Comments on the definitions of such special road sections as intersection, adjacent territory, populated area, pedestrian crossing, railway crossing and highway.

Judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation V.P. Merkulov,

having considered the complaint of Gizatullin R.Sh. on the decision of the traffic police inspector of company No. 6 of the traffic police regiment of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia for the city of Samara dated April 9, 2015 N ..., the decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky district court of Samara dated June 8, 2015, the decision of the judge of the Samara regional court, which entered into legal force court dated August 13, 2015 and the decision of the Deputy Chairman of the Samara Regional Court dated December 23, 2015, issued in relation to Gizatullin R.Sh. in the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, established:

by the decision of the traffic police inspector of company No. 6 of the traffic police regiment of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for the city of Samara dated April 9, 2015 N ..., left unchanged by the decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Samara dated June 8, 2015, the decision of the judge of the Samara Regional Court dated August 13, 2015 and by the decision of the Deputy Chairman of the Samara Regional Court dated December 23, 2015, Gizatullin R.Sh. found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and was subjected to administrative punishment in the form of an administrative fine in the amount of 500 rubles.

In a complaint filed with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, Gizatullin R.Sh. asks to cancel the decision of the official and the judicial acts taken against him in this case of an administrative offense, considering them illegal.

The second participant in the traffic accident, Shipilov I.N., was notified in accordance with the requirements of Part 2 of Article 30.15 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses about Gizatullin R.Sh. complaints against the above acts, did not submit any objections to this complaint within the established period.

Having studied the materials of the administrative offense case and the arguments of the applicant’s complaint, I come to the following conclusions.

In accordance with Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, failure to comply with the requirement of the Traffic Rules to give way to a vehicle enjoying the priority right of movement, with the exception of cases provided for in Part 2 of Article 12.13 and Article 12.17 of this Code, entails a warning or the imposition of an administrative fine in in the amount of five hundred rubles.

As can be seen from the materials of the administrative violation case, on April 9, 2015 at 8:45 a.m., driver Gizatullin R.Sh., driving a car "...", state registration plate..., in the area of ​​16 on the street. Chelyuskintsev in Samara, in violation of paragraph 8.3 of the Traffic Rules, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation of October 23, 1993 N 1090 (hereinafter referred to as the Traffic Rules), did not comply with the requirement established by this norm to give way to a vehicle ".. .", state registration plate..., under the control of Shipilov I.N., enjoying the priority right of movement.

These circumstances served as the basis for attracting Gizatullin R.Sh. to administrative liability provided for in Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences.

It is impossible to agree with the official decision and judicial acts in the case for the following reasons.

The objectives of proceedings in cases of administrative offenses are a comprehensive, complete, objective and timely clarification of the circumstances of each case, its resolution in accordance with the law, ensuring the execution of the issued decision, as well as identifying the causes and conditions that contributed to the commission of administrative offenses (Article 24.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on administrative offenses).

In accordance with Article 26.1 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, among other circumstances in a case of an administrative offense, the following are subject to clarification: a person who has committed unlawful actions (inaction), for which the said Code or the law of a subject of the Russian Federation provides for administrative liability, as well as the guilt of the person in committing an administrative offense.

Establishing guilt involves proving a person’s guilt in committing an unlawful action (inaction), that is, the objective side of the act.

According to clause 8.3 of the Traffic Rules, the violation of which was charged to Gizatullin R.Sh., when entering the road from the adjacent territory, the driver must give way to vehicles and pedestrians moving along it, and when leaving the road - to pedestrians and cyclists whose movement path he crosses.

By virtue of clause 1.2 of the Traffic Rules, giving way (not creating interference) is a requirement meaning that a road user should not start, resume or continue moving, or carry out any maneuver if this may force other road users who have advantage, change direction or speed.

Advantage (priority) is the right to priority movement in the intended direction in relation to other road users.

Recognizing Gizatullin R.Sh. guilty under Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the official and the courts proceeded from the fact that he had violated the requirement of the above paragraph 8.3 of the Traffic Rules. Namely, while driving a vehicle "...", Gizatullin R.Sh. followed in Samara along the courtyard passage, upon exiting from which (from the adjacent territory) onto the street. Chelyuskintsev did not give way to the car “...” moving along it, driven by I.N. Shipilov, who had the right of way.

At the same time, during the proceedings in the case Gizatullin R.Sh. and his defenders, having filed a complaint against the decision in the case of an administrative offense, challenged his guilt in committing this administrative offense, stating that failure to comply with paragraph 8.3 of the Traffic Rules was imputed to Gizatullin R.Sh. unlawful, since Shipilov I.N. had no advantage over him in movement.

In support of this argument, it was stated that Gizatullin I.Sh. went to the street Chelyuskintsev not from the adjacent territory, but from Stakhanovsky Ave., which is equivalent to the street. Chelyuskintsev is expensive, and the unregulated T-shaped intersection that they form is a crossroads of equivalent roads.

Similar arguments were presented by I.Sh. Gizatullin. in this complaint.

These arguments and circumstances referred to by these persons, as part of the consideration of complaints against the decision in the case of an administrative offense, were not refuted by objective data, but, on the contrary, contrary to the judgment of the courts, are confirmed in the case materials.

In accordance with paragraph 1.2 of the Traffic Rules, an intersection is recognized as a place where roads cross, join or branch at the same level, bounded by imaginary lines connecting respectively the opposite, most distant from the center of the intersection, beginnings of curvatures of roadways. Exits from adjacent areas are not considered intersections.

According to the same norm, the adjacent territory is the territory directly adjacent to the road and not intended for through traffic of vehicles (yards, residential areas, parking lots, gas stations, enterprises, etc.).

Gizatullin R.Sh., as well as his defenders, stated and confirmed by the case materials that Stakhanovsky Ave., from which he went to the street. Chelyuskintsev, is not a courtyard passage, it is included in the register of names of address units, approved by Decree of the Administration of the Samara Urban District of November 21, 2014 N 1716, indicated on the map of the city of Samara, posted on the Internet on the Municipal geoportal of Samara (map.samadm. ru), and on the Yandex map (ld. 70, 133-134).

In addition, the specified passage has an asphalt surface, as well as the street. Chelyuskintsev, through it it is possible to carry out through traffic of vehicles, it is equipped with two pedestrian crossings, which is confirmed by the video recording examined at the court hearing, and this is also evidenced by the publicly available information from the relevant maps.

Thus, the passage from which Gizatullin R.Sh. went to the street Chelyuskintsev, intended for through traffic of vehicles, does not meet the characteristics of the adjacent territory specified in paragraph 1.2 of the Traffic Rules and is not such.

As follows from the case materials, including the diagram and photographs of the scene of the traffic accident, as well as from the explanations of Gizatullin R.Sh. and the testimony of the traffic police official Shestakov D.V., at the intersection of st. Chelyuskintsev and Stakhanovsky Ave. no priority signs have been established (case sheets 6, 9, 24-25).

Taking into account the above, there is no reason to believe that Gizatullin R.Sh. the provisions of paragraph 8.3 of the Traffic Rules were violated.

Under such circumstances, the conclusion of the official and the courts about the presence in the actions of Gizatullin R.Sh. the objective side of the administrative offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses is unfounded.

By virtue of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 24.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, proceedings in a case of an administrative offense cannot be started, and the started proceedings are subject to termination in the absence of an administrative offense.

In accordance with paragraph 4 of part 2 of Article 30.17 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses, based on the results of consideration of a complaint, protest against a decision in a case of an administrative offense that has entered into legal force, decisions based on the results of consideration of complaints, protests, a decision is made to cancel the decision in a case of an administrative offense , decisions based on the results of consideration of a complaint, protest and on termination of proceedings in the case in the presence of at least one of the circumstances provided for in Articles 2.9, 24.5 of the said Code, as well as in the absence of proof of the circumstances on the basis of which the specified resolution or decision was made.

Under such circumstances, the decision of the traffic police inspector of company No. 6 of the traffic police regiment of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for the city of Samara dated April 9, 2015 N ..., the decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Samara dated June 8, 2015, the decision of the judge of the Samara Regional Court dated August 13, 2015 and the decision of the Deputy Chairman of the Samara Regional Court dated December 23, 2015, issued in relation to Gizatullin R.Sh. in the case of an administrative offense provided for by Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, are subject to cancellation, and the proceedings in this case are subject to termination on the basis of paragraph 2 of Part 1 of Article 24.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses due to the lack of corpus delicti of an administrative offence.

Based on the above, guided by Articles 30.13 and 30.17 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, the judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation ruled:

complaint of Gizatullin R.Sh. to satisfy.

Resolution of the traffic police inspector of company No. 6 of the traffic police regiment of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate of the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs for the city of Samara dated April 9, 2015 N ..., decision of the judge of the Oktyabrsky District Court of Samara dated June 8, 2015, decision of the judge of the Samara Regional Court dated August 13, 2015 and the resolution of the Deputy Chairman of the Samara Regional Court dated December 23, 2015, issued in relation to Gizatullin R.Sh. in the case of an administrative offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 12.14 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences, cancel.

The proceedings in the case of an administrative offense are terminated on the basis of paragraph 2 of part 1 of Article 24.5 of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences.

Document overview

The driver was fined for failing to give way to a car taking advantage of the right of way.

However, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation decided that the elements of this offense were missing.

According to the Traffic Rules, when entering the road from the adjacent territory (including from courtyards), the driver must give way to vehicles and pedestrians moving along it.

Meanwhile, the passage from which the driver entered the street is not a courtyard. It is included in the register of names of address units, approved by a resolution of the city district administration, and is indicated on the city map posted on the municipal geoportal and on Yandex.Maps.

In addition, this passage is paved (like the street the driver was driving onto), through traffic of vehicles is possible along it, and it is equipped with two pedestrian crossings.

Thus, this passage is not adjacent territory.

There are no priority signs installed at the corresponding intersection.

Signs and markings that are familiar to us can have a completely different meaning when they are placed in a parking lot at a hypermarket or in a residential yard. Let's figure out where a driver can expect trouble from the traffic police.

What do the Rules say?

It must be said that in the traffic rules the terminology regarding courtyards and parking lots is very confusing. A driving instructor and teacher of theoretical disciplines with many years of experience, Yuri Kutykov, helped us figure it out.

There is no definition of residential zones in the traffic rules. There is a definition of the adjacent territory, which literally looks like this: “The territory directly adjacent to the road and not intended for through traffic of vehicles (yards, residential areas, parking lots, gas stations, enterprises, etc.). Movement in the adjacent territory is carried out in accordance with these Rules."

At the same time, there is also section 17 of the traffic rules, which is responsible for traffic rules in residential areas. That is, there are no rules for driving in adjacent territories (which are defined), but there are rules for driving in residential areas, but there is no definition of them. There are a few more legal inconsistencies, but we won’t bother you with them. Already confused? Don't worry about it.

In this case, it is important for the driver to know that...

• The adjacent territory begins where the road ends and should not be marked with any signs. There is a “Residential Area” sign, but it is used very rarely and its absence does not exempt you from the need to comply with special rules.

• A residential yard, an industrial yard, a parking lot, a gas station - this, from the point of view of traffic rules, is the same thing. The rules for driving on them are the same.

Here is this simple list.

• Speed ​​no more than 20 km/h (10.2 traffic rules).
• Pedestrians always need to give way, even if they are not walking on the sidewalk, but on the roadway (17.1 Traffic Rules). Pedestrians, of course, should not create unreasonable interference, but if you hit someone by accident or on purpose, it will be extremely difficult to prove that the interference was unreasonable. So just yield to pedestrians. Always.
• You can't teach driving. Yes, yes, that’s exactly what the traffic rules say. Instructors who teach people in a parking lot are de jure breaking the law.
• You cannot stand with the engine running for more than five minutes (this is the period during which a stop turns into a parking lot). The norm doesn’t work, no one will fine you for it, but just know: if you clear snow in the morning while warming up the engine, by law you are required to do it in five minutes.
• Trucks and buses weighing more than 3.5 tons cannot be parked, unless the parking lot is specialized. If you are annoyed with your neighbor who is always blocking the passage with his “lawn”, feel free to complain about him to the local police officer.
• When leaving the adjacent territory, you must give way. It is important to understand that everyone must yield, including cyclists. Be careful: two-wheelers tend to move from the right edge of the road and appear suddenly. If you knock him down, you'll be at fault.

Let's now look at some typical cases

What will be the cost of driving under the “brick”?

“No Entry” signs, or “brick” in everyday speech, abundantly decorate parking lots and gas stations. It is curious that traffic police squads are often on duty near them in secluded places and inspectors threaten to take away your license. In fact, this is pure scam.

The real sanctions are:

• a fine of 500 rubles if you drive under a “brick” when entering or exiting the adjacent territory. Clause 12.16.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses “Failure to comply with the requirements prescribed by road signs or road markings” applies here. When a sign is located on the border of the adjacent territory and the roadway, then it refers specifically to the road, and not to the yard. This means that it cannot be neglected;
• the fine is 0 rubles (that is, no punishment) if you drive under a “brick” in a parking lot. All signs that parking lot owners post to regulate traffic are informational. You may or may not follow them.

Why is it impossible to lose your rights for this? After all, when we enter a gas station under a “brick,” we are formally in the oncoming lane, along which people drive out onto the road from there. Why only a fine? But because Article 12.15 of the Code regulates driving into the oncoming lane of the road. The adjacent part is not expensive, from a legal point of view.

Is it possible to drive across the parking lot across the marking lines?

Can my license be revoked for driving drunk in the yard?

Yes they can. Article 12.28 of the Code of Administrative Offenses talks about driving a vehicle while intoxicated. They can punish you for it anywhere: on the road, in the yard and in the parking lot.

What happens if you park a car in a disabled space?

• A fine of 3,000 - 5,000 rubles if places for disabled people are marked with appropriate markings and a sign on a white background. Duplicate signs are needed to ensure that places are visible, even if the markings are covered with snow.
• The fine is 0 rubles (no punishment) if places for disabled people are marked only with markings, without signs.

It is important that the disabled person's car is equipped with the appropriate yellow sticker. Without it, the driver formally does not have the right to stand in the appropriate places, even if he actually has limited capabilities.

Who will be to blame for an accident if one car drives into the side of another in a parking lot?

The one on the left will be right. However, this rule is from the unwritten category. The practice is that all passages in a parking lot are considered equal, even if one of them is wider than the other. By definition, there cannot be priority signs in a parking lot, so you have to rely on clause 13.11 of the traffic rules, although it talks about equivalent road intersections. There are no rules regulating the order of travel in the adjacent territory. This can be considered a gap in Russian legislation.

Path in gardening - a road or an adjacent area?

As the lawyers of the Legal Support Center explained to us, everything here depends on the status of the land. When an accident occurs in gardening, the traffic police requests documents from the gardening administration and the municipal administration. If the road, according to the charter, belongs to gardeners, then it is an adjacent territory, and if it belongs to the municipality, it is a public road.

Always carry a thin book “Road Rules” with you or download the electronic version to your smartphone. If you have any doubts about driving in yards and parking lots, you can always open our publication and refresh your memory.
You can seek free legal advice on controversial issues of traffic rules (and not only) directly at.

Page 1 of 6

Due to the constantly arising questions regarding the application of Article 12.15.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the manic reluctance to use the search, I am pinning this topic.
Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated October 24, 2006 N 18, Moscow On some issues that arise for courts when applying the Special Part of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offences.
12. Part 3 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation should qualify actions directly prohibited by traffic regulations that involve driving onto the side of the roadway intended for oncoming traffic.

The traffic rules directly establish such a ban in the following cases:
a) on two-way roads with four or more lanes, it is prohibited to drive out to overtake, make a U-turn, or turn to the side of the road intended for oncoming traffic (Section 9.2 of the Traffic Regulations). Such a prohibition must be indicated by road markings 1.3;

Violation by drivers of the requirements of road signs or markings, which resulted in driving onto the side of the roadway intended for oncoming traffic, should also be qualified under Part 3 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since this norm is special in relation to Article 12.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Such situations may arise, for example, when driving on a road with one lane for each direction as a result of violation of the requirements of road signs: 3.20 “Overtaking is prohibited”, 3.22 “Overtaking by trucks is prohibited”, 5.11 “Road with a lane for route vehicles”, as well as road markings 1.1. Violation by the driver of the requirements of road sign 3.1 “Entry prohibited”, resulting in driving in the opposite direction on a road intended for one-way traffic, also constitutes an administrative offense provided for in Part 3 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

After the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 18 with an explanation regarding the application of Part 3 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and the adoption of a new version of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses, controversial issues regarding the interpretation by traffic police officers, such driver violations as driving into oncoming traffic became significantly less - turning around, turning left , going around an obstacle, as well as driving onto the tram tracks of the oncoming direction, is no longer considered “driving into the lane of oncoming traffic” with the resulting deprivation of rights. For this, clause 3 of Article 12.5 provides for punishment in the form of a fine of 1000 to 1500 rubles.
Nevertheless, sometimes the traffic police manages to arbitrarily interpret the spirit and letter of the law, so let’s figure out what constitutes “driving into oncoming traffic” and is subject to deprivation of rights, paragraph 4 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses - “Driving in violation of the Traffic Rules to the side of the road intended for oncoming traffic, except for the cases provided for in paragraph 3 of this article, entails deprivation of the right to drive vehicles for a period of four to six months.”

Resolution of the Plenum of the Armed Forces No. 18 of October 24, 2006, by the way, which is also mandatory for the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate, provides an exhaustive list of traffic rules, the violation of which is qualified under Part 4 of Article 12.15 of the Code:
a) on two-way roads with four or more lanes, it is prohibited to drive out to overtake, make a U-turn, or turn to the side of the road intended for oncoming traffic (Section 9.2 of the Traffic Regulations). Such a prohibition must be indicated by road markings 1.3 (double solid line);
(based on this point, you can safely say: no markings - no punishment according to 12.15 part 4)

b) on two-way roads with three lanes marked with markings, the middle of which is used for traffic in both directions, it is prohibited to drive into the leftmost lane intended for oncoming traffic (clause 9.3 of the traffic rules);
(It’s true, there are no three lanes without markings, but since the markings are intermittent, you can turn and turn around, but you cannot move along them - Article 12.15, paragraph 4)

c) overtaking is prohibited at signalized intersections with entry into oncoming traffic, as well as at uncontrolled intersections when driving on a road that is not the main one, with the exception of overtaking at roundabouts, overtaking two-wheeled vehicles without a side trailer and permitted overtaking on the right (paragraph second paragraph 11.5 of the traffic rules). Overtaking is also prohibited at the end of a rise and on other sections of roads with limited visibility when entering the lane of oncoming traffic (paragraph six of clause 11.5 of the traffic rules);
(The concept of “limited visibility” is quite extensive - see Visibility limitation, according to which at the end of the climb, and on sections of roads with limited visibility, there must be corresponding signs);

d) it is prohibited to drive around vehicles standing in front of a railway crossing into oncoming traffic (paragraph eight of clause 15.3 of the traffic rules);
(Under points a, b, c, d, it is necessary to distinguish between violations associated with turning and turning - Article 12.15.3 of the Code of Administrative Offenses and with overtaking or driving in the oncoming lane - Article 12.15.4 of the Code of Academy of Sciences)

e) it is prohibited to drive onto tram tracks in the opposite direction. However, it is permitted to travel on tram tracks in the same direction, located on the left at the same level as the roadway, when all lanes in this direction are occupied, as well as when detouring, overtaking, turning left or turning around, taking into account clause 8.5 of the traffic rules, if this does not interfere with the tram ( clause 9.6 of the traffic rules).
(With the adoption of the new edition of the Code of Administrative Offenses, Article 12.15 clause 4 does not apply when driving on tram tracks; they are included in Article 12.15 clause 3)
Violation by drivers of the requirements of road signs or markings, which resulted in driving onto the side of the roadway intended for oncoming traffic, should also be qualified under Part 3 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since this norm is special in relation to Article 12.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Such situations may arise, for example, when driving on a road with one lane for each direction as a result of violation of the requirements of road signs: 3.20 “Overtaking is prohibited”, 3.22 “Overtaking of trucks is prohibited”, 5.11 “Road with a lane for route vehicles”, as well as road markings 1.1. Violation by the driver of the requirements of road sign 3.1 “Entry prohibited”, resulting in driving in the opposite direction on a road intended for one-way traffic, also constitutes an administrative offense provided for in paragraph 3 of Article 12.15 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
(Here it is also necessary to distinguish between violations associated with turning and turning around - Article 12.15.3 and with overtaking or driving in the oncoming lane - Article 12.15.4.)

The Plenum of the Supreme Court in Resolution No. 18 noted that Article 12.15, clause 3 and clause 4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses are “special” in relation to Article 12.16 (violation of marking rules), thereby the Supreme Court deprived the traffic police of the opportunity to draw up clauses along with the protocol under Article 12.15 .4, also a protocol on violation of markings.
Pay attention to the “One-way road” sign: when leaving the adjacent territory, which can only be entered from the section of the road indicated by this sign, you will not see any “One-way road” sign and you may well drive in the oncoming lane. Thus, by violating a sign that is installed far from the exit point, you may lose your rights (the second paragraph of clause 5.6.8 of GOST R 52289-2004 allows you not to install such signs when leaving adjacent territories).

If you first drove onto the tram tracks, and then into the lane of oncoming traffic towards the flow, then from now on such actions form two offenses: under Article 12.15, Part 3 and Part 4 of the Administrative Code, that is. a fine and deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle will follow.

Today we decided to tell you about the road in the adjacent territory, or more precisely about the violations that you may be charged with for improper use of such roads. Often drivers do not think about this issue until they find themselves in an unpleasant situation. Driving instructors We remind you that there are rules for driving in the adjacent territory, which will be discussed in this article.

Violation of traffic rules in the adjacent territory

Today, many parking lots and gas stations have separate exits and entrances, which are organized using appropriate signs. If a motorist drove in the opposite direction and was stopped by traffic police officers, then this violation is regarded as driving in the opposite direction on a one-way road. At driving lessons, we are taught that such a maneuver is prohibited.

If you violate the above rules, then you will either face a fine (today it is 5,000 rubles), or you will have to forget about your driving license for 4-6 months.

What is the surrounding area?

As the traffic regulations state, the adjacent territory is the territory that is adjacent to the road, and it is not intended for the through movement of vehicles. This includes courtyards, parking lots, gas stations, residential areas, enterprise areas, etc.

Many people are interested in this question: is there a road in the surrounding area? Many people mistakenly believe that since there is a roadway there, which is an element of the road, then there is a road there.

Let us remind you that the roadway, according to the traffic rules, is an element of the road for the movement of trackless vehicles.

In residential areas and courtyards, pedestrians can move both along the roadway and on sidewalks, that is, in such areas people have priority over vehicles. But pedestrians in any case should not create any interference with transport.

From the above, we can summarize that the residential area has sidewalks and a roadway, that is, there is a road there. However, according to Section 17 of the Traffic Regulations, residential areas and courtyards are mentioned when defining the adjacent territory (gas station, parking lot, etc.).

Everything seems to be logical. But it is not so. Section 17 specifies the characteristics of residential areas:

• sidewalks;
• presence of sign 5.21 and sign 5.22,
• presence of a roadway.

In addition, through traffic of vehicles, parking with the engine running, parking of trucks, and practice driving are prohibited here. These requirements also apply to courtyards, but only requirements, and not signs of residential areas.

Thus, in the surrounding area (with the exception of residential areas), there are no sidewalks, driveways, or roads. Therefore, motorists cannot be charged for driving on a one-way road in the opposite direction in the adjacent territory (with the exception of traffic in residential areas).

Supreme Court opinion

Here is an example of a Supreme Court decision:

The first decision was made in April last year. According to the term “adjacent territory,” this refers to the territory adjacent to the road, and which should not be used for through vehicle traffic. The driver’s argument that there are no roads in such an area and the rules do not apply here is untenable, because in the adjacent areas there are elements of the road network, namely a sidewalk, roadway, etc. This is what constitutes a road.

Video on how to use the surrounding area for a U-turn:

Be careful on the roads and follow the rules!

The article uses an image from the website infovideo.ru

There is a fairly large number of different controversial and ambiguous issues.

In this article we will talk about another controversial point of the rules, namely, the question will be considered: “Is leaving the adjacent territory an intersection of roadways?". The answer to this question is ambiguous, and the text of the article will provide arguments in favor of each of the possible answers.

Why does a driver need to know the answer to the question “Is leaving the adjacent territory an intersection of roadways?”

First, let's look at the concept of "adjacent territory", which is given in paragraph 1.2:

"Adjacent Territory"

After reading this definition, you can immediately remember a whole bunch of different surrounding territories. This could be your yard, a gas station, a garage cooperative, or a parking lot at a supermarket.

Let's look at the essence of the problem, and to do this, let's analyze the following figure:

This figure schematically shows the exit from absolutely any adjacent territory.

At the same time, we can unequivocally state that there is a carriageway on the road (indicated in light blue). This follows from paragraph 1.2 of the traffic rules:

"Roadway"

At the same time, we do not know whether there are roadways in the adjacent territory (marked in pink), and therefore we cannot unambiguously answer the question of whether red and orange cars are parked correctly.

Option 1. If there were roadways in the adjacent territory, then the drivers of the cars shown in the figure would be violators of clause 12.4:

12.4. Stopping is prohibited:
...
at the intersection of roadways and closer than 5 m from the edge of the crossed roadway, with the exception of the side opposite the side passage of three-way intersections (crossroads) that have a continuous marking line or dividing strip;
...

Option 2. If there were no roadways in the adjacent territory, then the drivers of the cars shown in the figure would not be violators of traffic rules.

Note. In this version, the situation is considered from the point of view of stopping near the intersection of roadways. However, the ninth paragraph of clause 12.4 may also apply to this case, which prohibits stopping in places where the vehicle would make it impossible to enter or exit.

Points of traffic rules related to exits from adjacent territories.

Let's consider the points of the traffic rules that apply to adjacent areas.

1. There are no roadways in the adjacent territory

Let's analyze the concepts from paragraph 1.2 of the traffic rules:

"Adjacent Territory"- territory directly adjacent to the road and not intended for through traffic of vehicles (yards, residential areas, parking lots, gas stations, enterprises, etc.). Movement in the adjacent territory is carried out in accordance with these Rules.

From this definition we can conclude that the adjacent territory must be directly adjacent to the road, i.e. the surrounding area is not expensive.

"Roadway"- a road element intended for the movement of trackless vehicles.

From this definition we can conclude that roadways can only exist on roads and cannot exist in adjacent territories(since the surrounding areas are not roads).

2. There are roadways in the adjacent territory

Consider the concept of road, which is given in paragraph 1.2:

"Road"- a strip of land or a surface of an artificial structure equipped or adapted and used for the movement of vehicles. The road includes one or more carriageways, as well as tram tracks, sidewalks, shoulders and dividing strips, if any.

From this definition we can conclude that any strip of land suitable for vehicle traffic is a road. Those. any place where a car could drive is a road. Accordingly, the surrounding area is also expensive.

Those. Considering the issue from this point of view leads to the fact that leaving the adjacent territory is an intersection of roadways.

In conclusion, I would like to say that if a few words were added to paragraph 1.2 of the traffic rules, for example, like this:

"Roadway"- a road element intended for the movement of trackless vehicles. Elements of adjacent territories are not roadways.

then departures from adjacent territories would not cause controversy and discussion. I hope that in the next editions of the traffic rules this ambiguity will be eliminated.

Good luck on the roads!

Now, if you read “roadway” logically and philologically, then it implies a passage, and not an entrance or entry, and in the courtyards there is no (through) passage according to the traffic rules, which means there is no roadway! The main point is not to tie the roadway to the courtyard area, but to ensure that the driver clearly understands that in front of him is the entrance to the adjacent territory, and not an equivalent intersection! It is because of this that many accidents or misunderstandings occur.

The article clearly showed the double interpretation of the law; the interpretation of the law is in favor of the defendant in the event of a possible violation of this law.

In this case, Federal Law No. 257-FZ of November 8, 2007 “On highways and road activities in the Russian Federation and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation” applies.

Articles 8 and 10 No. 257-FZ introduce for city roads the presence of

(a) names,

(b) identification number in road registers.

The adjacent territories do not have and cannot have either. That's why they don't have roadways.

Then what kind of ambiguity of rules can we talk about?

in section 1 of the traffic rules in paragraph 1.2, where concepts and terms are explained, there is a definition and meaning of the concept “Intersection”. So, it says there that (I quote verbatim) “Exits from adjacent territories are not considered intersections.” So I think the question is settled.

Rustam

Rustam, what does the term “Crossroads” have to do with this article?

Hello, Maxim

I think because the PFC outside the intersection exists on exactly the same grounds as the “spherical horse in a vacuum” - it does not exist a priori.

With all due respect.

PySy You can, of course, continue the article on this topic and conclude, thanks to the existence of ambiguity in this regard, that the HRCP can exist without an intersection: a road and an exit from the adjacent territory. Personally, this thought makes me cringe. Yes, and I agree with Vladimir. That’s why I think that HRCPs are only at crossroads. But at the same time, I agree with you - there is ambiguity in the traffic rules themselves ( But not at all in terms of legislation).

I’m trying, but I can’t understand where in the definition of the adjacent territory the possibility of a road being located in this territory is excluded? I read the comments - not a single reasonable argument. One can understand insurance companies not wanting to pay insurance (does not mean forgiving). In my opinion, clause 1.2 of the traffic rules clearly states that the road in the adjacent territory is not excluded.

VIENNA CONVENTION

The Vienna Convention on Road Traffic is an international treaty which was signed by 68 countries in 1968. For these states, the document establishes general principles in accordance with which automobile regulatory legal documents should be developed.

Constitution of the Russian Federation, Article 15

1. The Constitution of the Russian Federation has supreme legal force, direct effect and is applied throughout the entire territory of the Russian Federation. Laws and other legal acts adopted in the Russian Federation must not contradict the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

2. State authorities, local governments, officials, citizens and their associations are obliged to comply with the Constitution of the Russian Federation and Laws.

3. Laws are subject to official publication. Unpublished laws do not apply. Any regulatory legal acts affecting the rights, freedoms and responsibilities of man and citizen cannot be applied unless they are officially published for public information.

4. Generally recognized principles and norms of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation are an integral part of its legal system. If an international treaty of the Russian Federation establishes rules other than those provided for by law, then the rules of the international treaty apply

VIENNA CONVENTION

d) the term "road" means the entire right of way of any road or street open to traffic;

“Road” is a strip of land or a surface of an artificial structure equipped or adapted and used for the movement of vehicles. The road includes one or more carriageways, as well as tram tracks, sidewalks, shoulders and dividing strips, if any.

Federal Law of November 8, 2007 N 257-FZ (as amended on July 3, 2016) “On highways and road activities in the Russian Federation and on amendments to certain legislative acts of the Russian Federation”

Article 25. Highway right of way

1. The boundaries of the highway right of way are determined on the basis of the territory planning documentation.

Preparation of documentation for the planning of the territory intended for the location of highways and (or) road service facilities is carried out taking into account the norms for land allocation approved by the Government of the Russian Federation for the location of these facilities.

Now conclusions.

1. The definition of “road” in our traffic regulations and in the Vienna Convention contradict each other.

2. According to Art. 15 Constitution, in the event of such a contradiction, the norms of international treaties are applied.

4. To determine what the area on which the car is driving is, it is enough to look at the documentation on the planning of the territory. It may well turn out that this site is a territory belonging to an enterprise, residential building, etc., that is, it was not originally allocated for road construction.

5. According to traffic regulations, the roadway is an element of the road.

6. Consequently: if the disputed area was NOT initially allocated for the construction of a road, then it is NOT a road, and, therefore there cannot be any roadways on it.

So they forced us to open the Convention on Road Traffic. The quotation from the Convention you provided is not the entire document. Now you open and read article 18 paragraph 2: A driver driving from a country road or dirt road onto a road that is not a country road or dirt road is obliged to give way to vehicles moving on this road. For the purposes of this article, the meaning of the terms "country road" and "dirt road" may be defined in national legislation. How exactly national legislation will define these terms is not stated in the Convention. So we were defined in the traffic rules (clause 1.2) under the concept of “road” to be ANY strip of land, including those adapted for vehicle traffic. It follows that two tracks into the forest are a road for mushroom pickers, right? Anyway, this road was not allocated to anyone (where did you get this, anyway?). Now read your findings, is it time to empty your trash?

So they forced us to open the Convention on Road Traffic.

Well, why not open it? After all, this is a legal regulation located between the Constitution and the Federal Law of the Russian Federation. The traffic rules, as a by-law, don’t work at all.

2. A driver driving from a country or dirt road onto a road that is not a country or dirt road must give way to vehicles moving along this road. For the purposes of this article, the meaning of the terms "country road" and "dirt road" may be defined in national legislation.

In our traffic regulations there are no definitions of “country road” and “dirt road”.

Explain, I don’t understand how this relates to the topic under discussion? Would you like to say that the surrounding area is a dirt or country road? Please note that this definition contrasts the concepts of “road” and “dirt or country road”. According to the Convention, these are different things. Just like Marx and Engels are 2 different people, and Sava of the CPSU is not a person at all.

So we were defined in the traffic rules (clause 1.2) under the concept of “road” ANY strip of land

Is it time to empty the trash can?

Didn't understand. Explain who needs to clean which basket?

I assumed that you would now remind us of 257-FZ. The argument is weak (even though it is “NPA”), but at least logical. To answer your last post you need to repeat yourself, but there is no desire. Therefore, I agree with every word you say. Good luck on the roads!

Comment is being added