In my opinionFrom the above, it can be said with certainty that the examiner's determination regarding the existence of a groove and its location on the road in the involved driving lane, as evidence that determines the place of occurrence of the accident in the present case, is a professional determination in accordance with the examiner's expertise as a road accident investigator and it is acceptable to me, when this determination is consistent with the rest of the prosecution's evidence and does not stand alone.
As mentioned above, the defense did not contradict this evidence regarding the groove in the form of expert testimony on its behalf.
An Alternative Theory of the Occurrence of the Accident
The defense tried to make it difficult for the examiner to determine the location of the accident according to them, by presenting the examiner with a video of an accident from which a scenario emerges, that the person at fault in the accident is the person who drove in the lane where the cracks were found on the road, and therefore the location of the cracks does not constitute evidence to determine who swerved from the driving lane.
Another possibility is that an accident occurred and that the vehicle in which the grooves were found to be the culprit, as appears from the video that was presented on behalf of the defense in court, which was brought in order to ostensibly contradict Examiner Maayan's determination as to who was at fault in this accident, this is a theoretical possibility that can occur, but it will already be said that this theoretical possibility is not suitable for the road conditions and lighting in the accident in our case, since in our case the accident occurred in complete darkness and when neither party could see each other for a sufficient time before the collision.
The examiner Ma'ayan testified in this matter:
"A. The location of the grooves indicates the location of the collision, after we understand that the vehicle that left the grooves was driving in the path of the grooves, it can be determined with certainty that the accident occurred there and the other swerved into it.
Q. Have you ever encountered a case where the grooves were found in a mixed lane that was at fault in the accident?
...
A. I've heard about claims from drivers who say that they swerved as a result of swerving into their lane. After they swerved, the second vehicle returned to its lane, and then the accident occurred in the lane of the other vehicle, which they are not to blame.
Q. Are these claims that have never been accepted?
A. I don't know.
Q. I'm telling you that this is not just an allegation. This case needs to be examined: Who deviated first to whom, do you approve?
A. Nope.
...
Q. In this case, did anyone remember the accident, the defendant or the person involved?
A. Of all those involved?
Q. Our involvement. You don't rely on either one or the other.
A. In section 11, subsection 6, the defendant claims that he was driving in his lane and noticed car lights. The driver of car B also did not notice car A before the collision, but only saw the headlights... She says that the accident occurred in her lane.
Q. Show me where she said that the incident was in her lane? She didn't say that in her testimony either.
A. I read from the testimony of the woman involved that she said that the accident happened in her lane.
Q. I correct the question and ask whether she said who strayed to whom?
A. Nope.
...
Q. In our case, do you know if someone swerved in front of me? Do you know what happened before the accident?
A. Nope. I know that according to the testimonies, the driver involved was driving in her lane, our driver I know from which direction he came from, there is the place of the collision and I have one eyewitness who describes the accident to me. I read from the testimony of the witness Ayalon Zadok, he says in our lane.
Q. There is no dispute that you found the findings in the path of the person involved, I am just saying that the idea is not only where the accident happened, but who swerved to whom first.
A. It is impossible to see, as they cannot see a deviation from one to the other, the two drivers involved, as the accident is less than a second.
Q. Repeating the question, do you know who strayed to whom first?
A. The vehicle involved can drive all the way in the opposite lane and eventually return to its own lane, car A cannot see anything of it.
Q. I'm showing you a different scenario. The marks on the floor don't always indicate the culprit of an accident.
A. Even if she were to drive all the way from her house on the opposite lane he can't see it, he comes out of a curve into 20-30 meters of road, and it fits what he describes when suddenly he sees lights in front of him. Your scenario doesn't make sense here because they don't see each other before the accident.
Q. I asked who swerved to whom first, I didn't say that they could see or see who swerved, I asked that it is possible that it is not always possible that where there are slots it will be determined that the one who swerved is the other vehicle?
A. It could be anything. If it's the Arava Road, which is a straight road, and you see a car zigzagging and swerving and another driver reacting and when he runs away and then the car comes back, then it's true that he's not necessarily to blame because he reacted to such a situation. In our case, there's no situation where one driver reacted to the other because they didn't see each other before the accident. (Emphasis added).
Q. I mean, can't it be that the version of the defendant who was in his lane and suddenly saw lights in front of him, is unreasonable?
A. Regarding the angle of damage and the location of the grooves, no.
Q. I show you a video of an accident that happened if it weren't for the video, in your opinion, the transit driver would have been blamed.
A. Not because if we had researched properly...
Q. If we didn't have the video according to your assertion that the slots always determine the other side's fault then would they have filed an indictment against the transit?
A. My colleague insists on saying that the slots determine who is to blame.
Q. I refer you to your interrogation, p. 69.
A. This time it's not for sure, what it is that swerved to. I added and explained that it could be the result of a reaction from another driver who swerved, a deer who jumped into the road, a panda that jumped from a tree. We see here in the video that it matches what my friend is trying to say. The truck swerves first in the opposite direction, the transit vehicle tries to escape, the truck returns to its lane and in the lane of the truck the accident occurs. If we find cracks, we will find them in the left lane if the vehicle goes down to the asphalt. If you ask me one and only question, I will know how to get in the left lane, who caused whom to swerve, I will need photos or video. In our case, to say that one of the two drivers involved reacted to the other following a counter-deviation is not possible because they don't have a field of view for each other, they don't see each other before the accident. They see lights and boom." (See his testimony of January 15,2025, pp. 69-72).