Hello, Sheridan, you wrote: S> Hello, wraithik, you wrote: W>> I.e. if you break speed on 20km/ch, and of you deprive of the rights is it will be excellent? S> it meaningly intersected continuous, passing on . On a diagonal or it is perpendicular - yes . It was on adjoining road, it could not turn on the left, at it on a way was continuous. And then it turned on the left, ignoring a sign and a marking. All. That any attempts "it not are ignored, I broke" is I consider as excellent news. S> " did not see a wheel"... Yes to it them to see absolutely optional. He noted the machine before a sign "only to the right" and continuous between bands. And then saw it which have turned on the left. All. I broke not perpendicularly. I turned for ~1 meter before rupture. I turned on ONE-SIDED ROAD! On ONE-SIDED, CHARLES!!! There in any way it is impossible to attract 8.6"After turn on the left the HARDWARE it should not appear on an oncoming traffic band". After turn on the left my car appeared on a band of PASSING driving (others there are not present). In conditions when the passer was red. Without creating danger, without cutting anybody. To me showed to video where I turn FROM the LEFT ROW on ONE-SIDED ROAD. On video it is not visible a marking (from that point, whence it acted in film). Video DISAPPEARED on court. DELIBERATELY it removed from business and ignored my petition for its union to business. On group of analysis I saw the circuit where it has been drawn - I intersected 2 bands, left on , turned to the right, passed some meters, turned on the left. Judged me for the last. The inspector INVENTED the previous actions! Simply . As in the official report he invented road accident, and on court with aspiration told about road accident with LOBOV COLLISION which by miracle did not happen. I do not know under what substances it is necessary to be to make such manoeuvre. And even if this manoeuvre would take place to be is not 8.6!!!! After turn on the left my car could not appear on an oncoming traffic band. COULD not! This rubbish meaningly misled me at itself in the machine, incorrectly qualified violation under article, and as consequence meaningly incorrectly made the protocol, meaningly distorted the circuit (both in geographical sense, and in respect of driving of my machine), invented road accident (about which in the machine to me did not tell words but which by miracle did not happen), on court added its particulars (... With a head-on collision). From all event in detail he remembered only one - "a marking it was visible" though it there is erased, as well as in all places where 90 % of machines do not reach to a crossroads and turn hardly earlier, and a day before it was snow and a marking it was not visible at all. And I, and the witness AFTER the WARNING of a false testimony summer residence told "a marking it was visible not". And he remembers a marking. As he remembers that there was a snow (was not!!!) that there was no nearly a road accident (with whom, what sort of road accident who where moved time there "front" - he remembers nothing since it too was not!). Here if it asked to draw the circuit, under the oath and after the warning of a summer residence CERTAINLY false testimonies, and then to look at video, and at once in a hall of court him to detain - it would not began so to do. Here it is direct at once - would make the protocol on 1500 and would wish not to break any more.