The participants of the round table within the Duma revisited the topic of implementing fines tied to average speed violations on major routes.
According to Anton Kozlov, who serves as deputy director in the Ministry of Transportation’s Department of Road Services, the current situation demands urgent action. He highlighted that the level of accidents is alarming, and the most practical measure available on federal highways is the deployment of automated traffic cameras. Kozlov stressed that other existing approaches to reducing crashes on Russian roads have already been exhausted, suggesting a shift toward technology-driven enforcement as a necessary step.
What follows is a proposal to introduce a system that records average speed on outbound highways as well as routes that traverse built-up areas and pass near social facilities. The aim is to create a more stable and predictable framework for speed compliance, which could influence driver behavior over longer segments rather than focusing on isolated instances of speeding.
In the autumn period of 2021, a transition was discussed where drivers would not face penalties for transgressions tied to segments faster than the permitted average speed. This approach signaled a broader debate about how to balance enforcement with fairness, ensuring that motorists are not unfairly penalized for brief fluctuations in speed as they navigate real-world traffic conditions.
- Drive can be read in Viber
The discussion at the Duma highlights a broader trend toward utilizing automated monitoring to improve road safety. Proponents argue that average-speed enforcement can reduce the occurrence of extreme speeding and the accidents that accompany it. By focusing on the average speed over a stretch rather than instantaneous readings, authorities hope to create an incentive for smoother driving patterns, potentially lowering the risk associated with abrupt accelerations and decelerations that contribute to collisions.
Critics, meanwhile, raise questions about the execution of such a policy. They point to concerns about how average speeds are calculated, the potential for misinterpretation of road segments, and the need for transparent calibration of cameras and data processing. The balance between road safety benefits and the rights of drivers to understand and anticipate how penalties are assessed remains a central point of contention in the public discourse.
Observers note that the debate isn’t limited to speed measures alone. It touches on the broader machinery of traffic management, including how data from automated systems is stored, processed, and used in enforcement decisions. In many cases, the successful adoption of these technologies depends on clear regulations, consistent application, and robust privacy protections to prevent misuse while ensuring that safety remains the primary objective.
Ultimately, the conversation in the Duma reflects a convergence of engineering, policy, and public safety concerns. As lawmakers weigh the pros and cons of average-speed enforcement, the emphasis remains on finding a policy framework that can reliably reduce crash rates without imposing undue burdens on everyday drivers. The path forward will likely involve pilot programs, careful analysis of accident data, and ongoing dialogue with road users to refine the approach and address legitimate concerns about fairness and transparency.