, which would probably have avoided such tragic consequences. But alas …

COMMENT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF AUTOMOBILE LIFE ZR

Frankly, we did not count on such results of our experiment, but regardless of this, we decided to acquaint readers of the magazine with them. In any case, the court made its decision, by the decision of the Altai Regional Court on the acquittal of Oleg Shcherbinsky, we are completely satisfied and are not going to challenge it. Actually, we don’t have such a right either - neither legal nor human - the three participants in that accident are dead. But some conclusions still need to be made.

From the very beginning, we did not let this matter out of sight. It was hoped that, by virtue of its exceptional nature, it would have an absolutely legal, legal character, without emotion that would be overwhelming in such cases, and most importantly, without market sentiments. Did not happen! In both cases, the court decision had nothing to do with the law - it was, in the current terminology, purely political. You fellow citizens demanded the triumph of justice? Receive and rejoice! Only here is no joy to the end. A precedent has not been created, the legal order has not been confirmed, according to which from now on the innocent will be necessarily acquitted, and the guilty, on the contrary, will be punished. The revision of the Shcherbinsky case was not a step towards improving the law enforcement system.

The “wrong” sentence was canceled - but why didn’t they punish the judge who delivered him, the investigators who collected only evidence of the guilt of one party, the prosecutor who issued the report, which immediately scattered? Yes, and it was not audible that these “advocates of the law” at least apologize to the man who, through their fault, lost so much strength and generally spent a month and a half in the isolation ward …

The authorities did not make any conclusions about the absurdity that the first trial was held behind closed doors. On what basis? It seems to us that, following the results of this case, the judicial authorities simply had to make a decision - only cases where state secrets or something deeply personal can be “closed” (for example, a rape case is being heard). Accident - from another category.

As for traffic accidents, in our opinion, a number of procedural standards can be clearly defined here. It's no secret that for the most part, investigators, prosecutors, and judges are not experts in the field of traffic rules. So it may be worthwhile to oblige investigators to conduct the necessary set of procedures and examinations to help identify the perpetrators. And then there will be fewer mistakes, and the possibilities to “influence” the sentence, too.

So far, these are just our wishes arising from the Shcherbinsky Cause. It is closed and archived. But where is the guarantee that tomorrow other motorists will not get under investigation on a similar charge?

Popular by topic

New

Editor'S Choice
Best reviews for the week
Popular for the day