fine

The DGT has a fine of 200 euros for those who carry the bicycle in any way in the car: this way you can avoid it

by

There are those who would leave their own child at home if in exchange they could put the bicycle in the trunk of the car. I know what I’m talking about, I know some practical cases. And beyond opening the debate on whether we should call the officials in charge of ensuring the care of minors, we can guarantee that the DGT is not going to have so many concerns. And that’s what to wear a bicycle incorrectly placed in the car is grounds for a fine. Specifically, a penalty of 200 euros for carrying the cargo poorly packaged, as stated in article 76 of the Traffic Law. Although beyond the possible fine, carry the bike correctly It is also essential to guarantee the safety of the passengers themselves. It must be taken into account that objects that are not properly secured can become real projectiles and in the case of a bicycle, which usually requires the seats to be folded down, it can be much more dangerous. To give us an idea, it is calculated that at 50 km/h an object multiplies its weight by 50 when thrown into the void. These are data from the DGT that are scary and that should make us think if we have the car seats folded down to carry the bicycle in any way inside. Having said all this, let’s review what the alternatives are. What can I do to carry a bicycle in the car? As the colleagues of Motorpassionnot everything goes when transporting a bicycle because we will be risking a good fine and our own integrity. In that case, there are three solutions that we must take into account to choose the one that best suits us. If what we want is carry the bicycle inside the carThe most effective thing is to use anchors. To do this we must have adjustable straps that attach to the vehicle’s fixing points that we can find on the vehicle seats themselves. In any case, they are points that are not always in the same places. However, if you can’t find these points or they are not entirely practical, you can always find some bike fixing kits that are sold for the interior of passenger cars. Of course, it is important to look at the size because they are often designed for vans. Another option is to mount the bike on top of the vehicle, on the roof. It is not the most recommended because the car will consume more but, above all, we will be more exposed to side wind, making the mobility of the vehicle difficult. Of course, regarding the regulations, we can rest assured because the General Vehicle Regulations allows the load to reach a maximum of four meters high. In this case we will need a roof rack or roof bars previously installed on the car. The kits to take advantage of this possibility are diverse. There are those that fix the bicycle frame, others in which we can mount the bicycle with both wheels on and, in the last case, turn it over and hold it by the saddle and handlebars, with the wheels facing up. In any case, it is very important to ensure that the bicycle is securely fixed. The last and most recommended option, but also more expensive, is to opt for a bike rack. There are those that are installed on the tailgate and, in this way, are easily dismantled and assembled and there are those that are hitched like a trailer. In this case, it must be reflected in the vehicle’s technical sheet and pass the ITV when installing the modification if the original vehicle did not have the tow ball. Despite this, if you regularly use the bicycle and want get the most out of the trunkis still the best option. However, keep in mind that the load cannot protrude across the width of the vehicle and lengthwise it cannot extend more than 10% of its total length if the load is divisible and 15% if it is not. Furthermore, in this last case you have to mount one of V-20 signal. If the load occupies the entire width of the vehicle, two signs of this type must be mounted (one at each end) and in no case can the car’s license plate be covered. It must be taken into account that driving with a poorly legible license plate can also result in a fine of 200 euros. Photo | Motorpassion and Gabe Pierce In Xataka | This titanium bike looks spectacular. It is also the first 3D printed that can be purchased

In 1896 a man decided to lead to the reckless speed of 13 km/h. And received the first fine in history

by

Speed ​​fines in Spain vary from 100 at 600 euros. The table in which the economic amount is collected also serves if the driver will also be punished with the subtraction of driving card points. In the best case, the sanction It does not entail the subtraction of points, while in the worst you can detract a maximum of six. All this information can be consulted in your own DGT website or in the Traffic LawMotor vehicles and road safety. And it is useful, according to data from Associated European motoriststwo out of three fines that are imposed in Spain are motivated by speeding. But although speeding fines look like something modern, what is necessary to invest most sophisticated media To register the infraction and judicially demonstrate the breakdown of the norms, its history begins before The first car in Spain will enroll. The first fine of history for speeding Fines for committing some kind of Flying infraction They have a lot of history. Some suggest that the first punishment related to a traffic infraction was recorded in Egypt more than 2,800 years ago, after a drunk driver run over a girl and collided with a statue. However, the basis of this information is, at least, doubtful. But what is a general consensus is in the registration of the first penalty for speeding. In fact, those responsible for Guinness Record They make it record as the early infraction of this type. And they put date: January 28, 1896. The fine also has a name, surname and place of origin. Specifically, the offender was Walter Arnold who in the United Kingdom, and fully aware of what was played, promoted one of the first cars built by Karl Benz until the devilish speed of 13 km/h. Arnold exceeded the streets of Paddock Wood at full speed, in Kent Count “Horses without horses”. Arnold had broken four rules in a single moment: Drive a car without horses along a public street Drive a car without horses without the intervention of three people Do not show the name and direction of the vehicle Quadruplica the maximum permitted speed Yes, according to the fine, Arnold was traveling at a speed of 8 mph (about 13 km/h) when the maximum allowed limit was 2 mph. Of the means to calculate this speed, nothing is said. What we do know is that the result was immediate. Put before Justice, Arnold was convicted of each and every one of the accusations that were awarded. What Arnold had in mind is that the payment of 4.7 pounds were just an investment. With his stumbling he showed that the speed limits were completely outdated for those Combustion vehicles And, therefore, shortly after the speed limit was extended to reasonable 14 mph (just over 22 km/h). But this was not here. Arnold, in addition, was known for its handling of vehicles. He got the license to sell in the United Kingdom the vehicles of Karl Benz slightly modified with a local production under the name of Arnold Motor Carriage. A car with which he managed to win in the first race of emancipation in it was linked to London with Brighton (separated by 87 kilometers) and served to multiply car sales. The first fine was, in short, a marketing trick. In Xataka | The Mercedes T80, the car mounted on the engine of a hunt with which Hitler wanted to reach 750 km/h Photo | Clare Black and Knowledge of London

The AEPD fine with 42,000 euros to a company

by

The Spanish Agency for Data Protection (AEPD) has imposed a sanction of 70,000 euros to LVMH Iberia, a subsidiary of the French giant of the luxury cosmetics, to add a worker to a group of work WhatsApp using their personal telephone number without prior consent. The resolution, to which Diario Sur It has had accessIt is not an isolated case, and reflects how companies can violate the Data Protection Law With something as simple as put someone in a WhatsApp group. Origin. The employee had to use her personal mobile for labor matters for the demand of the company, while waiting for a new mobile phone to work that was never delivered. According to declaredother incorporated partners after they received these devices. At the beginning of his vacation, he warned by email and verbally that he would leave the WhatsApp groups work and stop using his personal mobile for work, although he would maintain contact with the clients he already had. Conflict. During his vacation, a person from the company adds his number to the WhatsApp group without prior notice or communication. The worker remained in that group until, weeks later, the same person eliminated her when she was fired from the company. It was then that he decided to denounce the facts before the AEPD. The defense of the company. According to account Diario Sur, LVMH Iberia claimed to have adopted a “guarantee” position and defended that the employee’s mail did not request a permanent elimination of the groups, but temporary during the holidays. The company claimed to have respected its decision not to participate during that period and argued that the worker expressed her willingness to continue using the personal mobile for labor purposes. The resolution. The AEPD considered that there had been an illegal treatment of personal data by not collecting prior consent of the employee, violating the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The sanction also takes into account the violation of the right of digital disconnection, protected by labor regulations. After assuming its responsibility and receiving reductions by recognition of the facts, the company finally contributed a total of 42,000 euros, a figure agreed between the agency and the company. What does legislation say. Although the GDPR does not specifically add the WhatsApp work groups, The AEPD has established That the telephone number is a protected personal fact, so adding an employee to a group without their consent constitutes an illicit data treatment. The situation changes when the company provides a corporate phone, since in that case the device and the number belong to the company, which can establish its use in internal policies. For those who telework, the obligation to provide contact data can appear in the contract, although its use It must be justified as urgent and does not allow the employee to be added to groups without direct consent. Likewise, as this last case has reflected, the worker has full right to refuse to use his personal device for labor communications. Cover image | Israel Andrade and own assembly In Xataka | The MIT has studied the impact of AI on companies. Its conclusion: only 5% of the time changes some really

Brussels fine to Google with 2,950 million. The worst thing is that the EU points to a sale from its advertising business

by

Brussels has launched a resounding notice to the technology industry: 2,950 million euros of fine to Google for abusing its position in the digital advertising market, As announced today the European Commission. The investigation points to self -preference practices that reinforced their domain in the Adtech chain and harmed competitors, advertisers and editors. The Community Executive suggests that the solution could go uninverting part of their advertising business. It is a movement that raises pressure on large technological ones and reinforces the regulatory role of the European Union. The case has a long journey in Brussels. The European Commission started in 2021 A file on Google’s power in the digital advertising sector, after detecting indications of dominant position abuse. In 2023 a specifications were issued that the company answered at the end of that year. The research analyzed Google activity in strategic markets such as the DFP advertisements and Google Ads and DV360 programmatic purchase tools, both with presence throughout the European economic space. What Brussels has ordered and what Google is played The core of the decision is in self -preference. The commission argues that, at least since 2014, Google took advantage of its domain on the DFP advertisements and in the Google Ads and DV360 tools for Grant advantages to your own platformA ADX. DFP warned ADX on the value of rival offers, and purchase tools prioritized participating in that same platform. This dynamic would have reduced competition and consolidated Google’s power in the advertising chain. For Brussels, it is a behavior designed to reinforce its position and its ability to collect high rates. Brussels set the sanction of 2,950 million euros based on its 2006 standards for anti -political fines. The calculation took into account “various elements, such as the duration and severity of the infraction, as well as ADX’s business volume in the EEE.” The commission defends that the amount is proportionate to the infraction and necessary to avoid new self -preference practices. The figure makes this file one of the most significant in the field of digital competence in Europe, reinforcing the role of the body as a regulator. The commission has given Google 60 days to present a plan that ends the conflicts of interest detected in the advertising chain. Once received, Brussels will evaluate whether the proposed measures really eliminate these practices. In its decision, the agency has already advanced its preliminary position: Only a partial disinvestment of advertising services I would solve the root problem. If Google’s proposal does not meet the criteria, the European regulator may impose structural remedies. Brussels hardens their pulse with technological while in Washington political discourse intensifies. Donald Trump published last month A message in Truth social criticizing laws and digital regulations that, according to him, “are designed to harm or discriminate against US technology companies.” He warned that it will impose tariffs and restrictions on countries that maintain these policies. Although he did not explicitly mention the European Union, its administration has repeatedly shown its discomfort with the measures against companies such as Google, Meta or X. The scope of this sanction goes beyond Google. Brussels seeks to reduce the dependency of editors and advertisers of a single intermediary, which could promote the Competition in digital advertising services. A mandatory divestment would open space for rivals in key segments such as advertisements and programmatic purchase platforms. The sector, accustomed to operating under the control of a few technological giants, could see changes in prices, access to commercial data and conditions. The EU thus reinforces its role as a referee in strategic digital markets. “Today’s decision shows that Google abused its dominant position in advertising technology, harming editors, advertisers and consumers. This behavior is illegal according to the EU antimonopoopoolio standards. Google must now present a serious solution to address their conflicts of interest and, if it does not, we will not hesitate to impose forceful measures,” said the Spanish commissioner Teresa Teresa Ribera, responsible for the competence of the community. Beyond the economic sanction, the decision of Brussels gives legal basis to those affected to claim. European regulations establish that commission resolutions are conclusive evidence that the infraction occurred. The Antitrust Damage Directive, together with a practical guide on the calculation of damages, facilitates that companies and individuals Get compensation. Thus, this case not only seeks to correct the market, but also repair those who suffered the consequences of the practices that reinforced Google’s domain in digital advertising. Just days ago, Google dodged in the United States the scene of selling Chrome. However, Europe has opened a new front: the possibility of forcing him to separate part of his advertising business. The plan that the company present in Brussels will be key to defining the outcome. If it does not convince, the European case could exceed the American process in impact, sitting a precedent that would affect the entire technological sector. Images | Alex doubt In Xataka | Apple’s most lucrative agreement has just improved: Google will pay without being able to prevent Microsoft from doing the same

A Spanish company imposed facial recognition to enter its gyms. Result: Fine of 96,000 euros

by

The Spanish Data Protection Agency (AEPD) has imposed A sanction of 96,000 euros to the gyms chain exceeds to violate the data protection of its customers. The reason? Have imposed facial recognition as the only method of access to your gyms. The facts were denounced by Facua in 2023 and now the resolution has been known. What happened? On August 4, 2023, a claim was filed to SIDECU, a company based in A Coruña in charge of the gyms. According to the document (PDF), the Sports Center exceeds Entrepuentes in Seville was “denying access to the facilities” because a new access method had been implemented through a facial recognition system. “ The complainant considered that this access was “invasive about his intimacy” and “excessive for access to said establishment.” Until the implementation of the facial recognition system, which had not been notified to the partners and was mandatory, it was possible to enter the gym using a card. This claim was added two more and, finally, in September 2023, Facua denounced SIDECU. The defense. Sidec defended himself wielding that he did not store images of the users, but generated a facial pattern through an algorithm patented by the company that developed the system. According to the gyms chain, this “template” was not enough to identify users or deduce their physical characteristics. For SIDECU, this was enough for the system to meet the RGPDbut the truth is that no. The first error. Misunderstand the regulations, thus breaking article 9 of the RGPD. Article 4.14 of the RGPD establishes that biometric data are “personal data obtained from a specific technical treatment, related to the physical, physiological or behavioral characteristics of a natural person that allow or confirm the unique identification of said person, such as facial images or dactyloscopic data.” According to article 9 of the same regulation, the treatment of “biometric data aimed at uniquely identifying a natural person” is prohibited. Image | Ryan Hoffman The second error. Impose the system and not warn, thus breaking article 13 of the RGP. Not only did it not warn users, but facial recognition was the only way to access the establishments and there was no other real option, thus entering the game: consent was not free. It is true that the company ended up implementing an alternative access system (teaching the ID at the door), but its arrival was later to claims. Do not warn users breaches article 13 of the GDPR. The third terror. Do not evaluate the risks, finally breaking article 35 of the RGPD. According to the sentence, SIDEC did not justify why it was necessary to implement this system, above all, less invasive and equally effective alternatives. The AEPD states that the company did not carry out the impact assessment in the protection of personal data (when it was not dealing with personal data) and that it acted without fraud, but negligently and without “the special diligence that is enforceable to this type of treatments.” The sanctions. Three, one for each article violated: 80,000 euros for violating article 9 of the RGPD, 30,000 euros for not having informed users in advance (article 35) and 50,000 euros for not having prepared the impact assessment on personal data protection (article 9). In total, a penalty of 160,000 euros that, due to the recognition of the responsibility and the Sidecu’s soon lamp, has remained at 96,000 euros. Cover image | Gold’s Gym Nepal In Xataka | Unsuspected fine for the European Commission in Europe: it violated its own General Data Protection Regulation

Studying a lot is fine, but there is another factor that influences that you approve or suspend: the exam time

by

If you want to approve an exam, there is nothing more than study (well, or Use Chatgpt). Going prepared is the best insurance to get good note, but there is more. Some researchers have discovered That the exam time can also influence, and much, in the result. The study. It was carried out at the University of Messina, Italy. They took into account the exams that were made between the end of 2018 and early 2020. In total, more than 100,000 exams of 1,243 subjects. The approved rate was 57%, the curious thing was when they realized that there was a time slot in which the approved rate was greater. Better at noon. The exams were held from 8 in the morning until 4 in the afternoon. The time slot between 11:00 and 13:00 is where the approved rate reached its peak. If you are lucky enough to put the exam at that time, the chances of edges are higher. If on the contrary you have the exam at 8 in the morning or 3 in the afternoon, you may not take out outstanding. Because. The study does not delve into the causes, but researchers have a hypothesis: biological rhythms. One of the authors of the study affirms that the results show “how biological rhythms, often ignored in decision -making contexts, can significantly influence the result of high -risk evaluations.” Our cognitive performance is improving during the morning to reach a peak at noon and start its descent in the afternoon. The approved rate curve is clear: at noon better Fountain The chronotype The study also indicates that this could vary depending on the chronotype, something that has not been taken into account when obtaining the results. It refers to the natural predisposition of a person to have energy peaks and need for rest at different times of the day. Although we know that Genetics plays an important role in sleep cyclesit is also true that students usually study at night. A bad rest would explain that in the first hour the performance goes down. Exams and more. The researchers propose that the institutions concentrate the exams around the central hours of the day. Although the time of an exam does not depend on students, there are other evaluations where we do have some margin when arranging the time as a job interview, as They point to The Times. The researchers agree and leave the door open to study if the time also influences a better performance of the candidates and even the interviewers. Image | Flickr (University of Seville) In Xataka | The selectivity of 2025 promised to be more fair than ever: students feel that Pau is the opposite

Fine of 7,500 euros if your boss sends you messages outside working hours

by

With the arrival of teleworking and the hybrid day, the line that separates the working life from personal life has been made increasingly thinand fades even more when the electronic devices that the company facilitates enter stake. As remember The sports worldthe use of company mobiles and messaging applications such as WhatsApp or Telegram has resulted in many employees receive messages from their bosses even after working hours. To stop this practice, the Workers Statute Includes an article in which employees are protected (Already the bosses) with him Right to digital disconnectionunder sanctions that can reach up to 7,500 euros. First of all: who is the mobile? Before starting to designate the limits of data disconnection, it is convenient make use of your device staff For work purposes. That means that, if the company has not facilitated a mobile and a company telephone line, the employee’s personal telephone number cannot be included in WhatsApp groups or other similar apps by the company. This would mean an infraction of article 5 of the Data Protection Law by spreading without consent personal data such as the worker’s phone number. In the event that both the device and the telephone line are owned by the company, they can implement this type of communications because, in that case, the data that is shared do not belong to the worker but to the company. Right to disconnection out of the day. However, although communications do not violate data protection regulations, article 20 bis of the Workers’ Statute, explicitly recognizes the Right to digital disconnection Outside the workday, prohibiting the company from carrying out any type of communication with the employee, although the devices from which it is carried out are of its property. According to the regulations, the worker is not obliged to respond to these communications. A recent sentence From the Superior Court of Xustiza de Galicia it goes a little further and establishes the absolute prohibition of companies to send communications to workers outside their working hours, not even should when when An answer is not expected. Digital intimacy and business control. Article 20 bis too Protects explicitly The “intimacy in the use of digital devices placed at your disposal by the employer.” This means that, even when used Mobile or company portablethe activity of the employee outside their working hours should not be monitored without justification or consent. The only case in which the company could Supervise these devices It would be if there is a clear and justified internal policy based on the labor control that allowed it. However, article 20 bis warns that this supervision can never invade the life and personal communication of the employee, so any attempt to geolocate or monitoring out of time would be out of law. Sanctions for offending companies. Failure to comply with the right to disconnection enables the Labor Inspection to impose A series of sanctions In the event that the company maintains repeated contacts outside working hours, especially when they occur without justification or compensation. Depending on the severity of the case and the size of the company, fines can range from 751 euros to 7,500 euros according to the severity of the faults or the size of the company. These sanctions seek to stop abusive practices that violate the rest and intimacy of the workers. In Xataka | 55,245 euros for eating a sandwich and a beer: Mercadona must compensate an employee for unfair dismissal Image | Unspash (Firmbee.com)

Madrid has the radar that most fine in Spain. We already know its location and where we have to be more careful this summer

by

3,440,655 speeding fines. Spain closed 2024 with a 4% increase in the number of sanctions for this reason. Associated European motorists (AEA) has carried out its annual report with DGT data to point to us which are the 50 radars that most fine in our country. This increase in the number of fines cannot be understood without the fact that there are more radars that fine in our country. Specifically, in Spain there are almost 3,400 controllers of speed that monitor that we do not exceed the maximum limits allowed. And those must add mobile radars and famous pegasus that watch from the air. In addition, we remember that in the AEA numbers of this report the fines imposed in the Basque Country or Catalonia are not collected, where traffic skills are transferred. The radar that is most fine in Madrid Given all this, AEA points out that the radar that most fine in Spain is at kilometer 20 of the M-40, the famous Circunvalación de Madrid. The cinemometer repeats in the first place but, perhaps because it is an old acquaintance, it has reduced its volume of complaints by 36%. In total, this controller has issued 74,873 sanctions for speeding, far from the 118,392 fines that it registered in 2023. The radar is not only in the Community of Madrid, since six others are part of the 50 most “multones” radars in Spain, being the province where the most controllers add up in this list. These are located in the following locations: Road M-40 PK 52: 33,057 sanctions. Road A-4 PK 13: 18,263 sanctions. Road A-2 PK 15: 15,713 sanctions. Road A-5 PK 12: 14,147 sanctions. Road A-4 PK 12: 13,722 sanctions. Road A-3 PK 48: 11,568 sanctions. What are the most fine radars? Although Madrid has the most fine of Spain and another six more radars appear in the list, Andalusia is the autonomous community that adds the most speed controllers to the list. In fact, according to AEA data, almost one in three fines processed in Spain have an Andalusian radar origin. In total, in 2024 they added 959,592 complaints, which represents 27.8% of the activity in the country, accumulating up to 14 cinemometers among those who most fine in our country. If we analyze by provinces, Malaga and Seville, with five and four radars among the 50 that most sanction in Spain are the two provinces (after Madrid) in which the most radars are located. As to Volume of complaints And despite the fact that Madrid has the radar that most sanctions, Castilla y León with 413,343 sanctions is the second autonomous community in which it is most sanctioned. And it is followed by the Valencian Community, with 366,360 complaints. As for the radars that most fine in Spain, these are the 10 that sanction: Autonomous Community Province Via PK Number of fines Community of Madrid Madrid M-40 20 74873 Andalusia Malaga A-7 968 67502 Navarre Navarre A-15 127 60878 Andalusia Seville A-381 74 54835 Andalusia Malaga A-45 128 49378 Balears (Illes) Balears (Illes) EI-600 9 39202 Andalusia Seville A-92 83 37616 Andalusia Malaga A-7 978 33358 Andalusia Malaga MA-20 10 33061 Community of Madrid Madrid M-40 52 33057 Photo | DGT In Xataka | How to know all the official locations of the DGT radars

We thought that the law against the so -called spam had not served at all. But we already have the first fine of 5,000 euros

by

Facing telephone spam is complicated, it seems even impossible. Nor the Robinson list nor the Call filters They manage to eradicate them completely. In 2023 we thought we were close to the arrival of The antispam lawbut hopes were diluted today We continue to receive commercial calls. It has taken two years, but something could happen: already They have fined the first company to make unwanted calls. The case. It happened in July 2023, only one month after the law entered into force. The Digital Marketing company Adverbis Spain SL made a call to an individual, who was also registered in the Robinson list. So far as normal, except that this person decided to report him to the Spanish Agency for Data Protection that, two years later, has sanctioned the company with 5,000 euros. Notice a spammers. Although we have talked about Other telephone spam finesthis is the first that applies after the entry into force of the new law. For two years the feeling that the law had not served at all was installed among users and it seems that spammers also, since Calls increased shortly after. It has taken a long time, but this fine feels an important precedent and could be the change we had waiting. The law. The known as antispam law establishes that companies cannot make commercial calls without prior consent And it establishes fines that could reach two million euros, depending on the size of the company that commits the infraction. In the case of Adverbis Spain, it is a small company, so the fine is much lower, but if the offender is a larger operator can find a sanction of many more figures. How to report. We have already seen that, although they take, denounce the AEPD works. Yes too You receive commercial calls and want to reporton your website you have a section called “Receipt advertising phone calls” Where can you do it. You have to take screenshots in which the phone is seen from which they call us and record the call as proof. Image | Mikhail Nilov, Pexels In Xataka | Spam calls are a problem for everyone and Apple knows. Its solution with iOS 26 has been stopping braking

Log In

Forgot password?

Forgot password?

Enter your account data and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Your password reset link appears to be invalid or expired.

Log in

Privacy Policy

Add to Collection

No Collections

Here you'll find all collections you've created before.