The cabinet plans to lift the moratorium on changes to traffic regulations. The initiative grew from concerns about supervising the movement of personal mobility devices such as scooters, unicycles, and gyro scooters. The Ministry of Transport of Russia has prepared design changes to the traffic rules for electric scooter riding. The package also includes other innovations, notably new road signs, revised parking rules, and additional measures. According to the Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management, the document is under cabinet review. Source: Ministry of Transport, Public Works, and Water Management.
Changes to the traffic rules are expected to bring adjustments to the Code of Administrative Violations and the penalties faced by drivers. In particular, the idea of a penalty tied to average speed has drawn attention. In August, a provincial newspaper noted that the traffic rules may introduce a method for determining average speed and that the Code of Administrative Offenses could include fines tied to exceeding such averages. Source: provincial newspaper report cited by the Ministry of Transport.
Why might a fine based on average speed not appear in Russia, or why could it be difficult to implement? Much comes down to terminology. An expert weighs in. Source: legal expert commentary published by a regional law firm.
Andrey Moiseev, a lawyer, explains that an average speed fine is a misnomer. There is no separate penalty for violating average speed. The violation remains simply exceeding the established speed limit. The technology used to detect average speed is one method of measuring speed, not a distinct offense. Article 12.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses defines the offense as exceeding the established speed, and the accompanying punishment stands as the consequence. In other words, average speed is a measurement method, not a separate offense. Source: Moiseev’s legal analysis published for practitioners.
Drivers can relate to a simple comparison: if a seat belt is not fastened, a driver might receive a ticket for the violation regardless of whether a traffic officer stops them or a camera captures it. The penalty remains one fine for the single offense of not wearing a seat belt. The same logic applies to average speed. The offense is still speeding, and the means of detection do not create an additional, separate penalty. This is the essence of how speed violations are treated under current law. Source: comparison used in legal summaries.
Currently, speed limits on highways are established according to Section 10 of the Traffic Rules. The rule states that a driver must obey the speed limit. The concept of medium speed sections implies a single maximum allowable speed in a long stretch without the option of an alternate route. This standard is straightforward and transparent. The legal framework for long stretches with zone-based speed measurement is established by a government decree, specifically the November 16, 2020 No. 1847, which approves the list of measurements related to state regulation to ensure uniformity of measurements. Source: Government decree No. 1847, November 16, 2020.
On the technical side, the use of medium-speed photo and video fixing systems is described in the state standard GOST 57144-2016. This standard covers automatic monitoring systems equipped with photographic and recording capabilities to enforce traffic rules. It defines the term average speed and confirms that such systems can measure it. In short, the concept of average speed already exists within legal documents, but it is simply one method of detecting violations, not a new sanction. From a driver’s perspective, this method can be more forgiving. If a slight overrun occurs while passing a controlled section or to avoid a collision, reducing speed for the remainder of the route can offset the excess. An instantaneous speed camera, however, does not allow for such adjustment. Source: GOST 57144-2016 overview and practice notes.
The key takeaway is that speeding fines align with existing legislation, and there are no legislative barriers to issuing them. The core question becomes how to challenge such fines. Should the challenge reference the first or the second camera, or something else? The next article explores those possibilities further. Source: legal analysis preview.