Trace examination after an accident example

Trace examination in case of a traffic accident

Transport and traceological examination is very important when assessing road accidents. It is a study of traces after a traffic accident. It is thanks to transological examination that it is possible to decipher the path of vehicles, types of traffic, determine the location of the impact, and most importantly, establish the cause and circumstances that provoked the accident, determine the culprit and resolve issues regarding insurance payments. Let's consider the features of conducting a trace examination in case of an accident and the purpose of its purpose.

Appointment of trace examination in case of an accident

Traceological examination in case of an accident is prescribed in order to restore the picture that preceded the accident. It allows you to understand the incident and reflects the sequence of all its stages - from the very beginning to the end. An inspection can be ordered at any stage of the investigation into an incident, but it is more appropriate to carry it out at the stage of the preliminary investigation. It is at this stage that identifying the at-fault driver will allow the case to be resolved correctly.

The importance of the transport and traceological assessment of an accident is very great, especially if none of the participants in the accident admits guilt and asserts that they are right. In such a situation, without traceology, it is impossible to understand who changed lanes where, who moved where, who violated, which of the participants was the first to violate traffic rules, etc. In addition, such an assessment is carried out if it is necessary to compare the traces of an incident with the submitted samples, or to identify the traces found.

For example, traceology can help identify a vehicle that fled the scene of an accident and, based on the traces found, prove its involvement.

A trace inspection is appointed by a judge, government agency or official who is involved in the investigation of a case of an accident and, accordingly, they make a determination on its appointment, if it is required, in accordance with Art. 26.4. Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Such an examination is appointed on the basis of the following documents:

1. Court rulings.

2. Resolutions of the judicial authority, bodies of inquiry, investigation, prosecutor or other official who is considering the case of an administrative offense.

3. Petitions of a participant in legal proceedings, which can be a plaintiff, defendant, accused, victim, defense attorney, representative, etc.

The definition must reflect the following information:

• the grounds on which the inspection is ordered;
• full information about the expert or institution in which the examination should be carried out;
• a list of questions that are posed to the expert is listed;
• a list of materials that are made available to the expert.

The timing of the trace examination is set by the court and depends on the complexity of the incident.

Law on carrying out

Traceological testing is carried out on the basis of several regulatory documents, which also determine the procedure for its implementation. They are:

2. Criminal Procedure Code, Chapter 27, Art. 195 – 207.

3. Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 79 – 87.

4. Arbitration Procedure Code Art. 82 – 87.

5. Code of Administrative Offenses, Art. 26.4. – 26.5.

Each regulatory document regulates questions about the purpose, procedure, commission and comprehensive examination, and its conclusion.

Conducting a trace examination during a traffic accident

A transport and traceability examination is carried out by an expert or several experts. Before starting work, a trace specialist collects information about the incident in order to present the overall picture and model an approximate diagram of the accident, and then provide a conclusion. The expert may also require additional materials, instruments and documents. The list of requirements is formed after the expert is given the task and purpose of the examination.

An approximate list of necessary materials and documents that a trace specialist-expert may need:

1. A diagram of the scene of the accident, which can be drawn up by participants in the accident, government employees and officials.

2. The accident scene inspection report is provided, as a rule, by traffic police officers.

3. Photo and video materials that are attached to the inspection report of the scene of the incident.

4. Vehicles that were direct participants in the accident, to inspect them from the outside.

5. Car photo and video material, but they must meet certain requirements.

6. Protocol for inspection and verification of the technical condition of the vehicle. This document can confirm whether the vehicle was in good working order before the accident.

7. A certificate of an accident, which is issued by employees of the road patrol service.

8. Any additional materials and documents.

The above list is provided for guidance only and may change depending on the objectives of the audit, the requirements of the expert, existing information, etc.

Questions to the expert

Questions posed to the traceological examination expert must be included in the determination of appointment. The questions are formulated and composed in such a way that, thanks to them, the expert can correctly and most fully form a picture of the accident and provide information that will allow the case of an administrative offense to be correctly and accurately resolved.

The questions posed to an expert traceologist cannot go beyond the scope of his special knowledge.

The victim and the accused in the case of the administrative offense in question can also participate in the activities of the expert by drawing up questions for him that they would like to receive answers to in the expert’s conclusion.

There is a whole list of standard questions that are asked to an expert during a trace examination. Conventionally, questions can be divided into several groups, each of which depends on the object under study, goals and objectives.

Group 1 – issues related to determining the group affiliation of vehicles. Sample list:

• What type of transport do the tracks that were left at the scene of the accident belong to?
• What model of tires left the tracks that were seized from the scene of the accident?
• Do the traces left correspond to the specified type of vehicle?
• Based on the identified shapes, sizes and location of the marks on the vehicles, was it possible for the vehicles to collide?

Group 2 – is used so that during a traceological examination the whole picture can be established from the available parts. Sample list:

• Are the objects of parts that were found at the scene of an accident actually parts of a specific vehicle?
• Were the particles of paint, glass, and plastic that were found at the scene of the accident and on vehicles before the accident one whole?
• Were any of the vehicles changing lanes at the time of the collision based on the tracks found?

Group 3 – used for the purpose of identifying a specific vehicle

• Do the detected tracks belong to the specified vehicle?
• Do the tracks found at the scene of an accident belong to one or more vehicles?
• Was the trace found left by this particular car or another?

Group 4 – questions that help determine the location of an accident

• In which lane did the accident occur?
• In which lane did the accident occur?
• Did the accident happen on the side of the road or on the roadway?
• How were the vehicles positioned relative to the boundaries of the roadway at the time of the collision?

Group 5 – questions of traceological examination aimed at establishing the collision process?

• At what angle did the collision occur?
• Which vehicle was moving at a higher speed at the time of the collision?
• Was the vehicle stationary or in motion at the time of the accident?
• In what direction were the vehicles moving before the collision itself?

The above list of questions is just an example; a more accurate list is formed when the details of the accident, participants, etc. are known.

Petition for trace examination of an accident

A petition to appoint a trace examination in case of an accident is a document that indicates a request from a citizen or organization to have an examination of evidence, traces, and the scene of the incident carried out in the case with the involvement of an expert. The request must be submitted in writing. Any participant in the paperwork can apply for a trace examination.

You can apply at any stage of the proceedings:

1. Before the start of litigation at the preliminary investigation stage.

2. In the court of first instance.

3. At the appeal stage.

If the petition was filed at the appeal stage, the participant filing it must indicate a valid reason why he did not do so at previous court hearings and proceedings.

Of course, the best time to conduct a trace analysis is immediately after the incident. At this moment, the expert will be able not only to see all the traces left, but also the picture of the accident itself.

You can file and submit a motion at any time, but before the judge makes a final decision on the issue under consideration. The petition is written in free form. However, it is necessary to indicate the following mandatory information:

• details of the court, case number, full information about the participants in the case, date and signature of the applicant;
• the reasons for which the need for an examination arises and for which the petition is filed;
• to whom do you wish to entrust the examination;
• an approximate list of questions that the expert needs to answer;
• list of materials, documents, information that you can provide to the expert on your part
• indicate the type of transport and traceability examination.

A request to conduct a trace examination may be rejected by the court, but the reason for the refusal must be provided and justified.

The cost of a trace examination depends on the urgency and complexity of the incident, the region where it was carried out, the reputation and fame of the expert institution or expert. The cheapest cost of the examination is approximately 3-5 thousand rubles, but this is if the accident is “simple” and the call is not urgent. A complex traffic accident, for example, if several participants were involved, or there were victims, or significant damage was caused, then the price of such an examination increases significantly and the minimum price for it starts from about 10 thousand rubles.

One of the participants in the accident can pay for the cost of the trace examination on a voluntary basis. Also, the participant in the case who sent the petition for an examination can include its cost in the amount of expenses indicated in the petition, and also indicate that it should be paid by the party that loses, that is, will be found guilty.

In a situation where none of the parties involved in the paperwork agrees to bear the costs of paying for the services of an expert, but an examination is necessary, then the question of who will pay for it is decided by the court and the shares are established.

Conclusion of traceological examination

Before entrusting the inspection to an expert, all rights and obligations are explained, and he is warned about administrative liability for giving a knowingly false conclusion. Therefore, the result of such checks is as accurate and correct as possible.

The traceological examination expert presents a conclusion in writing and on his own behalf. In it, he indicates who conducted the examination and on what basis, its content, provides reasonable answers to all questions that were asked to the expert, and also draws appropriate conclusions. Thanks to the expert’s opinion, you can understand who caused the accident, who will be punished, who will receive payments from the insurance company, etc.

Traceological examination in case of road accidents has recently become a popular service. This service helps not only to reconstruct the picture of a traffic accident, but also to identify the culprit and resolve the case correctly and fairly. One important condition for this is to turn to conscientious, diligent and responsible experts who will not try to “rip off” money, but will actually help.

Traceological examination in case of an accident

In the article we will talk about traceological examination in case of an accident, explain in what cases it is advisable to prescribe it, and consider the issues that the examination resolves.

During any road accident, many traces are formed.

Vehicles moving along the road leave marks on it that are different in nature: sliding, braking, skidding, dragging, etc.

When colliding with each other, not only “dents” are formed on cars, but also other mechanical damage, such as scuffs, tears, scratches.

Each individual trace carries information about how the incident developed in a specific phase.

The study of the entire set of traces gives us an idea of ​​​​the unified mechanism of a traffic accident.

The study of traces of an accident, in order to investigate its causes and circumstances, is included in the subject of traceological examination in case of an accident.

Why is a trace examination prescribed in case of an accident?

The main task solved by traceological examination is to determine the mechanism of a road accident.

The mechanism of an incident reflects the sequence of all its stages, from beginning to end.

For example, it is impossible to understand without trace analysis in case of accidents associated with changing lanes of vehicles moving in the same direction. When both participants in the incident say that they moved without changing direction. Moreover, each of the drivers claims that his opponent made a lane change maneuver and did not comply with the requirement of the Russian Traffic Regulations to give priority in traffic to a vehicle moving without changing the direction of movement, that is, straight.

Transport traceology is also used in cases where it is necessary to carry out an identification comparison of traces of an incident with the submitted samples.

For example, during the inspection of a damaged car, samples of traces of car enamel layering left by a vehicle that fled the scene of the accident were removed from the scene of the accident. During the investigation of the case, a car with traces of peeling car enamel on the front bumper was detained on suspicion of committing the incident. The traces found on the seized vehicle correspond in color, shape and nature of formation to the traces seized during the inspection of the damaged vehicle. To answer the question about the involvement of the detained car in a road accident, a traceological expert study is assigned.

Articles to help:

Participants in road traffic accidents should know that the objects of traceological examination during a road traffic accident are traces, that is, materially recorded reflections of individual objects, vehicles, people.

Without traces there can be no traceology.

The range of issues resolved through this examination is quite wide.

Depending on the objects under study, the goals and objectives of the examination, three groups of questions can be distinguished.

The first group of questions is aimed at determining the group affiliation of motor vehicles:

What type of transport are the traces left at the scene of the incident?

What model of tire left the mark recovered from the scene of a road accident?

Do the tracks belong to the specified type of vehicle?

Is it possible for cars A and B to collide based on the shape, size and location of the marks on the vehicles?

The second group of questions is used to establish the whole in parts:

Are the damaged parts found at the scene parts of a specific vehicle?

Before the traffic accident, were the particles of paint (glass, plastic) found at the scene of the accident and on vehicles all one piece?

The third group of questions is related to the identification of a specific motor vehicle:

Do the tracks belong to this vehicle?

traces left by one or more vehicles?

Did this car tire leave marks at the scene of the accident?

Experts - traceologists in their research can solve a number of issues related directly to the mechanism of a road traffic accident.

We offer participants in the proceedings the following formulations of tasks for expert traceological research.

Determine the mechanism of the incident (indicate the date, time, place and composition of participants).

Determine the location of the vehicle collision (the location of the collision with a pedestrian, the collision with an obstacle).

Does the location of the collision (impact) indicated on the accident scene diagram correspond to expert calculations?

Determine the location of the collision with the pedestrian (obstacle).

What is the collision sequence of the vehicle?

With what parts of the telephone exchange did the contact interaction take place?

Determine the collision angle of the vehicle?

Which of the persons specified in the decision ordering the examination was driving the car?

Traceology is always prescribed when it comes to “frame-ups” that are so common in our time.

The appointment of transport and traceability examinations by insurance companies has become widespread.

It is this type of transport examination that reliably and accurately determines the correspondence of damage to vehicles to the mechanism and the circumstances of the traffic accident.

Appointment and conduct of traceological examination in case of an accident

This examination can be appointed at any stage of the proceedings, however, it is optimal to conduct the research during the inquiry (preliminary investigation).

It is this stage that is aimed at identifying the person responsible for the accident.

The regulatory basis for appointing and conducting a trace examination in case of an accident is the procedural codes of the Russian Federation - the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Code of Civil Procedure, the Arbitration Procedure Code and the norms of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences.

Article to help:

As a general rule, traceological expert research is carried out as part of a comprehensive transport and traceological or road-technical examination.

Participants in the proceedings in a car accident case can use the recommendations set out in the articles in the section of the website “Examinations of Road Traffic Accidents” to resolve organizational issues when ordering a trace examination.

Articles to help:

In conclusion of the article, I would like to note that the information about traceological examination in case of an accident, presented in this article, may be difficult for a number of our readers.

Of course, all recommendations are purely general.

Each controversial road accident should be dealt with taking into account all the circumstances of the case and, if necessary, with the involvement of professional auto lawyers.

Comments

According to the law, any examination carried out in a case of an administrative offense must be carried out, relatively speaking, free of charge.
This does not exclude the examination at the expense of the party. The budget must pay the costs, but in practice judges often ask the question of whether the person filing the petition will pay for the examination. We recommend submitting a petition indicating that the payment for the expert’s services will be borne by the budget.

Hello.
Albert, all the questions you ask arose due to the fact that the investigator violated some procedural norms during the proceedings.
If the resolution of 14.11.
16, was cancelled, then why weren’t you involved in the consideration of the complaint on the basis of which the decision was cancelled, why weren’t they given a copy of the decision to cancel the decision, which by the way, you, as the victim, could appeal. Further, if an examination is ordered in the case, then the investigator was obliged to make a determination on its appointment and familiarize you with it. From this definition, you would know what kind of examination it is, what questions are posed to the expert, in which expert institution the examination is scheduled, what is the period of the examination, etc.

What to do?
Go to the investigator, submit a request to familiarize yourself with the case materials, copy them and get acquainted, after which you will not have any questions left, but it is not a fact that new questions will not arise.
Do not repair the damaged vehicle until the administrative investigation is completed and the vehicle inspection procedure is completed by the insurer.

Hello, I quote the previous answer: “Regarding the possibility of establishing the involvement of a car in an accident - yes, it is possible if there are traces of a collision (deformation) on the vehicle or at least good photographs of damaged elements of the cars.”

If the car is repaired, then there are no traces, which means there is no way to prove the vehicle’s involvement in the accident.

I was talking on the phone, I admit that the door could have been closed to the first position, i.e.
there could be a gap. A trawl (Maz, which was transporting an excavator, attached to the platform with hooks that extend somewhat beyond the platform) rushed past me. Maz rushed in such a way that, Probably touching the door handle with the hook, the door first opened slightly, then with the wind and the small distance between our cars, it became completely loose and, accordingly, Maz combed the driver's door, opening it, and for a long time, distorting it with the entire length of his platform, at the end he bent it a little forward, at the same time damaging the wing. Ahead, 30 meters away, there was a pedestrian crossing, at which the MAZ driver stopped, and then drove on. Mine I ignored the sound signals. I called the traffic police, after a certain time an investigator arrived and measured the position of my car ajar but did not measure the width of the entire road, there were no markings at all! After a while they found this oil, which was already far away, only two days later it was provided for inspection (naturally already in a different place, and not at the scene of the accident).The investigator rummaged through my lock and examined the hinge

concludes that I opened the door at the moment when the driver was already driving at the level of the door. (The hook changed its position a little inside the casing, the loop is intact) It’s my fault, clause 12.7 of the traffic rules. The fact that the second participant disappeared is completely nonsense.

he did not see or hear my signals! There is no responsibility for him, but I have a fine and repairs at my own expense. I filed a request to conduct a trace examination within the framework of this administrative case. Question

What issues do I need to bring to the table? If, nevertheless, the expert gives a conclusion that the door was open or slightly open, they will eventually admit my guilt, can the owner of the MAZ sue me for lost profits and compensation for some losses (since the trawl is constantly working on transport) and to return to place an excavator and bring it back to submit it for examination, they will also incur expenses. Or is this his problem?

An example of an automotive technical examination (the mechanism of a collision between two cars)

SPECIALIST'S OPINION No. 17-A

Research production time:

Started: at 12 o'clock. 00 min. August 23, 2011

Finished: 4 p.m. 00 min. September 13, 2011

Location of research:

Moscow, st. 2nd Mashinostroeniya, no. 17/17.

Reasons for conducting research:

On August 23, 2011, the ANO “Center for Medical and Forensic Research” received a letter from gr. ——— E.A. with a request to conduct an auto technical and transport-traceological report of a specialist on the fact of a collision of a Chevrolet-Clau car under the control of water. ———— E.A. with the cyclist ———— A.A., which took place on July 16, 2011.

Questions posed to the specialist:

1. At what angle did the collision between the Chevrolet Claw and the cyclist occur?
2. Which vehicle, the Chevrolet Claw or the cyclist, was faster before the collision?
3. Are the actions of the driver of the Chevrolet Klau and the cyclist seen as inconsistencies with the requirements of the Road Traffic Rules, and if so, are they in a causal connection with this incident from a technical point of view?

The production of the study was entrusted to:

specialist of the ANO "Center for Medical and Forensic Research" Luzan Andrey Grigorievich, who has a higher technical education in the specialty "Construction and road machinery and equipment", qualifications as a forensic expert and experience of expert work in the specialties: "Investigation of the circumstances of a road traffic accident", "Investigation of technical condition of vehicles" and "Investigation of traces on vehicles and the scene of an accident (transport and trace diagnostics)" - 35 years.

1. Time of incident: 16 hours 15 minutes July 16, 2011; place of incident: Lobachevsky St., opposite house No. 12 on Koshtoyants St. - from the Protocol of inspection of the place where the administrative offense was committed.
2. Road transport situation - from the explanations of the driver of the Chevrolet-Klau (or hereinafter Chevrolet) and the cyclist ————— A.A., Protocol of inspection of the place where the administrative offense was committed, Scheme, photographs for it.
3. Damage to the Chevrolet car, as well as the material conditions of the scene of the traffic accident - from the Protocol of inspection of the place where the administrative offense was committed, diagrams and photographs for it, as well as from the results of a diagnostic study of the Chevrolet car during inspection by a specialist on 08/23/2011 and 09/10/2011.

Regulatory and reference documentation:

• “Analysis of road traffic accidents”, M., 1971.
• —————————————————————————
• Brief automobile reference book, M., NIIAT, 1982.
• Traffic rules of the Russian Federation.
• Website internet auto.ru.

For questions 1, 2 and 3:

To resolve the issues raised, it is necessary to reconstruct the mechanism of this incident, for which we will conduct the following research.

Initially, the damage to the Chevrolet car was listed in the Protocol of inspection of the scene of the administrative offense, which indicated that the Chevrolet car had damage to the left front door, the left front fender, and the front bumper on the left. Attached to this inspection report are photo tables with photographs of a Chevrolet car (see photo below):

Photo No. 1 Photo No. 2

At the same time, according to the results of a diagnostic study of a Chevrolet car, carried out by a specialist on 08/23/2011 and 09/10/2011, it can be noted that all primary damage is located on the left side of the Chevrolet car (see photo below):

Photo No. 3 Photo No. 4

Photo No. 5 Photo No. 6

Photo No. 7 Photo No. 8

On the left side of the Chevrolet the primary damage was:

— the left front door, on which there is a flattened dent measuring 20x23 cm (see photo below):

Photo No. 9 Photo No. 10

Photo No. 11

The indicated dent on the left front door is located at a distance of approximately 167 cm from the front marker point of the vehicle; at the same time, the upper edge of the dent on the left front door is at a height of approximately 90 cm from the road surface, and the lower edge of the dent is at a height of approximately 67 cm from the road surface; the direction of development of the indicated dent is from left to right and back to front, as indicated by its “great depth” closer to the front of the car;

— the left outside rear view mirror, on the outer edge of which there are small marks in the form of rubbing in the direction of development from back to front; the lower edge of this mirror is located at a height of approximately 92 cm from the road surface (see photo above). At the same time, as can be seen from the photograph accompanying the inspection report, the left outside rear view mirror as a result of contact was folded (pressed) against the wind mirror of the left front door;

— the left front fender, on the side of which there is a broken mark in the form of a scratch and a tear, located approximately 70 cm from the front overall point of the car (see photo below):

Photo No. 12 Photo No. 13

The specified longitudinal mark begins in the form of a longitudinal scratch, approximately 22 cm long, developing from back to front, and then there is a “fracture” in the mark with the direction of development from back to front and from top to bottom in the form of a scuff, approximately 04 cm long;

— the side of the left curve of the front bumper, on which there is a mark in the form of a longitudinal scratch, approximately 04 cm long with a direction of development from back to front (see photo below):

Photo No. 14

Assessing together the nature, location and direction of development of the above primary contact marks on the left side of the Chevrolet car, we can conclude that the trace-forming object impacted the left side of the Chevrolet car from left to right and back to front, at an angle of about 25 0 (see figure and calculation below):

Fig.1

tg = 25 0 ;

where: AB is the distance between the left outside rear view mirror and the

minor scratches on the left front fender of the car = 36.5 cm;

BV – length of the left outside rear view mirror is 17 cm.

The material conditions of the place of this traffic accident are recorded in the Protocol of inspection of the place where the administrative offense was committed and the Schemes for it (see Schemes below):

Scheme 1

Diagram 2

As can be seen from the Diagrams, after the incident, the Chevrolet car was fixed mostly behind the designated pedestrian crossing (zebra markings); at the same time, the location of the collision is also marked behind the pedestrian crossing, 1.8 m behind it (all counting in the direction of travel of the Chevrolet car).

This nature of the physical situation, namely, the location of the collision site 1.8 m behind the pedestrian crossing, confirms the fact that the cyclist ———— A.A. before coming into contact with the left side of the car, was moving along a trajectory deviating to the left, which corresponds to the movement of a cyclist along a curved path with a left turn; at the same time, at the moment the contact began, the cyclist’s trajectory was located at an angle of about 25 0 to the left side of the car.

From a traceological point of view, the direction of development of the damage marks on the left side of the Chevrolet car - from left to right and from back to front - indicates that before the collision the cyclist was ahead of the Chevrolet car, that is, the relative speed of the cyclist was greater than the speed of the car.

All this, together with other circumstances, indicates that immediately before the collision the trajectories of the cyclist and the car were directed in the same direction, towards Koshtoyants Street (that is, in the same direction).

According to the Diagram accompanying the inspection protocol, it can be concluded that the Chevrolet car did not change its position along the width of the roadway before, during and after the collision. Taking this into account, given the established nature of the movement of the car and the cyclist, we can conclude that, from a technical point of view, the cause of this collision was the wrong choice of the cyclist ———— A.A. a safe lateral interval relative to the Chevrolet car, when changing its trajectory to the left, towards Koshtoyants Street.

In this regard, in this case, in the actions of the cyclist ————A.A. there is a discrepancy with the requirements of clause 9.10 of the Traffic Rules, according to which the driver must maintain the required lateral interval to ensure traffic safety, which from a technical point of view is causally related to this incident.

At the same time, there are no discrepancies in the actions of the Chevrolet driver with the requirements of the Road Traffic Rules, which from a technical point of view would be causally related to this incident.

Regarding the first question (At what angle did the collision between the Chevrolet Claw and the cyclist occur?).

In this case, a reconstruction of the mechanism of this traffic accident was carried out, which is described in detail in the research part of the conclusion; according to the results of the reconstruction, at the moment of contact with the left side of the Chevrolet-Clau car, the trajectory of the cyclist’s movement ——— A.A. was located at an angle of about 25 0 to the left side of the Chevrolet-Klau car; Moreover, before the start of the collision, the cyclist was moving along a curved path, deviating towards Koshtoyants Street, which corresponded to the cyclist making a left turn.

Regarding the second question (Which vehicle, the Chevrolet-Clough or the cyclist, was faster before the collision?).

According to the results of the reconstruction, the cyclist ————-A.A. Before the collision, he was moving at a higher speed than the Chevrolet-Klaw car, ahead of the latter.

On the third question (Are the actions of the driver of the Chevrolet Klau and the cyclist seen as non-compliance with the requirements of the Road Traffic Rules, and if so, are they in a causal connection with this incident from a technical point of view?).

From a technical point of view, the cause of this collision was the wrong choice by the cyclist ———— A.A. lateral safe interval relative to the Chevrolet Cloud.

In this case, in the actions of the cyclist ————- A.A. there is a discrepancy with the requirements of clause 9.10 of the Traffic Rules, which from a technical point of view is in a causal connection with this incident.

In this case, there were inconsistencies in the actions of the driver of the Chevrolet-Klau ———— E.A. requirements of the Traffic Rules, which from a technical point of view would be in a causal connection with this incident, are not seen.