In the Supreme court to challenge reflective vests for drivers

Who do you think is right in this situation? MIA, or human rights?

1. Human rights activist 2. MIA


The Supreme court will consider reflective strips on the jackets of the driver

In the Supreme court to challenge reflective vests for drivers

The driver emerged from the car on the road becomes a pedestrian or is the driver? The Supreme court will have to understand the intricacies of why the drivers might not be fined for the lack of reflective vest when leaving vehicle outside of the village in conditions of poor visibility.


Recall that entered into force the law of March 18, 2018, ordered the drivers to wear vests or jackets with reflective stripes. The law added a new paragraph 2.3.4, sounding like this:

“2.3.4. Emergency stop of the vehicle or a traffic accident outside the settlements to be on the roadway or roadside in the dark or in reduced visibility jacket, waistcoat or vest-cloak with strips of retroreflective material that meet the requirements of GOST 12.4.281-2014”.


We have previously found that the fine for not wearing a vest “security” in that case, if the driver left the car in poor visibility conditions on a country road, the traffic police can not yet, since the norm is not spelled out in the administrative code: of the Ministry of interior ordered the drivers to wear reflective vests


We also explained why IDPS exceed his authority when verify start demanding to give them a reflective vest. It is also absolutely illegal: Can fine the driver for the lack of reflective vest

But some human rights activists went further. To earn professional points, defenders are not averse to loudly try to challenge the new rules. “The vest” took a lawyer and human rights activist from Chelyabinsk – Lev Nikolaev.

The lawyer filed a lawsuit in the Supreme court, for the reason that, in his opinion, the demand facing the drivers was unlawful because: “…it is not related to vehicle control: coming from behind the steering wheel, the driver becomes a pedestrian,” according to the website

The logic in the arguments of human rights is. Here as in the submitted claim reflects the claim of the lawyer (the words are provided by the newspaper “Kommersant”):

“The obligation to wear the vest covers the driver of the vehicle, thus, according to item 1.2 of traffic regulations, a driver is a person who drives the vehicle (including the driver leading on road pack, riding animals or herd). The driver is also equivalent teacher teaching driving. But the person outside the vehicle is considered a pedestrian, it follows from the SDA, Leo wrote Voropaev in his statement. If you strictly follow the text of the rules, the driver generally can’t be on the roadway or the roadside (which, according to SDA, are part of the road), it can only be a pedestrian.”

In the Supreme court to challenge reflective vests for drivers

That is, in the newly introduced paragraph from this point of view there is no logic. However, the Ministry of internal Affairs knowingly eats the bread. MIA convincingly countered the claims, pushing aside the arguments of the defender of the rights of motorists.


1.Responsibilities of the driver do not only apply to the time period when he is in the car or in the car. That is, the driver should: monitor the condition of the car, check its technical condition, including visual inspection.

2.Emergency stop (accident, breakdown etc.), the motorist should put the warning triangle, but with the advent of the Euro Protocol, it is obliged to take pictures of my car, which implies that the output on the roadway. All of these actions he performs, as the driver, to fulfill the requirements of the SDA, and not in the status of the pedestrian.


We believe that the approach of the Ministry of interior is certainly much more complex and makes much more sense. However, let us ask our readers the same question: “Who do you think is right in this situation? MIA, or human rights?” Answers mark in the “voting is” at the top.


And finally, how could anyone not try to interpret the letter of the law, and what goals were not pursued, when it comes to safety on the road, half-measures, it is better not to do. Let’s see what do you say to the Supreme court. Although 99.9%, another “initiative” for the abolition, and remain initiative.