Should there be a sign in front of a mobile camera?

Rules for installing a tripod on the road

In recent years, more and more mobile-type video recording cameras (tripods) have been appearing on Russian roads, which record violations of the speed limit by drivers, after which the violators receive “chain letters” demanding to pay a fine. Most tripods belong to commercial organizations, are installed in unexpected and unreasonable places, are often hidden from view and do little to help traffic safety, but they increase the amount of cash flows to regional budgets and to the accounts of private companies themselves.

Is it legal to install mobile video cameras? What laws and standards govern the installation of tripods? Who has the right to participate in video traffic control, and what rules are the installers guided by?

Are tripods legal?

The traffic police are in charge of only stationary video recording systems for traffic violations, which are installed by the Traffic Safety Center of the Russian Federation. These are cameras on a rigid support such as “Rapier”, “Arena”, “Chris”, “Strelka”, mounted above the roadway in sections of the road with a high accident rate. They do not change their location, are installed outside the coverage areas of temporary signs, are marked with road signs “Video recording” (8.23) and transmit data to stationary traffic police posts, from where the information flows to the traffic police administrative violation processing center.

The State Traffic Inspectorate itself does not install video cameras - their installation and maintenance are the responsibility of regional administrations, which constantly experience a shortage of financial resources for the maintenance of road safety infrastructure. Therefore, there are not enough stationary video recording cameras, and local budgets solve this problem by attracting commercial organizations: they transfer the authority to install and maintain video equipment to private commercial organizations and individual entrepreneurs on an outsourcing basis.

The transfer of functions for video recording of traffic violations is legal: according to Federal Law No. 115 “On Concession Agreements”, local government authorities have the right, under an agreement, to transfer video recording functions to commercial investors. Legal entities and individual entrepreneurs who have signed a concession agreement with municipalities purchase, install and maintain video equipment at their own expense, for which they receive the right to independently:

• record traffic violations;
• print and send photo and video recordings to violators;
• organize the payment of fines.

For performing these works, companies receive either a percentage of the amount of fines or a fixed amount of each fine paid (it is decided individually in each region). The traffic police controls the installation sites of such video cameras on the roads and endorses a work permit for each private installer.

For commercial reasons, private service organizations choose to install mobile video equipment (tripods) such as Sokol-M, Berkut, Binar, Iskra, Radius, and Vizir. These video cameras are cheaper than stationary systems, their location can be quickly changed, and they are not subject to the requirement to install a “Video recording” sign or temporary road signs. The cameras are installed in close proximity to the roadway and transmit information to mobile devices of operators, who may be in a car parked at the side of the road, or directly to the traffic police data processing center.

With such “preferential” conditions for the installation and operation of video recording cameras, the task of maintaining and improving road safety is at the very bottom of the list of priorities for a commercial service company. Many private investors see only good earnings here and violate business rules to increase profits, creating a lot of problems for car enthusiasts.

Rules for installing private video cameras

Meanwhile, rules for installing mobile video equipment exist, are regulated by the Administrative Regulations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation (clauses 43, 55-57) and quite clearly interpret the responsibilities of persons conducting video recording of traffic violations.

Mobile video recording cameras can be installed by commercial organizations that have entered into a concession agreement in the following places:

• increased accident risk on roads;
• where there is no stationary video recording;
• which are designated by the leadership of the local traffic police department;
• where they can be seen by drivers from afar.

Each camera must be tested and certified by the traffic police, and operating personnel must undergo special training and testing. Each video recording crew (2 people) must have a package of documents on hand: certificates for equipment and qualifications of specialists, a visa from the head of the regional traffic police for the right to perform these works, indicating the exact location of the video camera installation on a specific section of the road.

GOST standards for video equipment

In order to bring the activities of private organizations providing video recording services for traffic violations to uniform rules, since 2017 the Russian Federation has introduced GOSTs R 57144–2016 and R 57145–2016 regulating technical requirements for video equipment. According to these federal standards, video recording cameras must:

• have a radar, inductive, piezoelectric, magnetic or laser operating principle;
• fix speed 20-250 km/h;
• recognize license plates in any weather and time of day with a probability of at least 90%;
• capture the distinctive features of any car in a photo;
• be technically sound and free from defects;
• measure the speed of a car at a distance of no closer than 50 meters, if equipped with a tracking option (fixing the trajectory of the car);
• use non-hazardous infrared illumination rather than a flash to determine the license plate number.

Mobile tripods can be installed on road sections with high accident rates (more than 3 accidents over the last year), a high concentration of traffic violations or poor visibility, at intersections and near schools.

It is not allowed to install cameras on non-emergency sections of highways, in bushes, behind poles, behind road bends, in a car or behind a car body, on a highway with large elevation changes, on unlit sections of roads in the dark, or in the absence of a 3-meter wide shoulder. Each camera must be equipped with an infrared license plate recognizer, internal memory and photo printing options.

Instructions for use of video recording cameras

According to the standard operating instructions for video recording cameras, the tripod:

• can control a straight section of road up to 60 meters long with high accuracy;
• should be on the side of the road no closer than 3 meters from the roadway;
• can be installed no further than 17 meters from a single-lane road, 13 meters from a two-lane road, 9 meters from a three-lane road and 5 meters from a four-lane road;
• must have a turning angle along a reference point parallel to the edge of the road;
• may have a speed measurement error of no more than 2 km/h.

The video camera is controlled from a mobile post by two employees (except for equipment that is fully automated and immediately transmits data to stationary traffic police posts).

Thus, the rules for installing tripods on the road are a clear list of requirements that companies servicing video equipment must comply with, since most of the rules are legislative. Compliance with the rules for installing video recording cameras allows you to work legally and transparently, ensures equal rights for road users and actually reduces the number of traffic violations.

Since most private investors involved in video recording are not inclined to follow the “rules of the game” in the pursuit of profit, their services more often cause harm on the road than help. On the other hand, violation of GOSTs, administrative regulations and operating instructions for cameras by operating companies gives competent drivers a chance to successfully appeal fines issued from video cameras and put forward counterclaims.

The “Photo Fixation” sign must be up or not. Is it possible to challenge a fine without a sign?

We would call this topic another sensitive topic that has a certain “hole” due to disagreements between judges and the precedents that have developed against them.
Although it is not for us to decide who is right and who is wrong, we will still try to reflect today’s reality and our opinion on the use of the “Photo and Video Recording” sign. People sometimes call it simply photographic recording. What about judicial acts, as an example, oddly enough, we will give excerpts from them for cases where the driver and the traffic police win the case, that is, two completely opposing conclusions in cases with identical initial circumstances. So, let's begin.

Appearance of the “Photo and Video Recording” sign

Since January 2013, on the basis of Resolution No. 20 of January 21, 2013 “ON AMENDING THE TRAFFIC RULES OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION,” a couple of signs have appeared in our country. These are “A tow truck is working” and “Photo and video recording”. The first one doesn’t particularly interest us, since it’s off topic, but sign 8.23 ​​looks like this - . Many, however, are familiar with its appearance without us. Well, now let’s begin to actually consider the use of the sign on the road, but let’s say that this sign belongs to the “Additional Information Signs”. We will mention this argument later in our article.

Should there be a sign “Photo and video recording” when taking photos and videos?

Let's turn to the traffic rules, which have been amended, and read what is written there regarding sign 8.23

"Photo and video recording." Used with signs 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 1.22, 3.1 - 3.7, 3.18.1, 3.18.2, 3.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.24, 3.27 - 3.30, 5.14, 5.21, 5.27 and 5.31, as well as with traffic lights. Indicates that in the coverage area of ​​a road sign or on a given section of the road, administrative offenses can be recorded using automatic special technical means that have the functions of photography, filming and video recording, or by means of photography, filming and video recording.

It says here it applies and nothing more.
No words must be established, it is mandatory, it is considered invalid if there is no sign... Everything like that. Second. This is GOST R 52289-2004. Let's turn to it and quote what is written there regarding the use of sign 8.23. We quote paragraph 5.9.27

Table 8.23 ​​“Photo and video recording” is used with signs 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 1.22, 3.1-3.7, 3.18.1, 3.18.2, 3.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.24, 3.27-3.30, 5.14, 5.21, 5.27 and 5. 31, and also with traffic lights to inform about the possible recording of violations of the Traffic Rules by stationary automatic means on a given section of the road (territory).

There is also a clarification about what Stationary means of automatic fixation are, just below

Stationary means of automatic fixation are special technical means operating in automatic mode that have the functions of photographing, filming, video recording, or means of photographing, filming, and video recording, placed on structures mounted on a fixed base, or inside these structures.

Now we can actually draw some conclusions regarding the mandatory installation of the “Photo and Video Recording” sign.
In fact, the first thing that catches your eye is the discrepancy between the traffic rules and GOST, when GOST refers to the installation of a sign only with stationary means of photo-video recording, but the traffic rules and the Resolution say nothing about this. In fact, such a discrepancy does not say anything about the mandatory installation of both stationary cameras and portable systems for recording traffic violations.
Again, here we repeat once again that nowhere are there the words obligated, must, obligatory, etc. Moreover, sign 8.23 ​​refers to signs of additional information. What, in fact, cannot be found that exactly dots all the “Is”, neither “FOR” nor “AGAINST”. We'll have to speculate. What are the facts? First, the driver violated traffic rules. Secondly, there was photo and video recording. If nothing can be done about the first fact, then with regard to photo and video recording you can try to challenge it on the basis of Article 26.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation

3. It is not allowed to use evidence in a case of an administrative offense, including the results of an audit conducted during the implementation of state control (supervision) and municipal control, if the specified evidence was obtained in violation of the law.

So was there a violation if there was still no 8.23 ​​sign? This would be a good time to see what they write about the use of video and photo recording tools. Here we should refer to Article 26.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. Let's quote it in full.

1. Special technical means mean measuring instruments that are approved in the prescribed manner as measuring instruments, have appropriate certificates and have passed metrological verification.
2. Testimony of special technical means is reflected in the protocol on an administrative offense or a resolution in a case of an administrative offense issued in the case provided for in Part 3 of Article 28.6 of this Code.

That is, nothing is said about the use of funds, whether they are marked or not 8.23.
The main thing is the certificate, verification and recording of the data in the protocol. That is, there are no violations to be said here. Here I would like to deviate a little from the topic and draw a slightly different, but, as it seems to us, parallel analogy.
Many drivers know that the period for bringing to administrative responsibility is 2 months, and in the case of a court decision, 3 months, according to Article 4.5 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
So, in these 2 or 3 months the following should happen. A ruling must be made and sent by mail. In this case, the decision must be made within 15 days (29.6 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation), sent within 3 days (28.6 Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation). If for some reason the deadlines were missed, then such a violation of the deadlines, if it does not exceed 2 or 3 months, respectively, does not allow the violator to evade responsibility. That is, violations of the deadlines for issuing a decision and sending it are not prohibitive. Here, it seems to us, it’s about the same. The absence of sign 8.23 ​​does not allow drivers to violate traffic rules; this is more a question of holding employees accountable for failure to fulfill their duties, and not an opportunity to evade responsibility with the wording that the materials for the administrative case were received with violations. However, everything we talked about above is just our point of view. To understand how things stand in fact, it is necessary to cite precedents, that is, judicial acts. The surprising thing is that at the moment there are absolutely opposite points of view on this matter.

Examples of judicial acts as different points of view on the installation of the “Photo and video recording” sign

We will not provide the full text of judicial acts. Since our task is still to point out the difference in points of view, and not to clutter the article with unnecessary information. So first thing

Case: 12-93/2015
Date: April 30, 2015
Pushkin City Court, Moscow Region

...In addition, the court takes into account that the absence of additional information sign 8.23 ​​“Photo and video recording” on the road section in the area of ​​the railway crossing does not exempt the driver of the vehicle from compliance with the provisions of the Russian Federation Traffic Regulations, which prohibit driving to the railway crossing when the traffic light signal is prohibited, and does not indicate that that photographic recording of A.P. Zelenov’s vehicle at the time of the commission of the offense, was received in violation of the norms of the Code of the Russian Federation on Administrative Offenses.

Decision: No. 12-1195/2014
Date: December 18, 2014
Leninsky District Court of Tyumen

. At the same time, applying a systematic analysis of the rules of law governing this issue, it should be noted that the use of automatic recording as a means of surveillance in relation to an indefinite number of persons is possible subject to the notification procedure for citizens about ongoing surveillance. According to the law, the use of the institution of automatic recording of traffic violations is aimed not only at imposing punishment, but also at preventing the commission of new offenses. This interpretation corresponds to the provisions of Article 1.5, Article 3.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.

Notification of recording traffic violations in automatic mode (sign 8.23) allows you to ensure the reliability of the data received, eliminate provocations, and also serves as a warning from the commission of new offenses. Based on the provisions of Part 3 of Article 26.2, Article 26.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, testimony from technical means can be evidence in a case of an administrative offense if obtained in compliance with the law. The use of evidence in a case of an administrative offense obtained in violation is not permitted. Thus, testimony from technical means obtained without following the established procedure is unacceptable evidence and cannot be taken into account by the court.

This is where the words of Professor Preobrazhensky come to mind, from Bulgakov’s well-known work to all of us: “... devastation is not in the closets, but in the heads...”.

Summarizing the installation of the “Photo and Video Recording” sign

There is no need to talk about any universal approach in relation to sign 8.23 ​​“Photo and video recording”. While there is no general practice, which, by the way, at our discretion, should be designated by none other than the government, introducing into legislative acts words excluding double-mindedness and dissent... Until then, this cloud of understatement, hopelessness, autocracy will swarm and, of course, will inevitably mature response, in the form of disdain for power on the part of those who, in fact, should obey these very half-baked laws!

Comments

Vladimir, regarding the law on road traffic safety:
What if the judge says something like.
It’s good that you read the laws, but the organization of the DD is an organization, and in your case we are talking about control. In total, the resolution will not be canceled (

Much respect to the previous commentator. It's nice when the church is spiritually with us.

Ok, let's do it again.
I quote . regulated by the technical regulations in force in the Russian Federation and provided for by projects and traffic management schemes.

Here is a link to those regulations that, in your opinion, should contain unambiguous conditions for the use of signs with cameras. Here's a simple question from this. What are the regulations and what is written about this?

Friends, GOST operates in a systematic relationship with the “Law on Road Safety”. We read article 22 of it:

1. Activities to organize DD should be carried out on the basis of the use of technical means and structures, the use of which is regulated by GOST.
The law has greater legal force than the traffic rules (they are by-laws).
Therefore, in the absence of plate 8.23, a fine cannot be issued.

If there is no Photo Recording sign, can I challenge the fine?

Mandatory sign 8.23

In order to deal with numerous legal disputes and controversial communication with the traffic police on the road regarding the mandatory requirement of a photo-video recording sign under a speed limit sign, you need to refer to the GOST section on the rules for using road signs and find out exactly all the intricacies of using this sign. This will answer the main question - whether in 2019 a photo-fixation sign must be installed where this auto-fixation occurs and whether it is possible to appeal a fine if there was no such sign.

Is the Photo Recording sign required?

The plate refers to additional information signs. This section was approved by the state standard of the Russian Federation under number R-52289 with changes to the document, which received legal force in February 2014.

On the pages of GOST, the legislator clearly defined the rules for using an information sign warning the driver about cameras along his route.

5.9.27. Table 8.23 ​​“Photo and video recording” is used with signs 1.1, 1.2, 1.8, 1.22, 3.1-3.7, 3.18.1, 3.18.2, 3.19, 3.20, 3.22, 3.24, 3.27-3.30, 5.14, 5.21, 5.27 and 5. 31, and also with traffic lights to inform about the possible recording of traffic violations by stationary automatic means.

Any additional signs, including video recording, are used in conjunction with the main ones (warning, prescriptive and others). Thus, a video recording sign is installed together with:

• warning signs;
• prohibiting;
• signs of special instructions.

In our case, we are talking about a prohibitory sign - a speed limit.

Also, a photo recording sign is installed in accordance with GOST 2019 at traffic lights, notifying the driver about monitoring compliance with traffic rules on the road section beyond the intersection.

What is a section of road according to GOST?

The term “ road section ” is defined in the rules in order to delineate the effect of signs. For example, the speed limit begins to apply immediately behind the pole on which the sign hangs. At the same time, a section of the road begins where the speed limit must not be exceeded. The restriction ends in one of the following ways:

• presence of an intersection on the route,
• the end of the village,
• the beginning of the settlement,
• end of speed limit sign or end of all restrictions.

There are also other signs that indicate the beginning of the road section. An area with prohibited overtaking, parking and other prohibitions and regulations. The end of their action is also determined.

What if there is no sign?

Particular attention is paid to the speed limit sign. It is for this violation that motorists are most often fined. Some of them dutifully pay for “letters of happiness.” Others who disagree with the ruling are challenging the decision in court.

At the same time, there is only one argument for canceling the fine - there was no information about the CCTV camera on the road. At this point, opinions differ. Drivers insist on the need for road services to mark video filming locations with a sign, but road workers shrug it off - there are no such requirements.

There is no regulatory act that would strictly determine the need to indicate the speed limit location with a camera. GOST 52289 specifies the signs with which the “Photofixation” sign can be used. The speed limit may also be indicated with this sign. But there is no obligation to accompany sign 3.20 with such a sign.

For example, portable cameras that organizations install are not marked at all. But stationary ones, installed on poles, may have a sign photographing traffic violations.

The criterion according to which traffic police officers determine the installation location of sign 8.23 ​​is the characteristics of the road section. The presence of a school, kindergarten or particularly dangerous area ahead requires a speed limit. The presence of a camera indicated on the sign forces violators to slow down.

Thus, a video recording sign is installed so that the driver must slow down, because there may be small children ahead. Fines are not the main thing here. And there is no obligation to install a sign along with a sign.

On federal highways and city roads, stationary speed detection points may not be marked at all. This decision depends on local authorities.

Is it possible to challenge a fine if the sign is without a sign?

Traffic rules are mandatory for everyone, and it doesn’t matter whether you are being watched or not. Unfortunately, it will not be possible to challenge a fine issued for speeding in court, citing the absence of such a sign.

GOST prescribes that the indication of photographic recording can be used with certain signs if there are stationary surveillance cameras in their coverage area or separately if there is video or photographic recording on a section of the road. This is what car enthusiasts refer to. But this document does not require the presence of a sign; it allows its presence. Therefore, the argument about the absence of a photo-recording sign installed together with sign 3.20 will not be accepted by the court.

Arbitrage practice

To clearly understand the issue, let’s consider court case No. 12-137/2015.

The driver filed a complaint with the court, pointing out the illegality of the issued fine. The driver was fined for exceeding the speed limit by 49 km/h. The car was following a highway where the speed limit was 90 km/h. The camera recorded the vehicle speed at 119 km/h.

As it turned out, the section of the road was limited by a temporary 70 km/h sign. But since no repair work was carried out, and the road had excellent coverage, there were no obstacles to follow, and the driver decided not to slow down. Also in his complaint, the driver prosecuted indicated that the information plate 8.23 ​​was missing.

The court did not change its decision, since there were no reasons for the cancellation. The driver is obliged to follow road signs and traffic regulations. He cannot make decisions independently, nor can he draw conclusions about the correctness of their installation. The absence of a photographic sign also does not give the right to break the rules.

Such requests from citizens are frequent cases. To regulate disputes regarding temporary signs, legislators issued a resolution that officially allows the use of photo and video recording systems for speed violations in conjunction with temporary signs.

The rules for applying markings, as well as operating standards, are determined by GOSTs No. 51256, 50597.

Tablet 8.23 ​​is applied to traffic lanes similar to the sign. This is done to duplicate it. This method allows drivers to visually perceive information on the road more easily. The over-pavement photography designation is used with or without an installed sign.

What are the fines for speeding?

Fines for speeding are regulated by Article 12.9 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. And for 2019, the following fines and other penalties are possible:

• Exceeding from 20 to 40 km/h is fined in the amount of 500 rubles,
• from 40 to 60 km/h – 1000-1500 rubles,
• 60-80 – 2000-2500 rubles or deprivation of rights for up to 6 months,
• over 80 km/h – a fine of 5,000 rubles or imprisonment for six months.

Decisions on the last two points depend on the method of recording the violation. If a traffic police officer personally stops a violator, he has the right to deprive the driver of the right to drive. And if speeding is detected by a camera, then only a fine is issued and only to the owner of the car.

The liability of the violation increases with relapse. For exceeding more than 80 km/h, the court will deprive the driver of his license for one year.

Read more about excesses in our special article.

Can the traffic police place cameras without warning signs?

From June 1, 2017, uniform rules for installing cameras to record traffic violations began to apply throughout Russia. The documents record, in particular, what speed the cameras should measure and under what weather conditions, as well as in what place on the road they should be installed.

According to the rules, cameras must:

— measure speed in the range from 20 km/h to 250 km/h;

— recognize a car license plate, regardless of the time of day and weather (recognizability should not be less than 90%);

— issue a photograph that identifies the distinctive features of the vehicle.

Cameras should be installed on sections of roads with poor visibility, near schools, at intersections, as well as in places with a high concentration of traffic violators and in places where more than three accidents with casualties have occurred over the past year. Installation of dummy cameras is permitted only if there is a decrease in the number of violations on the road.

Should there be warning signs?

“According to legal requirements, there must be a warning sign in front of the camera. In practice, many drivers manage to challenge the imposition of fines on the grounds that there was no such sign. In addition to plate 8.23 ​​“Photo and video recording”, road markings 1.24.4 are also used, duplicating the sign. However, these rules apply when it comes to stationary automatic means; if the camera is mobile, the sign may not be installed,” said Vladimir Starinsky, managing partner of the Starinsky, Korchago and Partners bar association.

How to check that the fine was actually issued by the traffic police?

A list of all issued fines can be obtained from any traffic police department. To check the authenticity of the order, you just need to go online: information about all violations is available on the official website of the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate and the Government Services Portal of the Russian Federation. Also pay attention to the receipt itself and the recipient's details. If they correspond to the details of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the region in which the decision was made against you, then such a violation really occurred.

Are fines from cameras legal if there are no signs warning about video control?

There is still a lot of controversy around sign 8.23 ​​“Photo and video recording”, which was written into the Traffic Rules back in the winter of 2013. In order to understand the situation, the AvtoVzglyad portal turned to the head of the department for promoting road safety and preventing child road traffic injuries, Maxim Belugin.

To begin with, let us recall that the sign with a schematic image of a camera is intended to inform drivers that “on this section of the road, administrative offenses can be recorded using special technical means operating automatically, having the functions of photography, filming and video recording, or by means of photography and filming and video recordings."

According to GOST, the appropriate sign or marking 1.24.4 must indicate all those cameras that, by definition, are stationary. In other words, to complexes that are fixed on a fixed foundation. And many drivers, having received a fine from a roadside “lantern”, operate with precisely this requirement, trying to prove first to the traffic cops, and then to the judge, that since there is no 8.23 ​​sign in front of the camera, then the punishment is illegal. But is this really so?

According to our interlocutor, motorists fighting for the abolition of the fine are missing one important nuance. The same GOST does not at all oblige local authorities to install “Photo and video recording” signs in front of each complex. According to the regulations, they only need to plug in at least one when entering a populated area. It follows from this that at least thirty cameras scattered throughout a city or village may fall under the influence of a single sign 8.23.

Proving the absence of a sign, as you understand, is quite difficult. However, it also happens that the sign is actually nowhere to be found - you never know the road workers have run out of money or a work shift, or maybe they simply didn’t have time to install it or accidentally forgot to install it. But this circumstance does not in any way relieve the motorist from administrative liability. And this is stated in one of the many government regulations.

It is curious that some lucky drivers still manage to appeal in court a traffic police fine issued by a camera that is not marked with a warning sign. But the percentage of won cases based on the “lost” sign 8.23, alas, is negligible. Here, of course, everything depends on the individual judge: some servants of the law cancel the punishment due to the frivolity of the offense. But in most cases, we repeat, the motorist does not leave empty-handed, because the law is the law.