Zar nisu sad dobili obavezu da nose kamere?
U nekim drzavama, da. Ne svugde.
To znamo, ali znamo i da za to mogu da budu osudjeni.
kad budemo saznali da nemaju kvote kazni koje treba da napisu u mesec dana, bicemo mnogo radosniji nego sada kada znamo da mogu da budu osudjeni ako laziraju podatke da bi ispunili nametnutu proizvoljnu kvotu.
Te kamere su u UK uradile jako lep posao u saobracaju.
Mozda zato sto u UK voze levom stranom? 
http://www.chicagotr...ory.html#page=1
The researchers also determined there is no safety benefit from cameras installed at intersections where there have been few crashes with injuries. Such accidents actually increased at those intersections after cameras went in, the study found, though the small number of crashes makes it difficult to determine whether the cameras were to blame.
The finding raises questions about why the city installed cameras in so many places where injury-causing crashes were rare — nearly 40 percent of the 190 intersections that had cameras through 2012, the Tribune found.
"The biggest takeaway is that overall (the program) seems to have had little effect," said Dominique Lord, an associate professor at Texas A&M University's Zachry Department of Civil Engineering who led the Tribune's study.
Nedavno ovde u Filiju oduzeli kucu bracnom paru zato sto je sin prodavao drogu na cosku, koliko znam moraju da im vrate.
... ali su morali da se sude da bi povratili kucu, to jest morali da plate advokata da bi dobili nazad sto je njihovo. Nije drzava morala da dokaze da su krivi, nego su oni morali da dokazu da nisu. U tome je problem.
