Is it safer to ride - faster or slower? Living in an era of change is notoriously difficult. Although, on the other hand, it is often changes that we lack. Well, literally over the past few days they told us immediately about several discussed changes that are directly related to motorists. Video tripods with cameras will be shown on the cards - once, the fine rate threshold will be reduced to 10 km / h instead of the current 20 - two, they will remove a 50% discount on fines for malicious violators - three, they will review the speed limit - four. What unites innovations is that they all relate to speed. It remains to be understood, will it make us all better?
I will immediately speak about the tripod. Although I know for sure that no one will support me. So: I - against! And I ask all disputants and dissatisfied with my opinion to answer the question: why do you personally need this? To slavishly reduce speed only where the overseer with the whip is, and with impunity to press the pedal where this whip is not yet? Is it really necessary to put a conductor on each bus? Is it necessary to put a guard near each flowerbed with flowers? Is the administrator supposed to trail behind you in the supermarket? Yes, many good people like to steal, but you do not consider yourself as such! Is it not more logical to warn not about such "ambushes", but simply about approaching dangerous sections of the road - we have plenty of such …
Related Materials
“Letters of happiness” to pedestrians-violators - it's high time! Supporters of cards with cameras sometimes nod to the fact that, they say, the speed limit is ill-conceived, and therefore we have to break it. It is difficult to argue with this - everyone is annoyed by the signs "60" on a wide highway. We have written about this several times - it seems that the ice has nevertheless broken and the speed limit will change somewhat. But it’s too early to discuss the consequences.
Now about the discounts on fines. Destroying any financial concessions to all the road boors is such a sensible decision that one can only wonder why they thought of it just now. Personally, I have one explanation: the lawmakers themselves consider the current standards to be frankly imperfect, and therefore they are a little embarrassed to levy fines for their violation. There is some kind of flirting with violators: they say you pay us at least half, and we will forgive you the rest … In my opinion, a geometric progression would be much more appropriate, in which violators and defaulters would doom themselves to doubled, quadrupled and so on with each new offense Further payments to the treasury. Normal drivers will not suffer from this, and the rest is not a pity.