When it is necessary to argue?
To the chagrin, phenomenon rather widespread on Russian roads — wrongful charges of employees the traffic polices shown to drivers. There are different situations including such when it is not necessary to argue and even cheaper to agree with claims of inspectors of traffic police, than with foam at a mouth to defend the point of view. But there are cases when after all it is not necessary to lower everything on самотек and to try to be overcome. In any case, it is necessary to hold in the head what to get into dispute with the employee of traffic police it is necessary in this case if you are quite competent concerning available Traffic regulations and are capable to keep self-control in the course of opposite conversation. Very quite often many car owners come up against a situation when GAI officers hiding in bushes, having stopped the car, show to the driver the radar screen with the fixed speed and time. Leaving means, it is necessary to present nevertheless that the numbers seen by you can belong in any way to you, and someone who truly exceeded speed. Such makary, in this case, if the driver is completely sure in own avtoindent.ru slowness, it is meaningful to claim for fixings of this fact in the protocol, having secured with indications of several eyewitnesses travelling in its car. From time to time the careless staff of traffic police demands a penalty of that the driver, communicating with the inspector of PDS, will not fasten a seat belt. With this charge it is necessary to argue, because the belt should be applied only during car movement, and for this purpose, to get documents and to communicate to the employee of traffic police, the belt is not so necessary.
It is necessary for driver to know about one of the most frequent disputable situations on the road when the employee of traffic police asks penalty imposings on the basis of results of stationary instant check on the content in its blood of alcohol. The matter is that that "tubule" in which the driver for this purpose that there was a possibility to reveal degree of his intoxication should blow, does not fix official results and can be ignored by the driver. Survey of the driver by the doctor, thus in honey establishment where the staff of traffic police should transport the driver is official only. In any case, if the requirements shown to you by the inspector of traffic police, seem groundless and you are ready to argue, approving the point of view, it is necessary to throw a mark about it in the protocol made on a scene (to write about own disagreement with the version of action stated by the GAI officer and to provide the), remembering at all this that upholding of own correctness asks a large quantity of free time and very strong nervous system. So in certain unscrupulous cases it is meaningful «to attack a throat» to the ambitions and to pay a penalty.