It started about a week ago at one of the gas stations in the Moscow region. A colleague was there and accidentally hit a plastic traffic cone with the bumper of his car. Well, knocked and knocked down – these cones are made for this so that they accidentally bump into it. But no: a surprise awaited the citizen in a few days. On one of the streets of Moscow, a traffic police patrol overtook his car and forced it to stop – with all the necessary attributes in the form of a switched on “chandelier”, a siren and a loudspeaker. It turns out that our hero’s car has ended up in the police search base! As a result, the traffic cops handed the man (against signature) a “obligation to appear” at the traffic police department.

It turned out that the police had a statement (which is not clear) that he had committed an accident at a gas station and cynically fled the scene of the incident. The ‘suspect’, somewhat in shock, moved at the agreed time to the administrative practice group of the traffic police. There, two young majors cheerfully explained to him: from the point of view of traffic regulations, any event that occurred while the car was in motion and resulted in damage to anything is an accident. The cone fell victim to that same movement. Consequently, the accident took place and it was impossible to leave without registering it. And now, in accordance with art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the “damned aid worker” faces up to 1.5 years of deprivation of “rights”. It turns out that he had to call the traffic police personnel at the gas station… I wonder how long the 112 operators would “neigh with the whole office” if they heard something like this!?

Shouldn’t have done it. Maybe the driver doesn’t notice that he has come across some kind of plastic thing! And, for example, demand a special examination – to establish the fact of damage to the cone. We remember that the SDA only considers an accident as an incident involving damage to something. And if there is no objectively determined damage, then there is no accident, so no deprivation of “rights” to leave the scene of the accident. In such a situation as “icing on the cake” the driver may still need automotive expertise. So that she confirms the fact of contact between the bumper of the car and the cone. If there are no paint particles from the bodywork on it, the car has not come into contact with the white-orange plastic and again, there was no accident.

As for the “analysis group” majors, they returned the documents to the driver and let him go all four directions, promising to “think” of him. What it was – we didn’t understand. The AvtoVzglyad portal asked a few more lawyers specializing in disputes with the traffic police: what should our “driver of a malicious accident” do now? Everyone replied with one voice: “Nothing. You just have to wait.” At best, the “comrade majors” themselves will close the case under the aforementioned Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. But if the story of the deprivation of “rights” nevertheless goes to court the citizen should remember this article, and also about finding out the extent of the “damage”, and about the investigation …

It started about a week ago at one of the gas stations in the Moscow region. A colleague was there and accidentally hit a plastic traffic cone with the bumper of his car. Well, knocked and knocked down – these cones are made for this so that they accidentally bump into it. But no: a surprise awaited the citizen in a few days. On one of the streets of Moscow, a traffic police patrol overtook his car and forced it to stop – with all the necessary attributes in the form of a switched on “chandelier”, a siren and a loudspeaker. It turns out that our hero’s car has ended up in the police search base! As a result, the traffic cops handed the man (against signature) a “obligation to appear” at the traffic police department.

It turned out that the police had a statement (which is not clear) that he had committed an accident at a gas station and cynically fled the scene of the incident. The ‘suspect’, somewhat in shock, moved at the agreed time to the administrative practice group of the traffic police. There, two young majors cheerfully explained to him: from the point of view of traffic regulations, any event that occurred while the car was in motion and resulted in damage to anything is an accident. The cone fell victim to that same movement. Consequently, the accident took place and it was impossible to leave without registering it. And now, in accordance with art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the “damned aid worker” faces up to 1.5 years of deprivation of “rights”. It turns out that he had to call the traffic police personnel at the gas station… I wonder how long the 112 operators would “neigh with the whole office” if they heard something like this!?

Shouldn’t have done it. Maybe the driver doesn’t notice that he has come across some kind of plastic thing! And, for example, demand a special examination – to establish the fact of damage to the cone. We remember that the SDA only considers an accident as an incident involving damage to something. And if there is no objectively determined damage, then there is no accident, so no deprivation of “rights” to leave the scene of the accident. In such a situation as “icing on the cake” the driver may still need automotive expertise. So that she confirms the fact of contact between the bumper of the car and the cone. If there are no paint particles from the bodywork on it, the car has not come into contact with the white-orange plastic and again, there was no accident.

As for the “analysis group” majors, they returned the documents to the driver and let him go all four directions, promising to “think” of him. What it was – we didn’t understand. The AvtoVzglyad portal asked a few more lawyers specializing in disputes with the traffic police: what should our “driver of a malicious accident” do now? Everyone replied with one voice: “Nothing. You just have to wait.” At best, the “comrade majors” themselves will close the case under the aforementioned Article 2.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. But if the story of the deprivation of “rights” nevertheless goes to court the citizen should remember this article, and also about finding out the extent of the “damage”, and about the investigation …