The Russian health authorities are considering approving an updated list of medical contraindications to driving. The proposal, outlined in a draft government order, would introduce new criteria affecting whether a person is fit to operate a motor vehicle. The intention is to clearly define medical conditions that may impair driving ability and to set standards for medical evaluation in road safety policy.
According to the draft, the list would cover ten broad categories of diseases. These include organic, including symptomatic mental disorders; schizophrenia and related psychotic conditions; mood disorders; neurotic, stress related, and somatoform disorders; mental retardation; mental and behavioral disorders linked to the use of psychoactive substances; epilepsy; color vision abnormalities; and complete binocular blindness. The document frames these as potential medical contraindications when they substantially impact a driver’s capacity to control a vehicle or respond appropriately to road conditions.
The proposal also mentions personality and behavioral disorders diagnosed in adulthood. Within this section, it notes sexual orientation disorders (classified as F65) and includes conditions such as fetishism, exhibitionism, voyeurism, pedophilia, and sadomasochism. It also references gender identity disorders (F64), including transsexualism, dual-role transvestism, and childhood gender identity issues. The wording aims to specify categories that could affect an individual’s fitness to drive under medical review guidelines.
If adopted, the Ministry of Health’s plan is expected to take effect in the autumn of 2024, subject to the customary regulatory processes. The discussion has coincided with social media activity featuring an extensive list of medications claimed to render drivers unfit to operate vehicles. This list highlights common substances that can impair attention and reaction times, such as sedatives, certain psychotropic medications, narcotic analgesics, and alcohol. Officials noted that the circulating list was published as a precautionary example and does not constitute regulatory requirements or formal rules. The distinction between informal lists and enforceable regulations is an important point in public discourse around road safety and medical fitness to drive.
Subsequently, a senior official from the State Traffic Inspectorate indicated that the alleged drug prohibition list for drivers does not reflect actual regulatory policy. This clarification was part of ongoing communications about how such safety guidance is issued and interpreted by the public and by professional drivers. The broader context includes existing discussions about how traffic safety laws intersect with medical assessments and the potential for misuse or misinterpretation of policy documents.
Past experiences have shown that concerns about corruption and enforcement in traffic regulation can arise when new driving safety measures are proposed or debated. Stakeholders across health, transport, and law enforcement communities often seek transparent criteria, clear medical guidelines, and consistent enforcement to maintain public trust and ensure fair treatment of drivers while prioritizing road safety for all users.