January 15. Even the most absurd penalty, drawn on the basis of these cameras, automatic fixation of violations, it is almost impossible to challenge because of the unshakable faith of the state in the infallibility of technology.
Complexes of automatic photo and video fixing of violations have densely entered our life, although about 10 years ago no one could have thought that this would be so. However, with a sharp increase in the number of cameras, problems arose that legislators did not even consider.
Before the adoption of GOSTs for complexes of automatic traffic control, the evidence base for such complexes was not normalized at all. At the same time, the Administrative Code introduced an amendment to Article 1.5 "The presumption of innocence", which practically abolished this principle for violations recorded by traffic cameras. This was done in order not to identify the person who committed the offense, since this is often impossible. However, inaccuracy in the wording led to the fact that the presumption of innocence for these offenses was completely abolished. The idea that the technique can be mistaken, somehow did not come to the head of the legislators.
As a result, law enforcement practice began to be based on two postulates:
- the complex of automatic fixing of violations was not mistaken if the driver could not prove the opposite;
- in the picture is your car? Means guilty.
However, there is already a lot of evidence that the technique is wrong. Errors are caused by the fact that the complexes do not work with reality, but with its mathematical model, built on data received by sensors and processed by algorithms embedded in the software.
In the event of disputes, the blind faith of law enforcement officers is revealed in the infallibility of the complexes only on the basis of certificates and certificates of metrologists. And sometimes this faith can not shake even the most conclusive evidence from the driver. All the evidence from the driver's side is considered critically, as presented to those who just want to get away from responsibility.
Such complexes record not an administrative violation, but an event with signs of violation of SDA. This event becomes a violation only after a person has checked all the facts on the case and made a decision on it.
However, in practice, officials, as a rule, do not download video of recorded events, and soon it is overwritten with fresh entries.
Law enforcers do not download video from the complexes, do not store them, do not investigate and do not provide citizens, so that they can not identify and prove the complex's error. After all, video recordings do not simulate the process, but show it as it is. The law enforcement authorities do not trust the evidence on the part of the driver, as they do not have certificates and other official papers. This approach leads to erroneous statistics, which says that everything is in order. So, in 2017, the number of erroneous fines was announced - 0.001%.
As for the fact that the driver is required to prove his innocence, the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation has repeatedly pointed out that when fixing violations in the automatic mode, the burden of proof is redistributed to the driver only insofar as proving that he is not involved in the management of the vehicle at the time of the violation. The presumption of innocence is valid regardless of the way the violations are documented.
In other words, from the point of view of law and common sense, law enforcement must first prove that there was an event of an administrative offense and connect it with a particular car and only then decide on the punishment of the owner of the vehicle.
Chambers of automatic fixing of offenses are only a tool for collecting evidence for the purpose of their subsequent comprehensive and objective analysis. After all, fines are written not by the camera, but by the person.
However, if you analyze the statistics, it becomes clear where the errors come from. For 11 months in 2017, Moscow issued about 20 million fines for violation of traffic rules. The number of employees of the Center for the automated recording of administrative violations of Moscow during this time was about 30 people. If we divide the working time of our employees by the number of administrative protocols we have issued, then about 9 seconds for each inspector are "objective, comprehensive, complete and timely clarification of the circumstances of each case".
