The triangle will be placed with an edge – Newspaper Kommersant No. 198 (7399) dated 10/25/2022

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Kommersant found out, will soon check the legality of the rules for using the “Give way” sign at the suit of Andrey Lykov, a lawyer from the Tomsk region. Due to the “legal uncertainty” of the current traffic rules, he is sure, misled drivers can drive through sections of road junction or fork without stopping, which leads to emergency situations. The plaintiff also saw in this fact a contradiction between the SDA and the Vienna Convention on signs and markings. The Ministry of Internal Affairs is confident that the plaintiff misinterprets both documents.

Andrey Lykov, a lawyer from Seversk (Tomsk Region), who applied to the Supreme Court, asks the court to invalidate the paragraph of the traffic rules describing sign 2.4 “Give way” as contrary to Russian and international law. A sign in the form of a white inverted triangle obliges the driver to give way to vehicles moving on an intersecting road or on a main road if there is an appropriate information plate.

Mr. Lykov, in his lawsuit, recalls that the term “crossroads” in the SDA means the place of intersection, junction or branching of roads. From a literal reading of paragraph 2.4 (“The driver must give way to vehicles moving on the crossed road, and if there is a sign 8.13 – on the main one”), Andrey Lykov believes, it follows that the requirement of the “Give way” sign applies only to intersections formed by intersection of roads, but not a junction or fork. This, in turn, the applicant is sure, leads to the risks of an accident. “Let’s say a driver drove up to a junction or a fork, but does not understand whether he must comply with the requirements of the sign or not,” Mr. Lykov explained to Kommersant. Such “legal uncertainty”, the lawyer believes, is contrary to the provisions of the law “On Road Safety”, which guarantees citizens the right to safe driving conditions on the roads.

Mr. Lykov also sees contradictions between the SDA and the Vienna Convention on Road Signs and Signals of 1968 (ratified by the Russian Federation), which states that the sign “Intersection with the main road” is used to indicate an intersection where drivers must give way to vehicles moving on the carriageway the part they are approaching, regardless of what the intersection itself is.

Failure to follow the sequence of intersections, we note, is one of the most common causes of accidents. In the six months of 2022, according to the traffic police, more than 9.1 thousand such accidents occurred, which is 17.2% of their total number. In such accidents, 350 people died, 12.7 thousand people were injured.

Consideration of the claim is scheduled for early November. The Ministry of Internal Affairs did not agree with the plaintiff’s demand and believe that he incorrectly interprets the documents. In their objections (“Kommersant” read the text), the police indicate that the disputed sign belongs to the category of priority signs that establish the order of passage not only at intersections, but also at “crossings of carriageways or narrow sections of the road”, this is stated in the SDA. In all places where the rules mention intersections, it is precisely the “point” where one road intersects with another that is meant, and not the specific way the intersection was formed, as the plaintiff mistakenly assumes. This is what the objection says with reference to the “systemic interpretation” of the rules and GOSTs. Moreover, in a number of traffic rules “crossing” and “junction” of roads are used as synonyms. There is no official definition of a fork, the police acknowledge, but they believe it is also an intersection. In general, according to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there is no “legal uncertainty” in this part of the SDA, they are interpreted unambiguously and do not have contradictions with the laws, including the Vienna Convention on Signs and Markings.

Note that the description of the “Give way” sign in the current edition has not changed since 1993, when the first Russian traffic rules were introduced. A similar wording was used in Soviet traffic rules starting in the 1970s.

“The lawsuit is based on a rather loose interpretation of the contested provisions of the SDA in terms of definitions,” says Serhiy Radko, a lawyer for the “Freedom of Choice” movement. with which he intersects. In addition, it is not clear from the claim which specific rights of the applicant are affected and violated by the contested provisions of the traffic rules.”

The Supreme Court regularly considers allegations of the illegality of certain provisions of the SDA, most often without success for the plaintiff. In 2021, for example, the Supreme Court considered a statement on the legality of the rules for the use of “Photo-video fixation” signs, but found no grounds for changes. In 2022, the terms “pedestrian” and “vehicle” were the subject of the court’s analysis, and nothing illegal was found in them either. The existing rules for crossing intersections were also challenged in the Supreme Court several times, but were found to be legal.

Ivan Buranov