Loading...

Incidents, Russia

The Leninsky Avenue accident: grief for someone, a publicity move and a possibility to show off on TV for others

The Leninsky Avenue accident: grief for someone, a publicity move and a possibility to show off on TV for others

Now in press, on TV and on the Internet there is an active discussion of the accident involving two cars, a Citroen and a Mercedes, which occurred on February 25, 2010 at 08:04 in Moscow  on Leninsky Avenue, close to Gagarin Square. The driver and the passenger of the Citroen, two women doctors Vera Sidelnikova and her daughter-in-law Olga Aleksandrina were killed. The passenger of the Mercedes, the LUKOIL Vice President, Anatoly Barkov was hospitalized while the driver of the Mercedes was not hurt and refused hospitalization.
 
The ongoing discussion involves lawyers, deputies and various proponents of the plain truth. But, for some reason, the discussion is reduced to the assumption that it is only the driver of the Mercedes who is guilty. This is probably being reiterated as it is a big-time car, and particularly because it belongs to the Lukoil VP Anatoly Barkov. I would only like to stress one essential detail – it was not Anatoly Barkov who was at the wheel of the Mercedes, but the driver, the usual hard-working workhorse for whom the wheel means a piece of bread. And it is at least not ethical to accuse anyone before the court, especially of lawyers, only because he is the Mercedes driver and drives the Lukoil VP. The lawyers' business, as far as I know, is to protect people and not to accuse them, particularly if the case is unproved yet.
 
And there's yet another weird thing about this discussion – only one version, the egress to the oncoming traffic lane, is being discussed. Only variants of which car left its lane, the Mercedes or the Citroen, appear to be under discussion. But nobody will ask themselves a question, "Why did it turn to the oncoming traffic lane?"
 
I saw this accident only on TV and on the Internet. The Mercedes had the front left part destroyed, while the Citroen's entire front was smashed and quite extensively. The wheels and the engine were literally pressed into the car, and the Citroen got turned almost by 180 degrees. Proceeding from this, I got the impression that the Citroen driver had, for some reason, sharply turned to the left and hit the Mercedes. Someone may have cut it off, and it turned away from collision, or there was a steering malfunction, or something else. But all these possible versions have not been considered at all. And what's more important, these assumptions do not exclude the possibility that the driver of the Mercedes could also break the rules and move out to the dividing lane, and he could do that for similar reasons like the Citroen driver. However, all these theories need to be investigated carefully and without any emotions or public spin.
 
The traffic police behavior in this situation deserves, of course, a separate discussion. One really needs to be extremely capable to make so many blunders in one case. Sure, we don't know yet for what reason they made them – out of disorderliness, incompetence, or willfully. Here again, I believe, there should be not just an office investigation as we are told by traffic police officials, but the Investigation Committee at the Public Prosecutor's Office (SKP) should file criminal charges against the traffic police employees for failure to perform their official duties. And within the frames of this criminal case, it should investigate all the facts of inadmissible behavior of the traffic police employees.
 
And there are enough facts. For some reason, the Citroen driver was immediately declared guilty and with that the case was closed. On the part of the traffic police employees, even those actions which are required by procedure instructions to be performed in such cases have not been made. Namely: the accident plan was not made, witnesses were not interrogated without delay, the cars were not sent for expert examination, etc. And why, at that moment, all observation cameras suddenly ceased to work, and the only one in action was blocked by a billboard? What kind of billboard is that? Who allowed setting it up there?
 
The investigators should be able to answer all these questions. The SKP, too, should investigate the case of this accident as the traffic police in this situation already smell fishy. But the investigation needs to be held in a calm atmosphere and without any haste, as behind the case there are people's fates. And I'd like to remind all truth seekers that a person can be recognized guilty only by the Court, not by a lawyer or a deputy. I'd rather those willing to advertise themselves could find something else to do.

By Alexander V. Lyashenko, Doctor of Engineering
All publications by this author (2)

See also

07.09.2010 17:15 Investigation of accident with vice-president of Lukoil on Leninsky Prospekt completed

15.06.2010 10:35 The video recording of the road accident with participation of the Lukoil vice-president has been found