Fines for exceeding the posted average speed are no longer limited to a fixed year-and-a-half window of penalties for drivers. Due to legal ambiguities and public dissatisfaction, traffic authorities have decided to end that practice.
However, after updates to the road traffic statutes and the Code of Administrative Violations, penalties based on average speeds along long stretches of road could become standard practice again. It has been noted that the term average speed itself lacks binding authority, yet there are ways to document overspeeding in weight-bearing records. The gaps are expected to be closed, and average-speed measurements over several kilometers could be reintroduced. In urban areas with many intersections, a network of cameras could track a vehicle’s route and enforce speed limits accordingly. Individuals should be prepared to contest such fines if they arise.
With reported overreach on the ground, including camera installation in non-urgent locations and the provisional, sometimes arbitrary, posting of speed signs, it is reasonable to expect that many drivers will be fined.
Theory and practice
Consider a road segment with varying speed limits: sections where 90 km/h is allowed, zones that require slowing to 70 or 60 km/h, and areas near pedestrian crossings where speeds may drop to 20 km/h. If one imagines this as a math problem about points A and B with streams of cars approaching from opposite directions, it is easy to see the challenges. Even more complex are the dynamics of acceleration, braking, and aggressive maneuvers by some drivers when a restriction tightens abruptly.
In real life, navigating such sections can become nearly impossible if enforcement is aggressive and inconsistent. Deliberate traffic disruptions to trigger a second camera or to gain a margin of error are conceivable. People may start watching their speedometer more than the road itself, because the goal is to conform not only to what the camera shows but to the navigator’s directions as well. On open roads, many drivers prioritize the speedometer over road awareness, which some may call poetic irony. The focus now turns to how fines for speeding can be challenged, and a few potential pitfalls deserve attention.
Expert opinion
Andrey Moiseev, attorney:
– Average-speed enforcement has existed on many highways since 2013, but in early 2021 traffic authorities paused its use due to regulatory gaps. The formal reason cited was jurisdictional uncertainty when a controlled area crosses multiple districts, raising questions about which court handles appeals. This ambiguity led to reluctance to verify the average-speed control method. Yet many experts argue the fix is straightforward: designate the territorial jurisdiction at the location of the second camera, since it is the second camera that records the speeding event.
In practice, there were instances of control within the same district, so the question of which court to appeal did not arise. For example, in one region a vanishingly small share of decisions were appealed. A case in the public eye involved a motorist from Smolensk who reached the Supreme Court; officials reportedly canceled the fine, but the case was remanded for review and the court again found the driver at fault. Such cases illustrate the uncertain outcomes that can accompany average-speed enforcement debates.
The Supreme Court has repeatedly stated that if an administrative violation is detected using a technically automated device outfitted for photography, there is no reason to doubt the readings of a metrologically verified speed-measuring instrument that has passed official verification and is approved for use. This guidance emphasizes the reliability of approved devices in automated enforcement scenarios.