Experienced drivers know that when the driver agrees with a traffic violation, the process is described as automatic. If there is disagreement with the inspector’s decision, it often signals an intent to appeal. In such cases, the inspector will need stronger, higher quality administrative evidence so that the material can withstand scrutiny later on.
Some cautionary voices warn that this dynamic could enable the inspector to yield in a way that creates additional trouble for the driver. Is that interpretation accurate?
Expert opinion
Sergei Smirnov, lawyer:
In practice, the inspector does not rely on the driver’s written statements to determine the outcome. Whether the driver agrees or not, it does not change the inspector’s position as recorded in the protocol. There are no mechanisms to punish a driver for stubbornness or for disagreeing with the decision. The case will proceed in administrative practice whenever it involves the traffic police, or in court if the offense leads to a driving suspension. Written statements from the driver do not alter this pathway.
If the driver has arguments or evidence that could protect their rights, those details should be documented in full within the protocol. Statements from witnesses or video evidence from relevant registries should also be clearly recorded. The act of agreeing or disagreeing does not itself determine the result.
- In Russia, criminal liability has been introduced for particularly persistent traffic offenders.
- Driving matters can now be described in terms of contact with enforcement authorities
Photo: TASS and Behind the Wheel [Citation: Sergei Smirnov, lawyer]