Our eyes see that The duty imposed on every driver is to slow down the speed of travel with reference to sections 3 and 4 that are relevant to our case.
Regarding reasonable speed, they were stated in a criminal appeal 8827/01, Israel Streisant v. State of Israel, given on July 13,2003, the following:
"The speed of travel in a vehicle must be reasonable: to coordinate with the circumstances, the conditions of the road and the traffic on it. The reasonable speed cannot be quantified in advance (as opposed to the maximum speed allowed), and is derived, inter alia, from the terrain, the visibility conditions, the weather, etc. The reasonable speed on a rainy day is not similar to the reasonable speed on a clear day; the reasonable speed on a curved road is not similar to the reasonable speed on a straight road... See Criminal Appeal Authority 6338/99 Buchnik v. State of Israel."
In our case, it was not claimed that the defendant was driving at a speed that exceeded the permissible speed.
At the same time, the defendant's driving is negligent, based on the fact that the defendant is familiar with the road, since the defendant lives nearby, and therefore he should not have been surprised when he reached and exited the curve and should have driven in accordance with the road conditions, especially when it comes to weather conditions after rain, wet and dark road.
Therefore, the defendant did not exercise extreme caution as required by law, at the exit of the curve, even though he knew the road and knew about the weather conditions.
Forest, that the defendant also cannot build on the claim that the woman involved deviated from her lane of travel to his lane of travel, and that according to him, the accident occurred in his lane, since such a claim in this case is also inconsistent with all the testimonies, propriety and findings at the scene of the accident.
Evident, that the defendant's version regarding the deviation of the woman involved in his lane, a deviation that caused the accident to occur in his lane, is inconsistent with the factual reality on the ground.
The defendant did not prevent the accident, even if he had acted in accordance with the regulations and as required by a custom from the locality, could have done so.
The degree of negligence of the defendant in the circumstances of the case is highThis is also taking into account the road conditions.