In an Odintsovo city court, the Dagestan auto blogger Gadzhi Gadzhiev appeared on Thursday as part of ongoing proceedings tied to a drifting event that drew wide attention in Russia. Reports from MK.ru described the courtroom scene and the broader legal process unfolding against the well-known online figure, who had built a following for his automotive content. The case centered on a nighttime incident captured along a toll section of a federal highway in the Odintsovo district, where spectators were struck by a vehicle during a drift demonstration. The episode sparked debate about safety standards at public demonstrations and the legal implications for participants and organizers alike.
According to MK, the night of November 16 featured a BMW driver losing control and colliding with a crowd of bystanders gathered near the roadway. Among the injured were a woman and a child, both of whom were transported to a hospital for treatment. Emergency responders cordoned off the scene as investigators began a formal inquiry into the incident and examined potential responsibilities of drivers, hosts, and vehicle owners involved in the event.
Before the court session began, Gadzhiev acknowledged to MK that he accepted some responsibility for the situation. He explained that he did not personally see anything inherently wrong with the drift demonstration, arguing that the activity itself was illegal only because it occurred on a public road and in proximity to spectators. He indicated that his own perception of risk did not align with prohibitions, framing the drift as an entertainment spectacle rather than an assault with intent.
In statements attributed to socialbites.ca, Gadzhiev asserted that he was not driving the BMW involved in the collision and that the car did not belong to him. He insisted that he was not present at the precise moment of impact, though he acknowledged being nearby. He contended that drift demonstrations of a high-performance M5 could be undertaken by others and noted that the victims were not in critical condition, with only the reported leg injury to a girl requiring further attention.
Gadzhiev was quoted as saying, “I was not there at the time of the accident. I was there, but not at the time of the accident. Anyone can drift this M5. The victims are not in serious condition, the girl’s leg is broken, and there do not seem to be any major complaints.” The remarks reflected a defense that downplayed direct involvement while acknowledging the broader context of the event. The exchange underscored the ongoing tension between drift culture online and the realities of public safety and legal accountability.
Following the crash, a criminal case was opened, and Gadzhiev was detained as part of the investigation. Authorities are reviewing video footage, interviewing witnesses, and reconstructing the timeline to determine whether any party bore responsibility for negligence or unlawful conduct related to the drift activity and the resulting injuries. The case remains under close scrutiny as investigators weigh potential charges and the appropriate legal response to the incident.
Observers noted that this episode followed a separate high-profile report from Chelyabinsk, where the driver involved in a crowd-related incident faced implications for similar behavior. The Odintsovo case has added to a broader national conversation about public safety at automotive demonstrations, the responsibilities of participants, and the role of online personalities in shaping perceptions while under legal review.
For readers in Canada and the United States, the events illustrate how drift demonstrations intersect with road safety, regulation, and accountability in real-world settings. The coverage highlights the pressures faced by public figures who publish automotive content, the scrutiny from authorities, and the need for clear guidelines that protect spectators without stifling legitimate automotive passion. As the investigation unfolds, stakeholders will be watching how the courts balance personal expression, safety obligations, and the public interest in orderly, lawful public displays.
Officials continue to pursue statements from witnesses and vehicle owners, and medical updates indicate that the injured individuals are stabilizing. The assessment of the spectators’ injuries, along with the vehicle’s role and the event’s organization, will shape the scope of charges, if any, and the ultimate legal outcomes. The Odintsovo incident has already triggered discussions about event planning, traffic safety regulations, and the accountability of online creators who broadcast high-risk automotive content to global audiences.
The case remains active, with authorities reviewing all facets of the event to determine the precise sequence of events and the appropriate response under applicable laws. The public awaits further details on the investigation, potential charges, and any forthcoming court rulings that will clarify how drift culture and public safety can coexist within a legal framework.