Dangerous driving: The Supreme Court clarified the rules of overtaking
Entering the oncoming lane for overtaking, which started in an authorized place, but ended where it is prohibited by road signs or markings, is a traffic violation. This was confirmed by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Lawyers and experts agree with this position, but they believe that such situations should be dealt with very carefully, since the possibility of being forced into oncoming traffic is not excluded. The details are in the Izvestia article.
Not for the first time
In February last year, in the Yaroslavl region, the driver of a car was stopped by traffic police officers for violating overtaking rules. Since earlier (in March 2023) he had already been held accountable for a similar traffic violation and was fined 5,000 rubles, a protocol was drawn up against him under Part 5 of Article 12.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation "Repeated departure in violation of traffic rules into a lane intended for oncoming traffic." As a result, the magistrate's court deprived him of his rights for a year.
The motorist challenged the decision in the Palekhsky District Court of the Ivanovo region, and then in the Second Court of Cassation of General Jurisdiction. The driver indicated that he had started overtaking in a place where it was allowed by signs and markings. However, the courts did not agree with his arguments and upheld the decision of the justice of the peace. As a result, the driver filed a complaint with the Supreme Court (Supreme Court of the Russian Federation).
Start and finish
Having considered the case materials and the arguments set out in the complaint, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation also found no legal grounds for its satisfaction. In its ruling, the court referred to the ruling of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation dated January 18, 2011, according to which "the presence in the actions of the driver of signs of the objective side of the composition of this administrative offense does not depend on the moment at which the vehicle was located on the side of the road intended for oncoming traffic in violation of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation." Federation". Thus, the driver's arguments that he started overtaking in the permitted place in this case do not affect the qualification of the act he committed, the judge noted.
"The fact of completion by Ifanov (last name changed. — Izvestia) the maneuver of overtaking in the lane intended for oncoming traffic in the area of the 3.20 road sign ("Overtaking is prohibited") was established by the totality of the evidence presented in the case, and therefore Ifanov's actions are qualified under Part 5 of Article 12.15 of the Administrative Code of the Russian Federation in accordance with the established circumstances, the norms of the specified Code and the provisions of the Rules of the Road of the Russian Federation," it says. in the decision of the Supreme Court.
As a result, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to satisfy the driver's complaint and decided to uphold the decisions of the lower courts.
I'm not sure — don't overtake!
By its decision, the Supreme Court once again confirmed the existing practice, according to which overtaking started in a permitted place but completed in a prohibited place is considered a traffic violation, said Sergey Radko, a lawyer for the Freedom of Choice movement.
"In this case, the punishment is imposed on the driver not for overtaking, but for the fact that the vehicle is under his control in the oncoming lane in an area where it is prohibited by road signs or markings," the lawyer explained.
Sergey Radko reminded that according to the traffic regulations, before starting any maneuver, the driver must make sure that its execution does not create danger and interference to other road users. And in the case of overtaking, the motorist is additionally "obliged to make sure that the lane he is about to enter is free at a sufficient distance for overtaking." At the same time, such a maneuver is prohibited by traffic regulations if, upon its completion, the motorist cannot return to the previously occupied lane without endangering traffic and interfering with the overtaking vehicle, the lawyer stressed.
— In this situation, the driver was not convinced either of the safety of his maneuver, or that the length of the road section where overtaking is allowed is sufficient for him to return to his lane in a timely manner. It was for this that the motorist was punished, according to the Administrative Code," Sergei Radko believes.
Everything happens on the road...
The Supreme Court is certainly right to confirm the ban on overtaking in the wrong place, said Valery Soldunov, a member of the Public Chamber and chairman of the All-Russian Society of Motorists. However, decisions on similar cases cannot be replicated "carbon copy", courts need to study the circumstances of such cases as thoroughly and comprehensively as possible, he is sure.
— Of course, before overtaking, the driver must make sure that this maneuver will be safe for him and others. However, some force majeure situations are possible on the road, which cannot be foreseen, forcing the motorist to drive into the oncoming lane or complete overtaking where it is prohibited. Such situations are rare, maybe one case in a thousand, but they are not completely excluded. And these circumstances must necessarily be taken into account by the judges when making a decision," Valery Soldunov told Izvestia.
The courts are obliged to consider absolutely any case, including violations of overtaking rules, objectively and comprehensively, recalled Igor Morzharetto, a member of the Presidium of the Public Council under the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation. However, this does not always work out in practice, he notes.
— Judges are very busy — often they just physically do not have time to thoroughly understand the essence of the issue and evaluate it from all sides, — the expert emphasizes.
In conditions of extreme necessity
In case of any unexpected events, from which no one is insured on the road, Article 2.7 of the Administrative Code provides for the concept of "extreme necessity", which frees a person from administrative responsibility, recalls Sergey Radko. However, this requires strong arguments and evidence, he emphasizes.
— In the case of overtaking in a prohibited place, such a force majeure event may be an obstacle that suddenly appeared in the lane where the driver was supposed to return, which prevented him from completing the maneuver in the permitted area. For example, a moose came out onto the road, and a deep pit was discovered, which could not have been seen in advance because of the car being overtaken. In such a situation, it is quite possible to say that the driver, who directly returned to his lane, acted in conditions of extreme necessity," the lawyer noted.
However, the probability of such a development is extremely low, emphasizes Sergey Radko. And in order to avoid punishment in such a situation, the motorist will need to present strong arguments in court, he is sure.
— It will not be enough to simply say: "An animal ran out onto the road, so I had to drive into the oncoming lane or finish overtaking in a prohibited place." At a minimum, it will be necessary to provide a record of the registrar, which shows the development of the situation, and ask for testimony from witnesses — passengers or other drivers," the lawyer noted.
Переведено сервисом «Яндекс Переводчик»
