Photo and video recording has become one of the most regulated sectors of the economy today. In Russia, there are already more than 20 legal standards governing the use of photo and video recording tools. Among them are:
- the current methodology for placing photo and video recording complexes, developed by the Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Management in 2019;
- GOST R 57144 “Technical means operating in automatic mode and with the functions of photography and filming, video recording, for the resolution of administrative violations. General technical requirements”;
- GOST R 57145 “Technical means operating in automatic mode and with the functions of photography and filming, video recording, for solving administrative violations. Rules of application.”
Alongside other legal standards, such as Federal Law-196 “On Road Safety,” Federal Law-257 “On Automobile Roads and Road Activities in the Russian Federation,” the National Project “Safe High-Quality Roads,” the Industry Road Methodological Document (ODM 218.6.015-2015). Recommendations for the registration and analysis of traffic accidents on the roads of the Russian Federation, Methodological document for industrial roads (ODM 218.4.004-2009). Guidelines for eliminating and preventing high-concentration accident zones during highway operation, and many others.
They impose numerous requirements on the operation of photo and video shooting complexes—from the description of mandatory placement conditions on roads and permitted installation sites to the accuracy and range of measurements, as well as the rules governing traffic violations, etc.
Yet there is still no unified order for installing cameras on roads. What is the obstacle?
Andrey Moiseev, Associate Professor of the Civil Law Department at PRUE Plekhanov, said:
– The most important of these standards, namely the GOSTs and the methodology, are advisory in nature and not binding, and in several Russian regions they are simply ignored. In contrast, a number of advanced regions have made use of these guidelines effectively by decision of the transport authorities. Those regions show the greatest reductions in traffic accidents and fatalities. Legislators respond to this imbalance by introducing new bills.
The gap is understandable. The current legislation calls for modernization. The primary aim of regulation should be to protect the lives of all road users. This means updating the methodology for placing photo and video shooting complexes, modernizing state standards, and making compliance with these standards mandatory nationwide. Traffic police should be granted the authority to overturn erroneous fine decisions without driver appeals—this would reduce most disputes. To keep regulations in touch with reality, there must be direct collaboration between regulators and regional transport authorities, traffic police, driver communities, manufacturers and operators of these systems, and legal counsel.
Instead, lawmakers push to create new standards (drafting a new Administrative Offences Code and uniform federal requirements for photo and video recording, amendments to highway and road safety laws). The State Duma Committee on Transport and Transport Infrastructure has revisited its 2018 bill. That document contains ambiguous provisions—such as a rejection of preventive measures to reduce accidents and the requirement for road safety audits by organizations not yet established in the country.
In the current climate, such moves by lawmakers risk complicating the situation. Regulation of photo and video recording is at risk of fragmentation. Without coordinated development, new standards may repeat, contradict, or diverge from common sense, potentially lowering road safety across the nation.
It is essential that the regulatory framework works. This requires a single, integrated approach to harmonize the legislative efforts of all departments drafting new legal standards for photo and video recording of traffic violations.
Perhaps the creation of a centralized center of expertise could help consolidate legislative initiatives. The critical point is coordination of the development of legal documents, regardless of which authority or department houses the center—avoiding conflicting provisions is crucial.