9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
For once, the deputies of the State Duma did not officially label themselves on the subject of prohibitions and hardening of everything and anything, which is traditional for
In general, MPs want more fairness and flexibility in administrative sanctions against drivers. So that those called upon to apply the Code of Administrative Violations have the opportunity to take into account, for example, the offender’s lack of intent. So in part 1 of art. 12.1 (“Driving a vehicle that is not properly registered”), in addition to a fine of 500-800 rubles, it is proposed to provide for the issuance of a “warning” to the driver.
For example, he bought a used car, arrived the next day at the traffic police for registration and was fined there. Like, the car (it turns out!) was deregistered from the first owner more than 10 days ago. Therefore, it was impossible to ride it. The new owner is in fact not a conscious violator of the law, it just happened that way. He only deserves a “warning”, but no material punishment.
In addition, the deputies propose that the fine of 500 rubles “for painting” under part 3.1 of art. 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Driving a vehicle in the presence of malfunctions or conditions under which driving is prohibited”), replaced by a “warning”. Because it is believed that window tinting has no real impact on road safety in any way.
It is also proposed that in addition to the fine of 1000 rubles under Art. 12.13 for exiting the intersection “in the event of a traffic jam that forced the driver to stop, creating an obstacle to the movement of vehicles in a transverse direction.” Since, according to parliamentarians, it is not the driver who is responsible for creating traffic jams, but those who are responsible for organizing traffic in a particular place.
Also in part 2 of Art. 12.14 (“U-turn or reversing in places where such maneuvers are prohibited”), according to the deputies, a “warning” should appear in addition to a fine of 500 rubles.
In addition, in the sections of Art. 19/12, regulating fines for improper parking in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the deputies want to reduce the maximum fine from 3,000 rubles to 2,000 rubles. Part 1 of Article 12.25, which threatens the driver with a protocol of 500 rubles for refusing to provide a car to a police officer, is also proposed to be supplemented with a “warning”.
In Article 12.27, which penalizes for leaving the scene of an accident, in the opinion of the deputies, the minimum limit, which determines the period of deprivation of “rights” for such a crime, should be deleted. So that the court could not impose a one-year VU ban on the guilty motorist, subject to extenuating circumstances, but less.
The list of indulgences in the Code of Administrative Offenses submitted to the Government Court is supplemented by Article 12.36. It is dedicated to the “phone while driving”. They want to rephrase it and replace “using” the phone while driving with “having a conversation”. Since the current letter of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the driver is even punished for working with a navigation application on a smartphone.
– The most important principle that we have been guided by when drafting the bill is the limitation of liability for violations that do not directly or indirectly lead to the occurrence of a calamity by the director. Committing the crimes listed in the bill does not threaten the life, health and well-being of other road users,” said Yaroslav Nilov, one of the drafters of the bill, head of the State Duma Committee on Labour, Social Policy and Veterans Affairs.
In general, MPs want more fairness and flexibility in administrative sanctions against drivers. So that those called upon to apply the Code of Administrative Violations have the opportunity to take into account, for example, the offender’s lack of intent. So in part 1 of art. 12.1 (“Driving a vehicle that is not properly registered”), in addition to a fine of 500-800 rubles, it is proposed to provide for the issuance of a “warning” to the driver.
For example, he bought a used car, arrived the next day at the traffic police for registration and was fined there. Like, the car (it turns out!) was deregistered from the first owner more than 10 days ago. Therefore, it was impossible to ride it. The new owner is in fact not a conscious violator of the law, it just happened that way. He only deserves a “warning”, but no material punishment.
In addition, the deputies propose that the fine of 500 rubles “for painting” under part 3.1 of art. 12.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (“Driving a vehicle in the presence of malfunctions or conditions under which driving is prohibited”), replaced by a “warning”. Because it is believed that window tinting has no real impact on road safety in any way.
It is also proposed that in addition to the fine of 1000 rubles under art. 12.13 for exiting the intersection “in the event of a traffic jam that forced the driver to stop, creating an obstacle to the movement of vehicles in a transverse direction.” Since, according to parliamentarians, it is not the driver who is responsible for creating traffic jams, but those who are responsible for organizing traffic in a particular place.
Also in part 2 of Art. 12.14 (“U-turn or reversing in places where such maneuvers are prohibited”), according to the deputies, a “warning” should appear in addition to a fine of 500 rubles.
In addition, in the sections of Art. 19/12, regulating fines for improper parking in Moscow and St. Petersburg, the deputies want to reduce the maximum fine from 3,000 rubles to 2,000 rubles. Part 1 of Article 12.25, which threatens the driver with a protocol of 500 rubles for refusing to provide a car to a police officer, is also proposed to be supplemented with a “warning”.
In Article 12.27, which penalizes for leaving the scene of an accident, in the opinion of the deputies, the minimum limit, which determines the period of deprivation of “rights” for such a crime, should be deleted. So that the court could not impose a one-year VU ban on the guilty motorist, subject to extenuating circumstances, but less.
The list of indulgences in the Code of Administrative Offenses submitted to the Government Court is supplemented by Article 12.36. It is dedicated to the “phone while driving”. They want to rephrase it and replace “using” the phone while driving with “having a conversation”. Since the current letter of the Code of Administrative Offenses, the driver is even punished for working with a navigation application on a smartphone.
– The most important principle that we have been guided by when drafting the bill is the limitation of liability for violations that do not directly or indirectly lead to the occurrence of a calamity by the director. Committing the crimes listed in the bill does not threaten the life, health and well-being of other road users,” said Yaroslav Nilov, one of the drafters of the bill, head of the State Duma Committee on Labour, Social Policy and Veterans Affairs.
Source: Avto Vzglyad
Donald Salinas is an experienced automobile journalist and writer for Div Bracket. He brings his readers the latest news and developments from the world of automobiles, offering a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the latest trends and innovations in the automotive industry.
