Why do many drivers shoot inspectors on the DVR and is it necessary to do this?


Many only thanks to the Internet and indifferent people learned that the inspector is a lot of things. When two people appeared in our city who regularly removed the actions of inspectors in the region and laid it on the network, the behavior of the latter has changed significantly. They began to introduce themselves as they should, to communicate more polite. They say that the authorities carried out a certain work, and the inspectors themselves were ashamed when they looked at themselves and colleagues from the side.

Drivers, having seen enough videos, begin to feel like superheroes that any inspector are on their teeth, they are his employers and so on. But still, fear is a little squeezed and to feel calmer, they turn the DVR towards the inspector and begin to try to ask for all their failures in life from him.

According to the law on the police, the actions of the inspector are vowels, and the inspector has no legal reason to ban video shooting. Earlier, even in 185, the order was clearly stated that the driver has every right to fix the conversation with the inspector on the camera, and the inspector does not have the right to prevent this. However, many drivers reacted incorrectly and began to try to use the camera as the subject of intimidation of the inspector, let’s figure it out when to use the camera when talking with the inspector, and when not.

In the general case, if you went quietly along the road: you did not cross pedestrian crossings and intersections, after which the inspector stopped you, there is no need to turn the camera or to include an entry on the phone. What is the point of aggravating the situation, our people are not afraid of the gaze of passers -by, but begin to record (shoot) anyone on camera, as you meet aggression. The same with inspectors, they do not like (embarrassed, afraid) they when they begin to fix them on the camera. At such a stop, the inspector needs to give the driver’s driver and calmly go further (why hold it? Laughter for the sake of, a couple of times handed over to the wife of his wife or STS from her car. They return that it should be, and they wish a happy journey.)

But when the recording of the conversation may be useful, it is with an ambiguous stop. A simple example from life was last year. He turned right, green at that time also burns to pedestrians, the road is 4 lanes, the pedestrian only entered the opposite side, I calmly pass, and they immediately stop me.

The inspector says wild nonsense, they say, according to paragraph 14.3, I had to give the pedestrian the transition of the carriageway (a typical fishing rod to test the knowledge of traffic rules) … Hearing this I took out the camera and asked to repeat that I broke. The fact is that 14.3 suggests that if the pedestrian went to his green, but did not have time to go, drivers are required to give him the opportunity to finish the transition to the nearest separation of roadway parts. Here you have the stick system.

After that, we talked for a long time about what was happening, two inspectors (evil and good) at once tried to prove something to me, and then politely began to ask to delete the video. It’s funny of course, but in a hurry then, deleted it and drove on. In this situation, the camera will help people who are not particularly versed in what is happening, but are not going to pay a fine from scratch.