Decision. A road trip occurred at the intersection, in which

05:57 21.09.2017 -

One person died, two more were injured.

In the south of Moscow, at the intersection of Kirovogradskaya and Dnepropetrovskaya streets, a passenger bus and a LADA Priora car collided. This is reported by TASS. As a result, one person died and two others were injured.

The circumstances of the accident are being established. tags:

Yurginsky city court of the Kemerovo region - JUDICIAL ACTS

Case ***
DECISION*** Yurga

Judge of the Yurginsky City Court of the Kemerovo Region Chernysheva N.M.,

Considered in open court

The case on the complaint C.Yew.A. to the decision in the case of administrative offense

INST A N O V&L:

S.Yu.A. appealed to the court with a complaint about the recognition of the decision of the employee OGIBDD from *** on bringing C.Yew.A. to administrative liability for violation of the rules traffic illegal and subject to abolition.

S. Yu. on the road from the adjacent territory did not give way to the vehicle moving along it, which is a causal relationship with the accident that occurred, that is, an administrative offense under Art. 12.14 p. 3 KRFoAP.

At the hearing C.Yew.A. supported the arguments of the complaint, explained the following.

*** about *** hours he is in T.P.'s private car. *** was heading from the territory of the parking lot located next to the R. store, along *** to the intersection *** he stopped, as the red traffic light was on in the direction of ***. Having waited for the red signals to light up at the traffic lights located at ***, and the green ones at ***, he began to drive to the intersection, making sure that traffic along *** was prohibited by a red traffic light. The territory of the building under construction next to the parking lot was fenced solid fence, because of which he went to the intersection. The fence did not restrict his visibility. At the exit to the intersection, he looked to the left, within *** meters to the intersection, he did not see any car. When he began to cross ***, with the intention of entering *** and, being almost in the middle of the first lane ***, he felt a strong blow to his car, which hit the front of the left wing and saw that a car belonging to OVO (private security), which hit his car. There were no special signals on the security car, and there was no sound signal. His car veered to the right. He suffered bodily injuries, he was forced to turn into an injury, where he delivered Ambulance. After returning from the hospital where he received health care he returned to the scene of the accident. The traffic police officer who worked at the scene of the accident suggested that he sign the accident diagram. The latter was drawn on an A4 paper sheet, he signed this diagram. The scheme, which is submitted to the traffic police court, is different, he did not sign this scheme, the signature in it was made for him by someone else. He does not agree with this accident scheme, since the place of collision of cars is incorrectly determined there. His and the guards' cars collided almost in the center of the roadway, while the diagram indicates that the collision occurred on the right lane of the roadway in the direction of traffic towards p***. He considers that the driver of a special vehicle is guilty of an accident, who, without the included special signals, at a red light, crossed at high speed the intersection ***., without making sure that the intersection was safe to pass. He left the intersection, and not from the adjacent territory, as the traffic police inspector indicated in the protocol, he crossed the intersection at the green traffic light, there was no violation of clause 8.3 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation in his actions, and, therefore, there was no administrative offense under Art. 12.14 part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, which establishes responsibility for "Failure to comply with the requirement of the Rules of the Road to give way to a vehicle that has the right of way, except for the cases provided for by part 2 of article 12.13 and article 12.17 of this Code." There were no sound or light special signals on the VO car. But the traffic police officer, without establishing all accident circumstances, issued a decision on his guilt in an accident, with which he does not agree.

Representative C.Yew.A. M.E.P. supported the arguments of S.Yu.A., explained that the intersection *** and Stroitelnaya is not T-shaped, the road from which S.Yu.A. was leaving has asphalt pavement, located on the same level as pavement***, S.Yu.A. was correctly guided by traffic lights, starting to move along the intersection at green light traffic light.

Interested party Ershov explained: he was driving a car belonging to OVO ***, brand VAZ-21140, the car has a special coloring, as well as an SGU (light talking installation). *** he, together with OVO workers Korpachev and Romashkin, at the beginning of *** o'clock received a signal that an alarm had been triggered at the facility. We left for the "drawdown" of the alarm on *** traffic along *** he first moved closer to the center of the roadway, moving at a speed of about *** km / h, but *** meters before the "T" shaped intersection ** *, moved into the rightmost lane and continued to move. Rebuilt due to the fact that from ***, that is, on the left, at the green traffic light, a car could unexpectedly leave, but since there is an entrance to the adjacent territory on the right, where the parking lot is located, and this entrance does not belong to the intersection, it believed that vehicles leaving this area should give way to him, and, therefore, he believed that driving in the right lane was safer. He saw that at a distance of about *** meters from the intersection, a red traffic light turned on. The SGU was turned on, that is, light and sound special signals. At the intersection, on the right, a building was under construction, so there was a fence, due to which the exit from the adjacent territory on the right was limited. There were no cars, both in the direction of his movement to ***, and in the oncoming lane. When he passed the traffic light post, before that, having reduced the speed to about *** km / h, then in front, on the right, at a distance of about *** meters, he saw a car leaving the adjacent territory, as he later found out, under the control of S.Yu.A .. In order to avoid a collision, he managed to sharply turn the steering wheel to the left, but failed to avoid a collision. He hit the front of his car in the left front fender of the car C.Yew.A., from the blow his car was thrown to the left, and the car C.Yew.A. to the right, the cars stopped and before the arrival of the traffic police, the cars remained in place. He participated in taking measurements and drawing up a diagram of an accident, everything is correctly recorded there. He believes that the fault in the accident was S.Yu.A., who did not let his car pass, with special signals, leaving the road from the adjacent territory, since the entrance on the right leads to the parking lot. The inspector correctly issued a decision to punish S.Yu.A., and asks not to cancel it.

Interested person, representative of the OVO of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Yu." K.Yu. fully supported the explanations of E.P.A., he also believes that E. is not to blame for the accident. He clarified that when leaving the line, the special car driven by E.P.A. was inspected by the dispatcher, including the sound and light signaling. The car was in good condition, which was noted in waybill. Driver E.P.A. also passed the examination, was allowed to work, about which marks were also made in the waybill. After the collision of the OBO car with the car C.Yew.A. The SGU was shifted, as he understood, from a blow, it did not work. According to E.V.P. he knows that when passing through the intersection at the red traffic light, he (E.) turned on special sound and light signals.

Traffic police inspector Sibergin E.A. clarified that ***. he was on duty. Traffic police dispatcher received a signal about traffic accident at the intersection *** went to the scene of an accident. Discovered that T.P.'s car had collided. *** managed by S.Yu.A. and a car of the private security department of the brand *** g / n K *** under the control of E.P.A. S.Yu.A. was sent to the hospital for medical treatment, H.P.A. was present during the measurements and drawing up the DPT scheme. He made all the necessary measurements, drew up a traffic accident diagram, on which he indicated the position of the cars after the collision, the alleged place of the collision, and interviewed the drivers of the vehicles. S.Yu.A. returned from the hospital, he introduced C.Yew.A. with the accident scheme, with which C.Yew.A. agreed and signed. S.Yu.A. drove to the intersection from the adjacent territory, which is the territory of the parking lot. The latter does not have a through passage, the surface of the road leading from the parking lot to the intersection is gravel. These circumstances indicate that this is an adjacent territory, and not a crossroads. Based on the results of the inspection of the accident site, from the explanations of the participants in the accident, he came to the conclusion that the culprit of this accident is S.Yu.A., who, leaving the adjacent territory to the intersection of streets *** and ***, in violation of the requirements of paragraph 8.3 The traffic rules of the Russian Federation did not give way to a vehicle moving along ***, which was cause of the accident. In action C.Yew.A. there was an administrative offense under Art. Part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Witness Sh.V. explained: *** he was driving in his own car, with his son-in-law, he was driving along ***, approaching the intersection *** with *** he saw that a police car was moving in the oncoming lane at high speed, but there were no light signals on the car was, he saw him meters for ***. The traffic lights were red, the police car drove into the red traffic light and collided with the car silver color, which left, in the course of its movement. The silver car had a green traffic light. The cars were blown apart by the impact. He got out of his car and walked to the silver car, there was a driver with blood on his head. One uniformed officer got out of the police patrol car, while two were sitting in the cab. He asked if everything was fine with them, they replied that everything was fine. He did not know any police officers or the driver of the silver car before, he learned from acquaintances that they were looking for witnesses to the incident and he responded.

Witness V.N.AND. explained: she works as a janitor and in September *** she cleaned the territory, she was in the bus stop area, at ***. When she was cleaning up the garbage, she saw how on the left, along ***, a police patrol car drove quickly, saw a coloring blue color. After a while, behind her, where the crossroads, there was a blow, a rattle. She turned around and saw that a police car and a car had collided. When the police car drove past her, she did not hear the sound of a siren, and did not see any special signals.

Witness A.S.I. explained that in the morning ***., being in the parking lot near the R. store, watched S.Yu.A. security car. She drove to the intersection at a red traffic light, while he did not hear any beeps, did not see the flashing lights on. The cars collided at the intersection.

Witness Yu.L.A. gave similar explanations.

Witness K.S. explained: he is the senior officer of the OVO detachment, ***, he is part of the OVO detachment, drove out in a patrol car at the signal for the alarm to go off at the facility, moved along the street. ***. Before passing the intersection with ***, the driver E. changed lanes from the center to the right edge of the carriageway, meters for *** the SSU was turned on, as the red signal was on at the traffic light. Not far from R. the building under construction is enclosed by a long solid fence that limited visibility when leaving the car park. We drove to the crossroads and suddenly a foreign-made car drove off to the right behind the traffic light and a collision occurred. He believes that the driver should have let them through, as they were driving in a car with special signals.

Witness R.E.A. gave similar explanations.

Witness K.A.The. explained that in mid-September *** he arrived at the parking lot near the R. store. There was an accident there. At the request of the traffic police inspector at ***, he pulled away two cars in his car that collided at the intersection.

The judge, after hearing the parties, the witness, having examined the materials presented, comes to the following.

At the hearing it was established that *** at the intersection *** there was a traffic accident involving the driver C.Yew.A., driving a personal car T.P. *** and the driver E., driving the car ***, g / n K ***, belonging to the OVO MO of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia “Yu.”. S.Yu.A. left the parking area at ***, with the intersection of ***, and the driver E., was moving in a car along *** towards ***. S.Yu.A. explained that he drove to the intersection at a green traffic light, and E., that he was driving with the crew to the alarm at the facility, was moving with the SSU system turned on, drove to the intersection, at a red traffic light, while taking all security measures to passage of the intersection, and, therefore. S.Yu.A., according to E., leaving the adjacent territory, did not let the special car pass, which led to a collision. The traffic police inspector who conducted the inspection of the accident event issued a decision to bring S.Yu.A. to administrative responsibility for violating clause 8.3 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation.

According to clause 1.2. The traffic rules of the Russian Federation an intersection is "a place of intersection, junction or branching of roads at the same level, limited by imaginary lines connecting respectively opposite, the beginnings of the curvature of the carriageways, which are the most distant from the center of the intersection. Exits from adjacent territories are not considered intersections.

According to the same point of traffic rules The adjacent territory of the Russian Federation is “the territory directly adjacent to the road and not intended for through traffic of vehicles (yards, residential areas, parking lots, gas stations, enterprises, etc.). Movement on the adjacent territory is carried out in accordance with these Rules.

According to the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation (clause 8.3), when entering the road from the adjacent territory, the driver must give way to vehicles and pedestrians moving along it, and when leaving the road, to pedestrians and cyclists whose path he crosses. Compliance with this norm is mandatory, including if the exit from the adjacent territory is organized at the intersection.

The Court concludes that C.Yew.A. drove to the intersection from the adjacent territory, which is the territory of the parking lot. The latter does not have a through passage, the surface of the road leading from the parking lot to the intersection is gravel. These circumstances are confirmed by the traffic pattern on the LD. ***. These circumstances indicate that the territory of the parking lot is an adjacent territory. Thus, the intersection of *** and *** streets is not a regulated intersection, but a T-shaped intersection. thus the arguments S.Yew.A., that he was moving along the intersection and therefore guided by the traffic signal allowing movement, and did not leave the adjacent territory, are untenable. In this case C.Yew.A. should have been guided not by a traffic light signal, but by the rules according to which, when leaving the adjacent territory, he had to make sure that his maneuver was safe, let all moving vehicles, that is, be guided by clause 8.3 of the SDA of the Russian Federation, which regulates the exit from the adjacent territory.

arguments C.Yew.A. about the guilt driver accident special car, which, without the included special signals, at a red light, crossed at high speed the intersection ***, which was confirmed by witnesses Sh., V., A. according to the court, they are untenable, because even if such signals had not been turned on, this violation of paragraph 3.1 of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation by the driver of the special vehicle E.P.A. would not have been causally related to the DPT. C.Yew.A., leaving the adjacent territory on the road, had to give way to vehicles moving along it. Thus it is violation C.Yew.A. the requirements of clause 8.3 of the SDA RFA caused an accident.

The testimony of E. that he drove to the intersection at the prohibiting traffic signal with the flashing beacons on, the SES turned on, is confirmed by the testimony of R., K., K. consistent with the scheme of the accident, do not contradict the original explanations C.Yew.A., which when drawing up a protocol on administrative violation and bringing to administrative responsibility with the alleged violation and the punishment was agreed. Thus, the court has no reason not to trust E.'s testimony.

The court doubts the testimony of witnesses Sh., V.A., Yu. that the OBO car was moving through the intersection without flashing beacons and a sound signal. These witnesses were not interviewed and installed directly at the scene of the accident. Their testimonies are refuted by the testimonies of R.,K. direct participants in the accident., which the court has no reason not to trust, t.to. they are consistent with the scheme of the accident, are confirmed by the testimony of K. about the serviceability of the special vehicle when going on duty, the marks in the waybill about good condition car, do not contradict the original explanations C.Yew.A., which when drawing up a protocol on administrative violation and bringing to administrative responsibility with the violation and the punishment imposed was agreed. Based on the foregoing, the court concludes that the driver E.P.A. did not violate the requirements of clause 3.1 of the SDA of the Russian Federation, his car, moving along the intersection at a prohibitory traffic signal with flashing beacons and an audible signal, had the right of way through the intersection in front of S.Yu.A., leaving the road from the adjacent territory.

Thus it is wine C.Yew.A. in committing an administrative offense, under Art. Part 3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation was proved at the hearing. grounds for satisfying the complaint C.Yew.A. the court does not see the decision to bring him to administrative responsibility.

Based on the foregoing and guided by Art. Art. - Section IV. Proceedings in cases of administrative offenses > Chapter 30. Review of decisions and decisions in cases of administrative offenses > Article 30.8. Announcement of the decision made on a complaint against a decision in a case on an administrative offense" target="_blank">30.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, judge

On the example of several typical road traffic accidents I would like to show how in simple situations, due to the illiterate actions of the driver, the circumstances of the collision are distorted, and the innocent turns into the guilty.

1. simple situation
   A GAZ-31029 car hit a stopped VAZ-2101 car. The fault is obvious, the driver of the GAZ car chose the wrong speed or did not keep a safe distance. But it is worth the driver of the GAZ car to be cunning, saying that the Zhiguli were moving in reverse how everything is turned upside down. A law-abiding driver does not need to be upset, it is enough to save the scene of the accident, traces of the collision, in no case remove the car and call the traffic police. The presence of signs of braking of any of the vehicles, the location of glass fragments, loose dirt and the degree of mechanical damage will help to establish the guilty driver. In turn, if the injured driver still managed to move his car to the side, allowed passing vehicles to roll up traces of a collision, it will be impossible to determine guilt.
2. Head-on collision

   An obvious fact: whoever drove into the oncoming lane is guilty of the accident. It remains to save the place of collision and wait for the arrival of the traffic police. To clarify the question: who drove into the oncoming lane? - you need to measure the width of the roadway. Together with the traffic police, take an active part in the measurements. Ten centimeters can decide the guilt of one side or the other. Right at the scene of the accident, a draft diagram is drawn up indicating all the distances on the roadway. Carefully read the draft, you will not have a second opportunity to measure the road. There are cases when a driver did not drive into the oncoming lane, but inadvertently signed a diagram where his car is shown in the oncoming lane. In such cases, sailors say - dry the oars. The driver signed his own sentence without looking, and neither witnesses nor a repeated trip to the accident site will help. And what to measure on the road, from which cars have long been removed? What will witnesses say when the driver himself measured the distance to the collision site, signed the diagram, and now backs down?

   As a tip: in winter time the actual width of the carriageway is measured, not the distance to the curbs. This is logical, in summer the roadway is 10 meters, and in winter only 7. The rolled part of the road is used for movement, and it is worth measuring it, leaving the snowdrifts at the curbs alone.

3. Maneuvering

   The driver of the GAZelle car, moving along a two-way road with four lanes, intends to turn left into a courtyard passage. He occupied the extreme left position on the roadway in advance, turned on the turn signal and proceeded to perform the maneuver. At that time, a Moskvich car was driving in the opposite direction along the opposite lane with a clear excess of speed. There is a collision. What was the surprise of the driver of the GAZelle car when he was found guilty of an accident. “Allow me,” he objected. - I did not break the rules, but the driver of the Moskvich, on the contrary, not only drove in the oncoming lane, which is unacceptable on this road (clause 9.2 of the SDA), but also exceeded the speed limit. Why was such a decision made? Both drivers are at fault. The driver of the GAZelle is guilty of a collision, an accident, since it is he who, in accordance with clause 8.1 of the Rules of the Road, is obliged to ensure the complete safety of his maneuver. The driver of the Moskvich certainly also violated the Rules of the Road, for which he was punished with an administrative fine, but his violations are not in a causal relationship with the traffic accident. In other words, the cause of the collision was maneuvering, and not movement in forward direction, albeit in the opposite lane with excess speed.

   Misunderstanding by drivers that not all traffic violations cause a collision leads to great frustration and loss of money.

   One more example. Two cars collided at an uneven intersection. One of the drivers, the one who was driving on main road, was drunk. The second driver was absolutely sober, however, he left the secondary road. Which of them is right? A sober driver was at fault in this traffic accident, as he did not give way. It is not the fault of the drunk driver in the accident. As a result, a sober driver will restore both cars, and the second (drunk) driver will be punished only for drunk driving.

4. Crossings

   Often, in collisions at intersections, it is difficult for drivers to prove who drove the green traffic light. Signal change is a matter of a few seconds. But it is a burning traffic light that will establish guilt. In this situation, your salvation is in the witnesses. Only they can confirm which of the drivers ran the green light. Since you happened to become a participant in a collision at a regulated intersection, then drop everything, hurry to record witnesses. If there are no volunteers, write down the numbers and brands of neighboring cars.

   • Do not let the passengers of your car go until you write down their names and addresses.
   • Don't forget the subjective moment.

   It is desirable that you first get to the phone and call the traffic police. This fact is of psychological importance, as it serves as a confirmation of your confidence that you are right, and secondly, you deprive the other driver of a reason to reach the phone, which means that he will not be able to call his acquaintances to the scene of the accident and present them as witnesses.

   There are such variants of collisions at intersections when the outcome of the case is predetermined by the Rules. We are talking about a collision where one driver finishes crossing the intersection, and the second just starts moving in the transverse direction. The driver is always in the best position to complete the intersection. It is enough for him to prove that he passed the traffic light on the green, and in some cases the yellow traffic light. It is not enough for a driver starting a movement to say that he has run a green light. You will need to prove that the second car drove into the intersection when the red light was on. It is very difficult to prove such a fact, because there is a high probability of eventually being guilty. Of fundamental importance will be the distance traveled by both cars, and the speed of movement from the traffic light stand to the collision site.

5. Pedestrian collision

   Several axioms. Road - workplace driver. The movement of pedestrians on the carriageway is prohibited by the Rules of the Road, it is allowed to cross carriageway strictly in prescribed places and at right angles to the edge of the sidewalk. In other cases, the pedestrian himself ensures the safety of his transition. At the same time, pedestrians, completely disregarding personal safety, enter the roadway in the most inappropriate places. At the same time, they become violators of the Rules and, falling under a car, are themselves guilty of what happened.

   Despite the clear fault of pedestrians in an accident, the question is always considered whether the driver violated the Rules. Did you slow down in time, i.e. fulfilled three requirements of clause 10.1 of the Rules of the road. In the vast majority of cases, pedestrians appear on the road so suddenly that they do not give the driver any opportunity to avoid a collision. And only when the driver missed the moment the pedestrian entered the road and did not manage to apply the brakes in time, liability arises up to the initiation of a criminal case. I would like to touch on the following topic. You have probably heard stories about drivers who hit pedestrians and, out of pity, agree to take the victims home. As a rule, due to their inattention, pedestrians fall under the wheels, while drivers leave their phone, give their name and leave with a clear conscience. Without feeling any guilt and without foreseeing problems, the driver soon forgets about what happened. At the same time, the victim is in a state of shock for the first hours and does not understand that medical assistance is required. In practice, there were cases when people with broken legs reached home on their own. As a result, the victim goes to the hospital, and the doctors, acting according to the instructions, report the incident to the State Inspectorate. The driver acts as a villain who left the scene and did not report to the traffic police, which is considered a serious offense, for which the judge can deprive the right to drive for up to three years, assign corrective labor, and impose an impressive fine (Article 165 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation).

Don't Be Guilty Without Guilt

Find out at the scene of the accident if the pedestrian has any claims against you, take a receipt, and if you still took him home, then hurry to report the incident to the State Inspectorate.

Question: At the intersection, there was a road trip in which you participated?? bus (A), truck (G), passenger car (L) and fixed-route taxi (M). Witnesses to the incident testified to the traffic police inspector. The first witness believed that the bus was the first to leave the intersection, and the fixed-route taxi was the second. Another witness believed that the car was the last to leave the intersection, and the truck was the second. The third witness assured that the bus left the intersection second, followed by a passenger car. As a result, it turned out that each of the witnesses was right in only one of their statements. In what order did the cars leave the intersection? In your answer, list the first letters of the names of vehicles in a row without spaces in the order they entered the intersection, for example, AMLG. (Please be kind with a solution ;)

At the intersection, there was a road trip in which you participated?? bus (A), truck (G), passenger car (L) and fixed-route taxi (M). Witnesses to the incident testified to the traffic police inspector. The first witness believed that the bus was the first to leave the intersection, and the fixed-route taxi was the second. Another witness believed that the car was the last to leave the intersection, and the truck was the second. The third witness assured that the bus left the intersection second, followed by a passenger car. As a result, it turned out that each of the witnesses was right in only one of their statements. In what order did the cars leave the intersection? In your answer, list the first letters of the names of vehicles in a row without spaces in the order they entered the intersection, for example, AMLG. (Please be kind with a solution ;)

Answer:

Suppose that the first witness lied that the bus was the first, and told the truth that the minibus was the second. Then for the third witness - the statement about the bus is a lie (since the minibus left second), then the third car left. Then both statements of the second witness are lies (he has a car - the fourth at the intersection, a truck - the second, we got a car - the third, in a minibus - the second). We got a contradiction. So, the first witness told the truth that the bus was the first and lied about the minibus. Then it follows from the statements of the third witness that the passenger car is the third one. From the second witness it follows that the truck is the second. Then the minibus remains the fourth place. Answer: AGLM

Similar questions