Road accident near Oktyabr. Who's to blame?

On September 22 at 4:44 am in the city of Kirov, near the Oktyabr cinema, an accident occurred. Participants in the accident were a BMW X5, a VAZ 21011 and a VAZ 09. Three dead and seven wounded.

Behind the wheel of the BMW was a young guy, Eduard Ignatyan, the son of a well-known and successful entrepreneur in the city, an Armenian.

The incident shook the city. The Internet almost immediately blamed Eduard Ignatyan for the accident. The national factor and rich dad only added fuel to the fire. It got to the point that messages appeared on the Internet about rewards for punishing the culprit.

The police delayed their official response. Only on October 2, investigator Fyodor Konovalov informed the public about the identified and established facts and the road accident pattern, which was taken as the basis for the investigation.

The lost time has formed a strong public opinion - the BMW driver is to blame. The investigation has not yet given a final answer, but is inclined to believe that the driver of the VAZ 21011, who died, is to blame.

What facts are now known for sure?

1. All participants in an accident are not angels. Eduard Ignatyan violated traffic rules repeatedly, the driver of the VAZ 21011 was detained more than once for drunk driving and lost his license, the driver of the VAZ 09 violated traffic rules dozens of times, for which he was fined.

Therefore, arguments like Ignatyan is to blame because he was a persistent traffic violator are untenable. All three violated. And not just once, but many times. If you use such facts, they can be applied to all participants in an accident.

And, of course, the national factor must be completely excluded from the disputes and discussions that arise. Everyone breaks the rules: Russians, Armenians, Jews, Udmurts, Tatars, Chechens, Avars, etc. EVERYONE.

2. Eduard Ignatyan was driving and was drunk. The rest of the participants were sober. Ignatyan was found to have 0.3 ppm of alcohol in his blood. Two years ago, this was the legal alcohol level. A mug of beer or a glass of dry wine. But there is an eyewitness who claims that Edward was very drunk that night.

The investigation needs to find this person and find out how true these statements are. If this is a lie, state it officially. If the facts are confirmed, then the blood diagnosis is incorrect and there is a crime in the preparation of the examination. It is imperative to figure it out, otherwise people will be inclined to accept the version of an unknown eyewitness.

3. The BMW speed was higher than the set speed, but not 150 km/h. Much lower. The examination will tell you for sure.

4. The speed of the VAZ 21011 was 56 km/h.

5. The camera did not record the moment of the collision. The file contains video from two cameras. The first camera is at the Fabrika shopping center - a BMW drives into the oncoming lane as it drives around cars parked at the CHE PAY bar. The second camera shows how the BMW continues to drive in the oncoming lane (already in the area of ​​the accident), but you can see how after 2 seconds a minibus is driving in the opposite direction. The investigation concludes: the BMW returned (or was returning) to its lane - otherwise it would have collided with the minibus.

6. The accident occurred in the BMW lane. The presented photo tables clearly show this.

Investigation version. The BMW was moving at excessive speed from Teatralnaya Square towards the city administration building on the street. Karl Marx. In the area of ​​the Fabrika shopping center, I drove into the oncoming lane (which is not prohibited by traffic rules) and in the area of ​​the accident near the Globus coffee shop, I returned to my lane. The collision between a BMW and a VAZ 21011 occurred in the BMW lane.

The investigation does not know how the VAZ 21011 ended up on this strip. Maybe he was parked, maybe he was leaving the street. Young Guard. But even if he dodged a BMW car, which, as some on the Internet claim, was driving in the oncoming lane, playing a “drunk driver,” he still should not have driven into the oncoming lane - this is a violation.

Apparently, the investigation has already collected the main factual material - testimonies of participants, eyewitnesses, videos and photos, examinations.

Most likely, with such an invoice and the presentation of the material in court, the Nizhny Novgorod driver of the VAZ 21011, who died, may be recognized as the culprit of the accident. IMHO.

But if you look carefully at the facts obtained and presented, you can come to other conclusions.

First fact. The BMW entered the oncoming lane and was recorded by video cameras.

Second fact. The BMW's speed was high, significantly exceeding the speed limit. Third fact. The driver of the BMW was drunk. Fourth fact: the speed of the VAZ 21011 was 56 km/h. Of course, you can’t leave the street at that speed. M. Guard, and also have time to dial from the parking lot. At this speed you can move in a straight line, or if you want to overtake.

I talked with the driver of a VAZ 2109. He was driving along the street. K. Marx follows the VAZ 21011 meters at 30-40. There was no other transport between them. This means that a minibus was moving ahead of the VAZ 21011. Let us remember what investigator Fyodor Konovalov said about the second video camera - as soon as the BMW disappeared from view, a couple of seconds later a minibus appeared, moving towards Teatralnaya Square. It turns out that the BMW returned to its lane, as a minibus was moving towards it. To avoid a collision with it, he returns to his lane and at this time collides with a VAZ 21011.

How did a VAZ 21011 end up in oncoming traffic?

It can be assumed that the VAZ 21011 decided to make a maneuver and overtake the minibus, which it, apparently, was following, and since the oncoming lane was empty (the BMW was moving in the lane of the minibus at that time and the driver of the VAZ 21011 did not see it) began to overtake - drove into the oncoming lane (which is allowed by traffic rules) and at this time collides with a BMW, which is just returning to its lane. Collision. Victims.

Who's to blame? If the driver of a VAZ 21011 was overtaking, and did it in accordance with traffic regulations, then most likely it was not him.

I hope the investigation will look into this in more detail and thoroughly.

Hope...