Regarding the 30-meter field of vision, the examiner testified in his cross-examination, because it was not determined not from the direction of the defendant's travel, not from the direction of the vehicle involved. According to him:
"... When I make a field of vision, I check the range of lights on such a dark road, if the road is lit then I walk (I should say - "walking" - A.H.B.) to the point where you can't see the lights, it's not necessarily from a certain direction of travel, but what is the range of the lights of the car. I emphasize again that lights of any shape and color, both brake or rear lights in red and white/yellow front lights, can be seen from much, much greater distances."
Q. Where is everything that you are saying now and adding and clarifying and expanding, written in black and white in an examination report, why is it that instead of writing a field of view two lines are written and I have to understand something different from what is written, look at how many new things you explain and we don't know it before your testimony, we hear here first here, I have to rely on an opinion and take into account that every day you add something new to me that is not in your testimony?
A. I also said to the defense attorney's question that if something needs to be clarified I will clarify, it is true that it is not recorded, but any reasonable person can understand that lights can be seen from any distance other than the 30 meters recorded in the field of vision. And also in the field of vision experiment in photography and video, it can be seen that this occurrence can be seen much more than 30 meters. Next time I will correct it." (See his testimony of February 6,2025, pp. 87-88, paras. 32-33,1-12).
In these circumstances, the examiner's determination is that there is a field of vision of 30 meters to see the vehicle's road light ahead in relation to the two vehicles involved in the standing.
This is consistent with the photographs P/32 and the visual field experiment video P/34.