The bill on new speeding fines: why this decision is worrying

The Verkhovna Rada has adopted bill No. 13314, which proposes to introduce a proportional scale of penalties for speeding — with fines from 340 to 3,400 UAH and even deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for up to one year in the event of creating an "emergency situation." At first glance, the idea seems logical: tougher fines — fewer violations — more safety. But is this initiative really capable of improving safety without creating negative consequences?

Is the threat correctly identified?

The main argument in the explanatory note to the aforementioned project is the official statistics of the National Police, which cite speeding as the cause of more than half of all road deaths. However, it is important to note:

• Ukraine has not switched to the European CADaS system — traffic accidents are recorded using an outdated methodology, where the presumption of guilt lies with the driver, regardless of the behavior of other participants.
• There is no detailed separation between situations caused by pedestrians, cyclists, infrastructure or weather conditions.
• This methodology does not provide a complete picture of the real causes of accidents, focusing only on "excessive speed."

Poll as an argument?

Among the arguments in favor of introducing a new system of fines, the explanatory note mentions a sociological survey conducted as part of the “For Safe Roads” campaign. In particular, it is stated that 54% of Ukrainians support the introduction of fines for exceeding the speed limit by 10 km/h (instead of the current threshold of +20 km/h). At the same time, earlier in the same paragraph, it is mentioned about the assessment of road safety by drivers and pedestrians. However, at the next stage, when it comes to supporting new fines, a generalization is used: “Ukrainians”.

This creates the impression of broad public agreement, although the project directly affects drivers, and it is their opinion that should be decisive in the formation of such norms.

In addition, the document provides a direct link to the research file on the website of the NGO "Center for Democracy and the Rule of Law" — however, at the time of creating this publication, it was not working (the page displays the message "That page canʼt be found"). The lack of access to the original source does not allow for a detailed study of the survey methodology, the wording of the questions, and other details that could significantly affect the results.

These points call into question the validity of using such data as a basis for changing administrative legislation. In state regulation, transparency of sources and verifiability of statistics are critically important conditions.

The world as an example: but is it always appropriate?

The justification for the bill gives the example of Poland. But even this example raises questions:

• Poland had a different starting level of driving culture, law enforcement system, road quality, and technical condition of the vehicle fleet.
• In Germany and the UK, excessive automation of control (in particular, recording violations) at one time led to social resistance, a decline in trust, and even a drop in demand for new cars, which affected the car markets.

Ukraine today has a completely different car fleet, social conditions and income level than EU countries. Without adaptation to Ukrainian realities, even the best European models may not work.

What does world practice really say?

Rejection of cameras due to doubts about effectiveness

• Swindon , UK (2009): The town abandoned fixed speed cameras due to concerns about their effectiveness and high maintenance costs. Instead, speed warning signs and mobile cameras were installed. A slight reduction in accidents was observed within nine months, casting doubt on the need for fixed cameras.
• Hawaii , USA (2002): The state stopped using mobile speed cameras due to massive public outcry, which saw them as a means of collecting revenue rather than improving safety.
• Australia : Despite record fine revenues, road deaths have increased by more than 10% in a year, casting doubt on the effectiveness of speed cameras as a means of reducing accidents.
• USA: A number of cities have stopped using cameras due to doubts about their effectiveness and the negative impact on local economies, including reduced car sales and reduced tax revenues.

Public resistance and vandalism

• United Kingdom: The group Motorists Against Detection has been actively destroying speed cameras, claiming they are used to collect revenue rather than improve safety. According to The Guardian, more than 700 cameras have been damaged or destroyed.
• USA: In some cities, such as Chicago, automated cameras have sparked outrage over their disproportionate impact on low-income communities, leading to protests and demands to review policies governing their use.
• France, 2018–2019: The reduction of the speed limit from 90 to 80 km/h on interurban roads without medians sparked mass protests, including among the “yellow vests.” As a result, more than 75% of speed cameras were disabled or burned. The government partially reversed the reform, allowing regions to reinstate the old limits.

This reaction is evidence that even in highly developed countries, attempts to introduce excessive control without public trust provoke resistance and reduce the effectiveness of security policies. This does not deny the importance of cameras and police control as tools of prevention, but emphasizes that they must be intelligently integrated into a system that is perceived as fair, reasonable and effective. Otherwise, even useful measures lose support — and therefore their results.

Market crash after "excessive control"

• In China, in 2016–2018, in some provinces, due to excessive penalties for minor violations, new car sales dropped by 10–12%, especially in the private segment. People stopped upgrading their cars, and some migrated to the “gray” zone (temporary license plates, fakes, registration evasion).

Effective solutions

• Norway, which has one of the lowest death rates in Europe, relies not on cameras but on infrastructure, education and culture. There are no fines for exceeding the speed limit by < 5 km/h, and most roads are designed in a way that makes it physically difficult to drive fast.
• Germany maintains the absence of a general limit on the autobahns. This does not mean the absence of control, but demonstrates flexibility : where conditions allow — you can go fast, where it is dangerous — cameras and strict control. However, even there some of the cameras were dismantled after studies showed no effect on the number of road accidents, in particular in Baden-Württemberg.
• Traffic calming measures : Installing speed bumps, raised pedestrian crossings, safety islands, and roundabouts help reduce traffic speeds and improve pedestrian safety. For example, in the US, such measures have reduced speeds by 18% and in Tanzania, by 30%.

"Emergency situation" as a basis for deprivation of rights

Another dangerous point is the possibility of losing your driverʼs license for 6–12 months in the event of an "emergency situation."

• This concept is legally vague — in a stampede, daily traffic jams, with poor lighting or unpredictable behavior of other participants, such a "situation" occurs dozens of times a day at every intersection.
• Granting the right to restrict a personʼs mobility through subjective assessment is a risk of abuse and selectivity.

In addition, the PPC as a means of "discipline" entails a number of related consequences:

• Loss of regular budget revenues. A car that travels an average of 15,000 km per year provides stable revenues through fuel taxes (excise duty, VAT), purchase of car insurance, maintenance at service stations, costs for washing, parking, tires, etc. In the case of forced “idleness” of a car for a year, the state will receive only a one-time fine (for example, an average of 1,700 UAH), losing much more in indirect tax and market revenues.
• Dumping on the secondary market. Drivers deprived of their driving license will be forced to sell their cars — often at reduced prices. This will create an excess supply on the market, cause a depreciation of transport, and increase economic instability in related sectors (car services, car import and trade-in, insurance business, spare parts trade, etc.).
• Employment risks. For tens of thousands of drivers—taxi drivers, couriers, commercial drivers—driving is their primary source of income. Disqualification means long-term job loss with no adequate alternative.

Corruption risks

The introduction of an expanded gradation of fines creates a new problem — the ability to "negotiate" on the spot :

• The large range of fines actually creates a "tariff grid" for corrupt agreements — relatively speaking, "agreeing on 340 instead of 1,700" has a good chance of becoming a new type of interaction on the roads.
• Formally, the law will become stricter, but in practice this may create additional opportunities for corruption abuses, especially regarding the so-called emergency situation.

Economic consequences: what losses are not taken into account?

Despite the fact that the explanatory note states: "the implementation does not require expenses from the state budget," the real losses will be significant :

• Reduced demand for cars means fewer imports, fewer registrations, and therefore fewer customs duties, VAT, excise taxes, and pension fund contributions.
• Deprivation of driving privileges means less fuel costs, which is less excise tax and contributions to the Road Fund, which finances security.
• A driver without a license = a parked car = minus mobility, productivity and consumption even outside the car-gas station-service cycle.
• Decrease in turnover in the insurance market ("auto insurance").
• Additional financial costs for carriers (which will eventually be passed on to goods and services).
• In the long term, there will be a decrease in the tourist attractiveness of our country for foreigners traveling by car.

Local features not taken into account

The project does not take into account:

• Differences in types of transport (cars, trucks, buses) — all fall under the same gradation, although they have different braking distances and dynamics.
• Mechanical speedometers of old cars — in most cars before 2000 , the error is up to 10–20%, and this is critical when fined for exceeding the speed limit by 11–15 km/h. Such vehicles account for about 20% of our fleet.
• Road capacity and counterintuitive accelerations — for example, forced overtaking of a truck on a road with one lane for one-way traffic (where the less time the car is in the oncoming lane, the lower the risk).
• Imperfection of road infrastructure, where speed limits are sometimes set without justification.

Conclusion

The issue of road safety is undoubtedly important. However, solving it only through increased sanctions is a dead end.

A real reduction in mortality is possible only when the state invests in training all road users, developing infrastructure, setting reasonable speed limits taking into account the context, and updating the statistics collection system, which is still based on Soviet logic.

Without this, any "European" law imported into Ukrainian reality may turn into not a safeguard against tragedies, but another administrative burden, which only deepens the crisis of trust on the roads and the relationship between "citizens and authorities."