The SDA, adopted in 1994, has seen many changes in automotive life since then. Some shifts were reflected in the rules, while others were not, because starting January 1, 2021 it became illegal to tailor traffic rules to dodge unnecessary complexity. Now there is a growing sense that the old text should be updated to fit current realities.
To gauge drivers’ views on this issue, Za Rulem and Avtostat conducted a survey. It showed that 62% of respondents support rewriting the traffic rules, 25% favor targeted point changes, and 13% believe the rules should remain as they are.
Expert opinion
A representative from Avtostat noted that many drivers rarely revisit the Rules of the Road after obtaining driving experience. Years on the road, backed by a large mileage, can instill confidence. Yet the traffic environment keeps getting busier, and parts of the rules may be outdated. It is not surprising that more than 60% of respondents see a need for a comprehensive rewrite.
At the same time, a quarter of respondents advocate for precise, incremental changes. This view emphasizes that a total overhaul may be unnecessary if small, well-timed updates can resolve the main issues. Even so, there is little expectation that many will read a revised text in full. Drivers mainly rely on road signs, markings, and signals, trusting that following them will avert problems on the road.
A former editor-in-chief of a leading automotive publication pointed out that the SDA stands as the most important and central document for drivers. The idea is to streamline official rules so they stay readable and compatible with the broader Code of Administrative Violations. The goal is to reduce clutter and connect rules more clearly to enforcement practices. In their view, a thorough, transparent rewrite should emphasize clarity and practical application for everyday driving.
Historically, the rules suggested that road users could rely on others to follow the rules too. The suggestion is that this principle should return to the rules of the road and public understanding. After a comprehensive review, the introduction of clear provisions for new mobility options could be considered, but a moratorium on ongoing changes might be wise. If the debate centers on the car’s role as a potentially higher risk factor, it is difficult to simplify the entire rules set without losing essential guardrails. The result should be a balanced framework that supports safe driving while remaining realistic for current street life.