In late March, near Sayanogorsk in Khakassia, a driver of a 68-seater domestic passenger vehicle veered off the highway into a ditch. The pensioner sustained a concussion and a head bruise. Authorities cited the elder driver’s poor health as the official cause, noting that relatives had told traffic police the man had recently seen a cardiologist and had not been cleared to drive.
The traffic police reminded readers that paragraph 2.7 of the road rules prohibits driving in a sick or exhausted state if it endangers road safety.
Yet, there is no penalty specified for breaking this rule. “Suspension of driving in this situation is not provided for by law, among other sanctions”, the Khakassia Ministry of Internal Affairs press service told socialbites.ca.
If there are no signs of poisoning and the inspection results are inconclusive, a traffic police inspector will warn the driver about the danger of driving while fatigued and will suggest taking a rest before continuing to travel to protect road safety. The department emphasized that there is no separate clause in the traffic rules that designates fatigue as a punishable offense.
Old, Morally Obsolete Norms
Traffic rules also point to other violations within the Administrative Offenses Code that lack clear regulatory support. Paragraph 10.1 of the road rules instructs drivers to operate vehicles with awareness of the traffic situation and, if danger appears, to slow down and stop.
That rule is often cited as the most common non-penalty guideline in road behavior.
Viktor Travin, head of the Vehicle Owners’ Legal Protection Board (KPZA), explained this in an interview with socialbites.ca. He cited an incident where a car collided with a parked vehicle or one stopped at a traffic light as an example.
“In that case, paragraph 10.1 is violated, yet there is no penalty, so traffic police sometimes suspend proceedings”, he said.
Meanwhile, Sergei Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice automobile movement, highlights paragraph 2.7 of the rules: “A driver is forbidden from using a phone without a hands-free device while driving.”
This clause was added in 2001 and remains in the road rules. Radko notes that modern phones all include hands-free options, so people can text or browse while keeping the phone in hand would not necessarily create a crime under current interpretations, unless cameras capture actions that indicate a violation.
Radko points out that the situation resembles paragraph 2.3.4, which governs wearing reflective vests during a forced stop outside residential areas at night or in poor visibility. The rules say a driver must wear a reflective vest in such stops, yet the term “forced stop” has been interpreted to cover a range of scenarios including cargo danger, driver or passenger fatigue, or an obstacle on the road.
“But there are also non-essential stops”, Travin notes. “I stopped to use the restroom, visit a market, rest on the roadside, or chat with a friend. It turns out that forced stops require a vest, while ordinary stops do as well. In practice, no one should be punished for these differences.”
The technical regulation of the Customs Union bans using summer tires in winter and winter tires in summer. Radko stated that such tire issues were not registered within the road rules, so there is no penalty under article 12.5 of the Administrative Offenses Code. He adds that those responsible for writing the road rules did not align with the authors of the Administrative Offenses Code, making some provisions inconsistent and prone to misinterpretation. He calls for simplification, as the rules can be confusing and frequently updated.
Archaic Provisions
In the modern edition of the traffic regulations, there are provisions that no longer align with current practice. For example, paragraph 2.1.1 requires a driver to carry a driver’s license or temporary permit. Temporary permits were revoked years ago, and traffic inspectors no longer have the authority to confiscate certificates on the spot.
“This is one of the most notorious makeshift provisions, not mirrored anywhere else in the world,” Travin remarks.
The Ministry of Internal Affairs order on the production, storage, and issuance of temporary permits is no longer in force, yet it remains reflected in the rules, Travin adds.
Paragraph 3.1 allows drivers of vehicles with blue flashing lights and a special sound signal to violate traffic rules. Yet escort vehicles without flashing lights also benefit from certain preferences, complicating how others perceive the flow of traffic.
“But how do we tell all other drivers that an escort vehicle must be given priority? The solution seems to be turning on dipped headlights. The general requirement to use low beams was introduced in chapter 19 of the road rules many years ago”, the discussion continues.
When a line of vehicles follows a police car, identifying the escorted vehicle becomes tricky. Sergey Radko argues that outdated provisions also include the obligation to carry a driver’s license and car documents. All documents should be converted to electronic form for easy verification, perhaps through an inspector’s electronic checks of technical inspection and OSAGO policy, so carrying hard copies becomes unnecessary. He observes that the absence of paper documents used to carry penalties, but this is not the core security issue.
Notes from this discussion indicate ongoing concerns with outdated norms and calls for reform to better align the rules with modern technology and practical road safety needs. The aim is to maintain safety while simplifying and updating the regulation to reflect current driving habits and enforcement capabilities. (Attribution: KPZA and legal advocates cited in interviews.)
Related posts:
No Need for Bullying: Controversy Over Shock Tactics by Traffic Police Lidar Vs Cameras For Self Driving Cars Roundabout Rule Updates: Clarity, Priority, and Mobility Tools Rewritten article on Russian traffic penalties and detention practices {“rewritten_html”:”The conversation around the so called PiS Law has sparked heated debate across social media and political commentary, drawing attention to how legal interpretations can be presented and contested in public. Key figures from the Law and Justice party have weighed in, pointing to a controversial interpretation of regulations governing public media that emerged during a period of substantial political change. Supporters on one side describe the referenced rules as having a unique status that resists universal application, while critics insist that such claims undermine the rule of law and create a dangerous precedent for how legislation is understood and enforced. The discussion centers on whether these rules possess binding force or are merely aspirational guidelines that do not bind authorities in all circumstances. The debate touches on legal philosophy, constitutional norms, and the practical implications for media oversight, public accountability, and democratic norms. One prominent voice asserted that the law in question is effectively the property of a specific political movement, suggesting that no other legal framework governs the matter in the same way, and that historical context matters when interpreting current provisions. This stance, voiced through a social media platform, quickly became a focal point for supporters and critics alike who assess the implications for governance and the balance between political power and legal constraint.nnThe exchange illustrates a broader pattern in which interpretations of the statute are framed as essential truths about the nature of law in the contemporary political landscape. Proponents argue that the cited regulations are not a universal code but rather a situational construct that reflects the choices and priorities of those who drafted them. Critics counter that attempting to reframe such rules as non-applicable or non-binding undermines the consistency of legal order and erodes confidence in public institutions. The tension between these viewpoints highlights important questions about how laws are created, interpreted, and applied, especially when political actors on different sides of the aisle contest the scope and binding character of the same regulations.nnIn these discussions, the rhetoric sometimes veers toward absolutist statements that equate authority with inevitability, a move critics warn against because it risks normalizing a stance in which legal norms can be selectively acknowledged or ignored. The dialogue raises concerns about retroactivity, enforcement, and the practical consequences for media regulation and public discourse. When officials and experts publicly dispute the reach of the provisions, observers watch closely to see how the rule of law is preserved or challenged in real time, and what this means for trust in institutions tasked with safeguarding the integrity of information flow and accountability in government actions.nnThere is also a broader media literacy angle in play. The public is invited to examine how legal concepts are explained and who benefits from particular framings. Critics of the narrative point out that sensational pronouncements can polarize audiences and obscure nuanced legal analysis. Advocates urge readers to consider the historical and institutional context behind regulatory frameworks, recognizing that the interpretation of law often depends on the perspectives and incentives of the stakeholders involved. The ongoing discourse thus becomes more than a dispute about one specific rule; it is a discussion about how societies balance freedom of expression, media responsibility, and the need for clear, stable legal standards in a democratic system.n”} Roadside Conflicts and Traffic Safety Amid Violent Interventions Traffic Violations by Zagitova and Other Athletes: A Five-Year Review Intersections, signals, and stopping rules: a clarified guide on red lights and cross-traffic Rebranding of Traffic Enforcement: Aligning Names, Symbols, and Public Perception {“title”:”Expanded overview of Russian traffic penalty procedures and rights explanations”} Dibrov’s Road Incidents Through the Years: A Balanced Look at Public Life and Safety The Worth Tag For Autonomous Trucks Nonetheless Unclear