Strengthening Road Safety Evidence: Mandatory Cameras Data and the Challenge of Photo Availability

Recall that the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation is planning to strengthen the evidence basis for criminal orders issued via road cameras. A new GOST is being drafted that would shift from advisory to mandatory, expanding the framework for traffic regulation evidence. It is anticipated that for a range of violations (the cameras are projected to capture up to 21 different offenses), more than one photo or video segment will be required. The system will also need to identify reversed license plates, ensuring accurate vehicle identification even when plates are briefly obscured or misoriented. The Association of Manufacturers and Operators of Photographic Recording Systems has labeled the new requirements as evidently redundant, arguing that many cameras will struggle to operate effectively under the stricter conditions. Meanwhile, drivers report an increase in fines issued without accompanying photos, which would otherwise help verify that the car shown in the image is indeed the one connected to the infraction. This concern was highlighted by Maxim Kadakov, editor-in-chief of the automotive publication Behind the Wheel, the oldest and most popular magazine in Russia. He notes that fines are sometimes issued without sufficient proof, a problem that can only be resolved if a photo is available for review. In some cases, incorrect fines can be challenged only when visual evidence exists, something Kadakov has previously discussed. Maxim Kadakov explains that there is a growing trend of receiving a notification without a photo. This makes it extremely difficult to recall the exact location and time of a potential violation from a month earlier, as well as whether the driver’s vehicle was involved. He emphasizes the 10-day window to appeal and the need to request the actual photos from traffic authorities to verify the case, which often takes time to obtain. There have been unusual scenarios where a person pays a fine for a supposed debt, then attempts to contest it without any photographic record to substantiate the claim. In some instances, images are reportedly deleted once a fine is settled. The sheer volume of data means that photos may not be retained long enough for retrieval, creating a gap in verifiable evidence. The central requirement remains that evidence must be comprehensive and leave no doubt for motorists, traffic inspectors, or judges should a case progress to court. Clear, indisputable proof is essential to determine guilt or innocence in traffic-related matters.