12.22. In which cases, according to the Traffic Rules, can a driver not be held liable for violating established speed limits?
UAУ яких випадках, відповідно до Правил дорожнього руху, водій не може бути притягнений до відповідальності за порушення встановлених обмежень швидкості?
Question without image
This is an exam question from the Traffic Rules of Ukraine concerning speed limit safety and the legality of introducing additional speed restrictions. In practice, a driver often sees signs 3.29 "Maximum speed limit" or 3.31 "Maximum speed limit zone" near roadworks or dangerous sections, so it is important to understand not only the requirement of the sign itself, but also when it has been introduced in violation of the rules. Such knowledge is useful both for the theoretical exam and for real-life situations on the road when a restriction appears questionable or "outdated."
The question tests the section of the Traffic Rules regarding speed, specifically paragraph 12.10 of the Traffic Rules of Ukraine, which describes the procedure for introducing additional restrictions and the conditions under which a driver cannot be held liable for exceeding the established speed limit. The key idea: liability does not arise if signs 3.29/3.31 are installed in violation of the rules for their introduction (for example, without the mandatory warning signs about danger or an object), or in violation of national standards (improper placement, visibility, execution), or if they are not removed after the reasons for their installation have disappeared (works completed, danger eliminated, but the restriction remains).
When analyzing the answer options, it is important to see that each of the three listed cases is an independent basis from paragraph 12.10, that is, they do not contradict each other but complement one another. That is why partial combinations like "only 1 and 2" are incomplete: the correct option is the one that covers all three grounds at the same time. For preparation for the theoretical exam, remember the logic: if a speed limit is introduced or arranged incorrectly or has lost its relevance, the law does not allow penalizing the driver specifically for exceeding the speed limit in the area of such signs.
Clause 12.10
Additional speed limit restrictions may be introduced temporarily or permanently. In this case, together with the speed limit signs 3.29 “Maximum speed limit” and 3.31 “Maximum speed limit zone”, appropriate road signs warning of the nature of the danger and/or approaching the relevant object must also be installed. If the speed limit road signs 3.29 “Maximum speed limit” and/or 3.31 “Maximum speed limit zone” are installed in violation of the requirements for their introduction as defined by these Rules, or in violation of national standards, or remain after the circumstances for which they were installed have been eliminated, the driver cannot be held liable under the law for exceeding the established speed limits.
Clause 33.3 — 33 “Road signs”, 3 “Prohibitory signs”, sign 3.29 “Maximum speed limit”
It is prohibited to drive at a speed exceeding that indicated on the sign.
Clause 33.3 — 33 “Road signs”, 3 “Prohibitory signs”, sign 3.31 “Maximum speed limit zone”
It is prohibited within the zone (territory) to drive at a speed exceeding that indicated on the sign.
That is, the correct answer is “Answers 1, 2, and 3.”, considering that according to the definition of the Traffic Rules (clause 12.10), the driver is not liable for exceeding the speed limit if signs 3.29/3.31: are installed in violation of the requirements for their introduction, or in violation of national standards, or remain after the circumstances for which they were installed have been eliminated.
When additional speed limits are set on the road, they can be permanent or temporary. Most often, temporary limits appear due to roadworks, a hazardous section, proximity to a certain object, etc. Such limits must be observed by the driver, but only if they have been implemented correctly.
Clause 12.10 of the Traffic Rules of Ukraine directly provides for situations when exceeding the speed limit in the area of signs 3.29 "Maximum speed limit" or 3.31 "Maximum speed limit zone" cannot be grounds for holding the driver liable. This is not about "permission to ignore the sign," but about the legal impossibility of punishing the driver for exceeding this particular limit if the sign was installed unlawfully.
The first ground concerns a violation of the Traffic Rules requirements regarding the introduction of the limit. For example, if a temporary speed limit was supposed to be introduced along with proper warning about the danger or the reason for the limit, but this was not done, then the procedure for introducing the limit is considered violated.
The second ground is related to violations of national standards when installing signs. This could be incorrect placement, non-compliance with installation requirements, visibility, or design of the sign. In such a case, the sign is considered to have been installed improperly, and therefore, liability for exceeding the speed limit indicated by such a sign cannot be applied.
The third ground is typical for temporary limits: the sign remains after the reason for its installation has already been eliminated. For example, roadworks are completed, there is no equipment or barriers, the danger has been removed, but the speed limit sign remains. Clause 12.10 states that under such circumstances, the driver cannot be held liable for exceeding this particular limit.
Therefore, the correct answer is "Answers 1, 2, and 3," since the Traffic Rules (clause 12.10) provide for three separate cases when liability for exceeding the speed limit in the area of signs 3.29/3.31 does not arise: if the procedure for introducing the limit was violated, the requirements of national standards were violated, or the sign remains after the grounds for its installation have disappeared.