In our case, even though the traffic court is a professional court and it is clear that it has basic knowledge of physics, and it is clear that the court is also supposed to consider considerations of logic and it is not bound by expert testimonies, still when an expert appears before it who gives a logical explanation for the findings he found and does not have before him the counter-opinion of another expert, the tendency to reject the expert's opinion on the basis of mere arguments will not be great. As stated, both the trial court and this court find logic and explanation that is consistent with all the findings on the ground in the testimony of the examiner."
Words in this spirit were also determined inTraffic Criminal Appeal 32846-05-21 (Central District), Abu Eloha v. State of Israel, given on July 18,2022:
"The examiner's determination that Slit D, which is located 1.4 meters from the separation line, was created in the first collision 'places' the appellant's vehicle in the opposite lane in which the deceased's vehicle was moving. Although the examiner could not determine from which part of the vehicle this slit was caused by this slot, his determination that the impact occurred in the deceased's lane is based on his impression that the slit was caused by a collision with force, and is integrated with the route of the fractures located on the deceased's lane of travel up to the place where the Daihatsu and Mercedes vehicles stopped."
IITraffic Criminal Appeal 31938-09-19 (Beer-Sheva District), State of Israel v. Al-Faqir, given on March 5,2020, the Honorable Judge Shalev accepted the state's appeal and convicted the defendant of almost all the offenses attributed to him, thus reversing the acquittal of the defendant by the trial court. There, the following was stated:
"The examiner clarified in his testimony that the point of impact is "the place where the groove was created at the time of the collision between the vehicles and the vehicle collapsed downwards and then a crack was created by the expansion of the tire indicating the place where the collision occurred", and confirmed that the groove was created by the collapse of a metal part in the vehicle, and its damage to the asphalt (pp. 10-11 of the transcript); and later he noted that the groove was made "as a result of the collision of a part of the vehicle collapsing as a result of the collision" (p. 12).
The examiner's conclusions are logicalare organized and based on his expertise and professional experience, and they are consistent with all the findings he found at the scene of the accident, with the photographs, and even with the drivers' versions that were presented to him (as detailed below). "