1

Topic: Descended in analysis group - 2

I write in "About life" as here lives more people a good judge of laws and traffic regulations. After I will receive their answers, I will transfer in "Author" the Previous parts of a serial: the Part 1 Author: VladD2 Date: 29.03 14:58 Part 2 Author: VladD2 Date: 06.04 21:12 in general, in time the past from our last meeting the lady, as well as promised, went to higher instances and brought the new version of my violation. The essence of this version consists that on departure with Sibirjakovsky there is a safety islet. It, in their judgement, does  a part Sibirjakovsky on two. It turns out that the big four-strip road consists of one  parts, and small Sibirjakovsky of two. Well, on an extreme measure it sounds logically, and is not similar to that delirium that I was spoken by the inspector and in analysis group. Here the circuit of this version (red a path which was drawn to me by the inspector, green - real): Too on a photo about Google-maps: As a result to me without special celebrations handed over the summons on 27 number. Now questions for those who in a subject: 1. Whether can form a safety islet two travelers of a part on two-band (in both sides) road? 2. How to prove, what the inspector distorted my path? I have video where he says that I "did not get nearly to road accident". Though there as any road accident also did not smell, but I am valid  on sharper in front of turning machine as they went (in the beginning) without  and I thought that it passes by. Once again he confirmed it in talk to an eagle from analysis group. Retelling of its words as is written down on a dictophone. It is added: the Official report of the inspector:

2

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: VD> VD> I Write in "About life" as here lives more people a good judge of laws and traffic regulations. After I will receive their answers, I will transfer in "Author" Shortly you you will come to understanding of operation of all law-enforcement system of Russia: 1. All business processes are ground on obtaining of bribes; 2. If you broke something or there is even a hint on it: - you or pay off; - or you tear up on full, hanging up the most severe articles and punishments. 3. As a result people getting under law-enforcement system share on some categories: A.Kotorye understand as all works, trying always to pay off. They in 99 % quit dry water, and is normal in a case  (banged someone or other crime made) all of us watch as much as possible suspiciously soft sentences (a-lja Rasul Mirzoev and so forth) B.Ljudi which do not drive to all it, and is normal them for any nonsense put on any cruel periods and punishments.

3

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: VD> Now questions for those who in a subject: VD> 1. Whether can form a safety islet two travelers of a part on two-band (in both sides) road? VD> 2. How to prove, what the inspector distorted my path? I have video where he says that I "did not get nearly to road accident". Though there as any road accident also did not smell, but I am valid  on sharper in front of turning machine as they went (in the beginning) without  and I thought that it passes by. Once again he confirmed it in talk to an eagle from analysis group. Retelling of its words as is written down on a dictophone. It and  it is not necessary to prove anything how was and you tell, I went so, other machine was here, the inspector there has been assured that for an imaginary line  parts did not call in, if is assured certainly if is not present and speak, can be called in a little, recognize fault, please assign the penalty, since Not the malicious infringer, plus violation purely formal, plus of the inspector repeatedly changed versions, plus of video from the inspector misses, my word against it,  I know the person who had legal proceedings with it on a similar case  that minutes on five should be in an amicable way

4

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: VD> 1. Whether can form a safety islet two travelers of a part on two-band (in both sides) road? There something is painted on road but if to look narrowly, it not a marking 1.16.1. Further, "passing a part" - the element of road intended for driving  of vehicles. What there at us behind "islet"? Tram ways. Proceeding from determination above, tram ways - without passing a part. Begins, actually, further intersection of travelers of parts which "islet" does not adjoin any more and divide them in two cannot.

5

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, sharpcoder, you wrote: Ivan Agafonov was the lefthander. However, in court and judges and Rasul Mirzaev confidently said that it is the right-handed person. To Ivan's father who cried out from a hall of court that his son was the lefthander, rebuked and did not take into consideration its word. That is, both judges, and the murderer feel masters of the situation. Also there were many cases when from one-two shocks to death killed Russian and these cases were resonance. In one case the guy rebuked about incorrectly parked car to the Dzhigit and has been killed by shocks of elbows. In other case, the guy who protected the girl and sent in a deep knockout of two offenders, condemned for 8 years and killed in a pre-trial detention center. Policemen shut eyes  and "the gilded youth" rushing on red light and going on underground passages, but impudently and cruelly fine or even extort money for trifles from ordinary obedient motorists.

6

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, sharpcoder, you wrote: S> B.Ljudi which do not drive to all it, and it is normal them for any nonsense put on any cruel periods and punishments. It is our case. P.S. Only this violation by nonsense I do not consider.

7

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

I to you about this islet what is the time ? There two travelers of a part. It is necessary to go very accurately that 8.6 not to break.

8

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: VD> Too on a photo about Google-maps: VD> Image: 1265979-Violation-scheme-2-small.jpg http://dorogi-onf.ru/media/normative/20 … zhnaya.pdf Gost on a road marking. To signs it is a marking 1.7 - "Designates lanes within a crossroads". I hope you was guided by a marking and did not move down from a crossroads?

9

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: I Sympathize, but it is not surprised never. Go to lawyers, Vlad! VD> in general, in time the past from our last meeting the lady, as well as promised, went to higher instances and brought the new version of my violation. In, now I understood that the lawyer who made to me the appeal meant." The appeal it is made not on revising of your violation, and on violations by a legal investigation. And the decision should either cancel, or uphold, but your violation not to reconsider. Why? Because in this case it return in world court, therefrom in traffic police and there business acquires new particulars ". VD> As a result to me without special celebrations handed over the summons on 27 number. In 309 a section? VD> now questions for those who in a subject: VD> 1. Whether can form a safety islet two travelers of a part on two-band (in both sides) road? Purely intuitively - yes. It is necessary to smoke determinations attentively. And time they so told, means with ease refer to these determinations and points of traffic regulations. In ROM at Ignatov it is written well down And be by the way ready to that if you will object that" the islet does not form two travelers of a part "- you Petrov asks why, interrupts stop short and tells" well in general learn rules ". And still to that your violation acquires new particulars. Look (and is better consult!!! With the lawyer) - how to file video which have been removed by traffic police. Video even if it was even if on it you 100 times are guilty - "disappears". The written petition, referring to the necessary points of the necessary laws (what - I , I not the lawyer), with instructions of violation of your constitutional laws. He tells "video transferred in a call center, it there is stored in the ciphered type, and that with it  I do not know". It will suit the judge. And here on this place it is possible to make a syllogism very much. The judge does not conduct the protocol. Writes something on pieces of paper, but there is a suspicion that these pieces of paper go to an urn right after meetings. VD> 2. How to prove, what the inspector distorted my path? I have video where he says that I "did not get nearly to road accident". Though there as any road accident also did not smell, but I am valid  on sharper in front of turning machine as they went (in the beginning) without  and I thought that it passes by. Once again he confirmed it in talk to an eagle from analysis group. Retelling of its words as is written down on a dictophone. You still do not trust in the scenario described by me? Though he to you on video admits directly that it plants you - the judge tells "to business it does not concern. Violation is - is. For it you carry punishment in the form of 4 months of deprivation". And to the inspector then submit the counterclaim, write complaints (I still "in business", if that!) Also assort ITS violations and excess of powers separately. Even "did not get nearly to road accident" is an aggravating circumstance, but at attempt to disassemble a detail - with whom the road accident, what sort (counter, or side, or caught up behind) - "business does not concern". If you want to go in the summer on a summer residence - search is better, how courts to postpone. But 2-3 months, more hardly turns out. : After two courts it became interesting to me. They always in the beginning tell "composition of court in the name of the judge such you arranges?". It is the same formality, as well as all court? That will if tell "is not present, does not arrange". Go to lawyers.

10

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, torvic, you wrote: T> Hello, VladD2, you wrote: VD>> Now questions for those who in a subject: VD>> 1. Whether can form a safety islet two travelers of a part on two-band (in both sides) road? VD>> 2. How to prove, what the inspector distorted my path? I have video where he says that I "did not get nearly to road accident". Though there as any road accident also did not smell, but I am valid  on sharper in front of turning machine as they went (in the beginning) without  and I thought that it passes by. Once again he confirmed it in talk to an eagle from analysis group. Retelling of its words as is written down on a dictophone. T> it and  T> it is not necessary to prove anything how was and you tell, I went so, other machine was here, the inspector there T> has been assured that for an imaginary line  parts did not call in, if is assured certainly T> if is not present and speak, can be called in a little, recognize fault, please assign the penalty, !!!! NEVER!!!! Did not break, I do not recognize, did not leave. Neither completely, nor partially, even "can be"! I ask to enter in the minutes (which do not conduct) - I DID NOT BREAK And DO NOT AGREE. I ask to accustom video on which according to the inspector it is visible as I intersected. Video from their logger, video from street cameras. And then the template then will a little be torn - in the decision is specified that "in connection with the partial recognition of fault..." If at your petition they inscribe your decisions  in a template, it will be   for the judge. T> since not the malicious infringer, At me the last penalty - in July for 20-40 from the camera, before in March 2017 from the camera + from the inspector for violation of rules of transportation of children. I malicious. So if wings do not grow also a nimbus is not shone - you malicious infringer T> plus violation purely formal, plus of the inspector repeatedly was changed by versions, plus of video from the inspector misses, my word against it,  I know the person who had legal proceedings with it on a similar case Your word against it is "  ". I had I and the witness against the impartial inspector.

11

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote:  it is not familiar with specificity of the Russian courts, was not there and to time I tell as it in Europe works

12

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> I malicious. So if wings do not grow also a nimbus is not shone - you the malicious infringer at me the last penalty somewhere one year ago for a speed +10km/ch, I not malicious

13

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> http://dorogi-onf.ru/media/normative/20 … zhnaya.pdf GZ> Gost on a road marking. To signs it is a marking 1.7 - "Designates lanes within a crossroads". I hope you was guided by a marking and did not move down from a crossroads? And by the way. The inspector on the incident circuit correctly designated a marking as "defining lanes within a crossroads"? To dispute the circuit about road accident to Dispute the road accident circuit it is necessary in following cases: the Information containing in the document considered by us, is not full. In the circuit the traces concerning road accident are not fixed, the road conditions promoting origin of an alert condition - holes, hollows, pools are not reflected, there is convergence on methods of regulation of driving on an emergency section.

14

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, torvic, you wrote: T> Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U>> I malicious. So if wings do not grow also a nimbus is not shone - you malicious infringer T> at me the last penalty somewhere one year ago for a speed +10km/ch, I malicious +10 at us at all do not consider. Cameras click from +20, more often and I get on 81-82, in settlements which on a route are allocated. I have not time when to brake.

15

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, Xander Zerge, you wrote: XZ> something There is painted on road but if to look narrowly, it not a marking 1.16.1. Generally similar. XZ> further, XZ> "Passing a part" - the element of road intended for driving  of vehicles. XZ> that there at us behind "islet"? Tram ways. Proceeding from determination above, tram ways - without passing a part. Begins, actually, further intersection of travelers of parts which "islet" does not adjoin any more and divide them in two cannot. Interesting thought. It is necessary to ponder it. And eats any norms about contiguity of a marking 1.16.1. To tram ways?

16

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, wraithik, you wrote: W> I to you about this islet what is the time ? I did not understand you. Litter. W> there two travelers of a part. It is necessary to go very accurately that 8.6 not to break. So I also went. At first,  to similar casuistry also went expressly directly, and secondly, to go differently to me the turning machine hindered.

17

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> http://dorogi-onf.ru/media/normative/20 … zhnaya.pdf GZ> Gost on a road marking. To signs it is a marking 1.7 - "Designates lanes within a crossroads". 1.7 is like a broken line. And here it? There 1.16.1. Here only it adjoins tram ways. GZ> I Hope you was guided by a marking and did not move down from a crossroads? I that went directly. But this drew to me a curve. From a crossroads it does not quit. But if a marking 1.16.1. Really divides road on two travelers of a part its curve specifies in item 8.6 violation. Traffic regulations.

18

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, torvic, you wrote: T> I tell as it in Europe your method too works For us would lead to that would seal deprivation. "The talkative suspect - a find for the public prosecutor" (At us the first that any lawyer tells at the first reversal - "close a mouth!".

19

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

In my opinion qualify truly. The marking 1.2.1 defines dividing band. The dividing band is not  a part. Only to try to prove that you did not call in on intersection of a dividing band and a counter lane

20

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: GZ>> http://dorogi-onf.ru/media/normative/20 … zhnaya.pdf GZ>> Gost on a road marking. To signs it is a marking 1.7 - "Designates lanes within a crossroads". VD> 1.7 is like a broken line. And here it? There 1.16.1. Here only it adjoins tram ways. I give the reference to GOST. This determination 'a. Glance in the link. GZ>> I Hope you was guided by a marking and did not move down from a crossroads? VD> I that went directly. But this drew to me a curve. From a crossroads it does not quit. But if a marking 1.16.1. Really divides road on two travelers of a part its curve specifies in item 8.6 violation. Traffic regulations. Did not understand. 8.6 speaks about violation at departure from intersection. On determination the crossroads also is intersection of roads. On a marking ( GOST  51256-2011) you from a crossroads did not leave. Considering that the given singularity of a marking is not displayed in the circuit, and it is a detail is important for fault determination, it is possible to consider its invalid.

21

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, Unforgiver, you wrote: U> In 309 a section? A piece of paper in the machine. Then I will tell, if I will not forget. U> look (and is better consult!!! With the lawyer) - how to file video which have been removed by traffic police. In any way, as it is not present. I demanded to make it still when it to me the protocol suggested to write down. Moreover. I to it told that here there should be cameras and that from them too it is possible to take records. But further it wrote out to me the camp-up on 6 number. I 6th could not on that came 3. But the eagle from analysis group told that though at that crossroads the camera hangs, but records from it are not present, as they are stored 5 days, and the sixth already went. Here and so. And it is possible to make somehow to this inspector what it did not take video? I after all asked it to make it. On the camera he, most likely, wrote. It burned with dark blue and red sparks, i.e. has been included. I photographed it on video. But he told at once that "fixed violation visually". Whether when I asked there is a record - he to me some times kept silent. And when I asked it "why he did not write video" it to me objected - "And who to you told, what I did not write?!". I ask it - "So wrote?" . In the answer again silence. U> video even if it was even if on it you 100 times are guilty - "disappears". Already disappeared. And at once two. One it erased, the second did not take in the supposed period. U> the written petition, referring to the necessary points of the necessary laws (what - I , I not the lawyer), with instructions of violation of your constitutional laws. Under the law they can not write. There is no instruction forcing them it to do. Truth it according to their chief. U> he tells "video transferred in a call center, it there is stored in the ciphered type, and that with it  I do not know". He already declared that record was not conducted. U> you still do not trust in the scenario described by me? Though he to you on video admits directly that it plants you - the judge tells "to business it does not concern. Violation is - is. For it you carry punishment in the form of 4 months of deprivation". Violation is, but it is also a lime path nobody than not confirmed, except its "sharp-sighted" eyes which saw it, but managed not to see a crossroads, other machine and saw 6 bands on 4 strip road. U> and to the inspector then submit the counterclaim, write complaints (I still "in business", if that!) Also assort ITS violations and excess of powers separately. Here I will mandatory make it. Can it makes sense not to wait, and to write the complaint in advance? U> Even "did not get nearly to road accident" is an aggravating circumstance, It is its fiction. I simply braked hardly on sharper as the eagle before me gave on brakes. The distance to it was not less than 1.5 meters, and speed about zero. U> but at attempt to disassemble a detail - with whom the road accident, what sort (counter, or side, or caught up behind) - "does not concern business". Very much even concerns, as refutes its curve. U> : After two courts it became interesting to me. They always in the beginning tell "composition of court in the name of the judge such you arranges?". It is the same formality, as well as all court? That will if tell "is not present, does not arrange". And how that you  call that judge? U> go to lawyers. We look.

22

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, koandrew, you wrote: it incorrectly also should be corrected at my amateurish sight, it is not too difficult

23

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, GlebZ, you wrote: GZ> I give the reference to GOST. This determination 'a. Glance in the link. Say lies I look: 1.16.1... Forms islets dividing... Where still to look that? Cite, or at least page name. GZ> did not understand. 8.6 speaks about violation at departure from intersection. Well, here they also say that at my road two intersections. On one on each band. And ostensibly I from the first intersection left too early and got on . Look a picture. GZ> on determination the crossroads also is intersection of roads. A crossroads yes. But in 8.6. It is told not about a crossroads, and about "intersection of travelers of parts". And here their type there can be more than one on a crossroads.

24

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, torvic, you wrote: T> it incorrectly also should be corrected T> at my amateurish sight, it is not too difficult It correctly and learns to think before to speak.

25

Re: Descended in analysis group - 2

Hello, VladD2, you wrote: VD> Image: 1265979-Violation-raport-1.jpg VD> Image: 1265979-Violation-raport-2.jpg Added official report photos.