It should be noted, that the defense did not submit an expert opinion on its behalf to contradict this determination of the examiner.
As for the second question, the examiner conducted a reconstruction of the field of vision in order to check or trace the field of vision that the eyewitness Ayalon Zadok had.
This is evident from the aforementioned video of B/34.
In paragraph 11 of the examiner's report, the examiner wrote as follows:
"11. From an eye-witness examination conducted at the scene of the accident in order to examine what Ayalon Zadok could see, it emerged that a driver traveling behind vehicle B (the vehicle involved - A.H.B.), can clearly see the markings on the road, the direction of vehicle B's traffic, but cannot see with certainty in which lane vehicle A (the defendant's vehicle - A.H.B.), when it exits the curve, but if vehicle A is driving in its lane, the eyewitness will see its headlights, and if vehicle A swerves and moves into the opposite lane, it will be hidden behind vehicle B."
As mentioned above, from the photographs of B/32, mainly Photos 1 and 2, it is evident that the field of view from the direction of driving of each of the vehicles at night is short-range, as stated above, 30 meters according to the examiner's determination.
The video of the visual field experiment was submitted and marked P/34 and from it you can get an impression, that the field of vision is limited due to the road conditions and it is not possible to see the vehicle coming in front of you, but only the lights of the vehicle coming in front of you, as determined by the examiner.
The examiner Maayan also prepared an action report, which dealt with a "field of vision experiment" (P/36) in which he recorded as follows:
"On the aforementioned date and time, I arrived at the scene of the accident in order to conduct an experiment to see what an eyewitness could see from his location regarding the movement of vehicles, the separation line and the lanes.
I asked Aviram to block Amazia Square to the west, and a police officer, Matan Hadad, blocked the road from the Lachish area to the east.
I asked for 2 random cars, 1 - a Skoda Kodiaq that simulated car A, and 2 - a Chevrolet Spark that simulated car B, to arrive at the scene of the accident and drive in the direction of the vehicles' travel, with one time the Skoda remaining in its lane (west to east), while the second time the Skoda would deviate from its lane and drive in the opposite lane (east to west). I drove behind the Chevrolet Spark in my private car with a road camera installed that films the test.
For the purpose of the experiment I placed a small cone in the place of the impact (you can still see the grooves) I guided the citizens to where to go backwards, I explained to them that they had to drive at the same time as the accident site at a speed of 20 km/h, while I was holding a conference call with them.
For the first timeWhen approaching the scene of the accident, it is not possible to distinguish which lane Vehicle A is traveling, but it is possible to distinguish throughout the journey the macaque separation line and the position of Vehicle B in relation to the separation line. (The examiner attached photos describing the experiment - A.H.B.)
In the second experiment, it is also not possible to see the driving lane of Car A from a distanceHowever, it is possible to discern throughout the journey the macaque deposit line and the position of vehicle B in relation to the separation line, and when approaching the scene of the accident, the road lights of vehicle A are hidden by vehicle B despite its size, and it can be seen that vehicle A is driving in the opposite lane." (The examiner attached photos describing the experiment - A.H.B.).