Road sign height restriction dimensions. What does the prohibitory road sign “Height restriction. Appointment of a road "assistant"

09.03.2020

It is unlikely that you will be able to rush along the roads on which you will not be able to meet a single road sign. It is they who are the main assistants, indicating to drivers what actions he should take in specific areas in order to avoid, get away from undesirable consequences. A variety of road signs are installed along the roadsides, among which a specific group stands out, strictly prohibiting certain maneuvers.

In each country, some restrictions are introduced not only on the amount of cargo transported, but also on the height of the vehicle itself. In particular, Russian legislation determines that the maximum height should not exceed four meters. By the way, the CIS countries also put forward such a requirement, therefore, a heavy truck with a height of 5 m will not be able to freely rush along their and Russian roads if engineering structures meet on its way.

However, this does not mean that exactly the same requirements apply in other countries. If someone has already been to China, he knows that cars are allowed to transport goods there, the height of which does not exceed 4.3 meters. It is important to note that the imposed restrictions on the permissible maximum height on different sections of the road may differ. So that the driver can perfectly follow the rules traffic, signs are installed on the roads indicating the height limit.

Appointment of a road "assistant"

This installation is carried out on those sections of roads where there are bridges, overpasses, flyovers, under which cars have to pass. Exactly the same signs are placed at the entrance to the tunnels. Even a child can understand why this is being done, since the space of the structure itself has a certain size, so it will certainly be difficult for a larger vehicle to squeeze into it.

Road sign requirements

The road sign "Height restriction" indicates to the driver of the vehicle a specific height restriction. In this case, the driver must take into account not only the parameters of the vehicle itself, but also the cargo that is transported, respectively, rises up, acting as a specific obstacle.

If you ignore the requirements of this sign, in the event of a car passing through, the size of which exceeds the permissible norms, under certain engineering structures, it will not be possible to avoid disastrous consequences. In particular, heavy trucks can damage the structures themselves, followed by other unforeseen troubles. Due to the destruction of structures, if the car touched and damaged crossings over the road, created specifically for the safe movement of citizens. Due to the excess of these parameters, video surveillance systems and lighting devices may fail.

The driver of the vehicle, who ignored the prohibition of the established sign, actually violates traffic rules. As you know, if you violate the rules of the road, you cannot escape responsibility. Trying to drive on a road with a height limit, the driver clearly violates the rules of the road, for which he is forced to bear administrative or civil liability, depending on the consequences.

Rules for installing a sign

The installation of the sign is carried out on several sections of the road, including even before the moment when the car approaches the engineering structure. This is done so that the driver has the opportunity, having noticed the restriction that applies to his car, to make a maneuver that involves changing the route. In this case, the driver will not have to panic about the fact that he is completely, therefore, he does not understand which way it is easier for him to turn in order to proceed further without hindrance, bypassing the forbidden zone for him.

Below the numerical limiter, circled in red, an additional indicator must be installed, on which an arrow is depicted indicating in which direction it is better to continue moving. On the structure itself, a sign is re-posted in case the driver was previously inattentive and missed the initial important warning.

The sign itself indicates the numerical indicator of the maximum height. Calculation allowable values produced by specialists, taking into account a certain additional margin, the value of which can reach forty centimeters. This margin is important because, over time, roads need to be repair work, accordingly, a new road surface can be laid, following such actions, the total distance between the structure and the road is reduced by several centimeters.

It doesn’t hurt to pay attention to what color background the numerical indicator of the restriction is written on. If the background is accompanied by a white background, then the height ban is in effect permanently. If you notice a yellow background, then the restrictions are temporary.

Whatever the background color, its paint is accompanied by reflective characteristics, so the driver of the vehicle, even at night, can easily detect the warning.

Liability for violation

Every driver must strictly follow the traffic rules. However, it should be borne in mind that the consequences that may arise due to non-compliance with the requirements of traffic rules may be different. If a driver tries to rush along a highway that has a vehicle height restriction, such rash actions will be followed by disaster. A heavy truck simply will not be able to pass unhindered under engineering structures, therefore, mechanical damage to the vehicle itself, as well as engineering structures that it encountered along the way, will follow. Unfortunately, in such situations, a person driving a car risks not only his own health, and sometimes life, but also those road users who, by chance, happened to be nearby at the time of the accident.

Even if the driver took a chance and rushed under the structures without damage, but at the same time the height of the vehicle still exceeded the permissible figure, the driver is subject to administrative responsibility, which implies a strict five hundred rubles.

So, it is important enough to be extremely careful during the entire period of driving. This will ensure that no traffic warning is overlooked. "Helpers" will help car owners to proceed to their destination quickly, while easily bypassing all obstacles, as well as avoid unpleasant adventures associated with the destruction of structures, damage to the car or the cargo being transported.

The decision of the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 11, 2008 n 17AP-255 / 2008-GK in case n A71-234 / 2007 The absence of road signs indicating a height limit on the plaintiff's internal territory is not a basis for reducing the amount of damage caused to the plaintiff by the defendant's driver. This conclusion is based on the fact that the driver is obliged to find out whether the height of his load allows him to pass under the overpass. Court of First Instance Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic

SEVENTEENTH ARBITRATION COURT OF APPEALS
RESOLUTION
of February 11, 2008 N 17AP-255/2008-GK
Case N A71-234/2007
(extract)
The operative part of the resolution was announced on February 4, 2008.
The resolution was issued in full on February 11, 2008.
Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal
starring:
from the plaintiff, consumer society "O": did not appear, duly notified 21.01.2008;
from the defendant, limited liability company "C": did not appear, duly notified 22.01.2008;
from 3 persons: 1) P.: did not appear, a petition was received to consider the complaint in his absence;
2) closed joint-stock company "M": did not appear, duly notified on 21.01.2008;
having considered in the court session the appeal of the defendant, limited liability company "C",
on the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic
November 26, 2007
in case N A71-234/2007,
at the suit of the consumer society "O"
to a limited liability company "C",
third parties that do not file independent claims, P. and closed joint-stock company "M";
for damages,
installed:
consumer society "O" (hereinafter - PO "O") applied to the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic to the limited liability company "C" (hereinafter - LLC "S") with a claim for the recovery of damage resulting from the infliction of harm, in the amount of 315,246 rub., the cost of paying the appraisal company in the amount of 2,400 rubles., and the cost of paying the state fee in the amount of 7,852 rubles. 92 kop. (vol. 1, case sheet 4).
By the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic of 03.10.2007, P. was involved in the case as a third party who did not file independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute (v. 1, case file 155).
By the ruling of the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic dated October 23, 2007, a closed joint-stock company"M" (v. 2, case file 26).
By the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic of November 26, 2007 (the operative part of November 20, 2007), the claims were partially satisfied, 308,910 rubles were recovered from OOO S in favor of PO O. damage, 2,400 rubles. expenses for the assessment of damaged property, as well as 7 696 RUB. 27 kop. state duty expenses, the rest of the claim was denied (Vol. 2, pp. 51-54).
The defendant, LLC "S", disagrees with the court decision of November 26, 2007 (the operative part of November 20, 2007) on the grounds set forth in the appeal, asks to cancel the decision, to dismiss the claim. Believes that the court did not correctly apply the norms of substantive law, article 1083 of the Civil Code was not applied Russian Federation. The complainant believes that the traffic accident on 06/06/2006 occurred as a result of the plaintiff's gross negligence due to the absence of a warning sign "Height restriction" on the overpass and pipeline.
The complaint was considered in the absence of persons participating in the case, in accordance with Article 156 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
The legality and validity of the contested decision was verified by the arbitration court of the appellate instance in the manner prescribed by Articles 266, 268 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
As follows from the case file, 06/06/2006 on the street. Mayakovskogo, 18 in the city of Izhevsk on the territory of the production association "O" there was a traffic accident, as a result of which the car KAMAZ 54112, state. number S986KA / 18, owned by LLC "S" on the right of ownership, under the control of an employee of LLC "S" P., hit a flyover, a heating main.
As a result of the incident, the overpass received mechanical damage, and the owner (PO "O") suffered material damage, consisting of the cost of repair and construction work of the heating main and the steel overpass and the cost of work to assess the damaged property.
The ownership of the territory of the base where the traffic accident occurred, as well as the damaged heating main of PO "O" is confirmed by the documents available in the case file (certificate of the Union of Consumer Societies of the Udmurt Republic dated February 22, 2007 (vol. 1, case sheet 75) , the act of establishing (restoring, determining the location of established) boundaries land plot dated September 27, 2002 (v. 1, case file 100), by the Decree of the Administration of Izhevsk "On the provision of land plots for the Optovik consumer society for the operation and maintenance of a warehouse base at 18 Mayakovskogo St. in the Leninsky District " dated 02.12.2004 N 531/7 (vol. 1, case sheet 104), agreement on amending the land lease agreement dated 04.29.2005 N 261/3 (vol. 1, case sheet 104). 105).
The cost of repair and construction work to restore the heating main and steel overpass in the amount of 315,246 rubles. determined on the basis of the report of the limited liability company "E" N 49n-06 / 2006 (vol. 1, pp. 18-37), the cost of the assessment amounted to 2,400 rubles. Thus, the amount of damage caused to PO "O" as a result of a traffic accident amounted to 317,646 rubles. 00 kop. (315,246 rubles + 2,400 rubles). The plaintiff's real costs for the restoration of damaged property amounted to 326,103 rubles. 62 kopecks, which is confirmed by a certificate of the cost of work performed and costs for February 2007, invoice N 00000014 dated February 28, 2007 and payment documents (payment orders N 1001 dated 03/20/2007, N 1002 dated 03.20. 2007, promissory note N 10 in the amount of 176,103 rubles 32 kopecks - volume 1, case sheet 130-134).
By letter No. 4 dated July 3, 2006, Closed Joint-Stock Company "M" informed PO "O" of the refusal to pay insurance compensation due to the fact that the traffic accident occurred on the internal territory of the plaintiff and therefore does not apply to insured events of civil liability of owners vehicles (vol. 1, case file 14).
The plaintiff's appeal to the defendant for voluntary compensation for the damage caused was left by LLC "S" without satisfaction (vol. 1, case sheet 14).
These circumstances served as the basis for the appeal of PO "O" to the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic with this claim. In support of the stated requirements, the plaintiff refers to articles 1064, 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
The defendant, objecting to the satisfaction of the claim, pointed out that the plaintiff did not prove the ownership of the heating main and the steel overpass, there was no illegality of the behavior of the tortfeasor as a necessary condition for the application of Article 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation; on the territory where the traffic accident occurred, measures to organize traffic were not implemented (absence of the "Height restriction" sign on the steel overpass and pipeline) in accordance with the requirements federal law dated 10.12.95 N 196-FZ "On road safety" (vol. 1, pp. 50-51).
According to the appellate court, the court of first instance came to the rightful conclusion about the validity of the claims of PO "O".
According to paragraph 1 of Article 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, harm caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as damage caused to the property of a legal entity, is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm.
In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a legal entity and citizens whose activities are associated with increased danger to others (use of vehicles, mechanisms, high voltage electrical energy, nuclear energy, explosives, potent poisons, etc., construction and other activities related to it, etc.), are obliged to compensate for the damage caused by a source of increased danger, unless they prove that the damage arose as a result of an indefinable force or intent of the victim.
The owner of a source of increased danger may be released by the court from liability in whole or in part also on the grounds provided for in paragraphs 2 and 3 of Article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
Legal entities and citizens compensate for the harm caused by its employee in the performance of labor (service, official) duties (paragraph 1 of Article 1068 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
According to Article 1082 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, one of the ways to compensate for harm is compensation for losses.
By virtue of Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a person whose right has been violated may demand full compensation for the losses caused to him, while losses are understood as expenses that the person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make to restore the violated right, loss or damage to it property (real damage), as well as lost income that this person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right had not been violated (lost profit).
The materials of the case confirm the infliction of damage to the plaintiff related to a traffic accident (explanations by P. dated 06/06/2006 (v. 1, case file 54, v. 2, case file 12-14), explanations by Sh. dated 06/06/2006 (vol. 2, case file 15), the decision to terminate proceedings in the case of an administrative offense of 06/07/2006 (vol. 2, case file 4).
The actual tortfeasor is an employee of LLC "S" P. The actions of the driver are in a causal relationship with the harmful consequences that have occurred. To confirm that the motor vehicle belongs to LLC S, a copy of the technical passport dated November 16, 2005 N 18 OM 452910 (vol. 2, case sheet 16) was submitted to the case file.

The defendant's arguments that the plaintiff, in violation of Article 21 of the Federal Law of December 10, 1995 N 199-FZ "On Road Safety", paragraph 2.14.12 of GOST 23457-86, approved by Resolution of the State Standard of the USSR of June 24, 1986 N 1685, did not mark the overpass and the heating main with a warning sign "Height restriction", rightfully rejected by the court of first instance.
In accordance with paragraph 2 of Article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the gross negligence of the victim himself contributed to the occurrence or increase of harm, depending on the degree of fault of the victim and the tortfeasor, the amount of compensation should be reduced.
The fact that there is no "Height restriction" sign on the damaged heating main does not in itself indicate the fault of the injured party.
According to clause 2.14.12 of GOST 23457-86, approved by Decree of the USSR State Standard of 24.06.86 N 1685, the sign "Height restriction" should be used to prohibit the movement of vehicles whose overall height (with or without cargo) is greater than that indicated on the sign , if the distance from the surface of the road surface to the bottom of the span of an artificial structure, power line, etc. less than 5 meters. A similar provision is enshrined in paragraph 5.4.10 of the current GOST R 52289-2004, approved by the Order of Rostekhregulirovanie dated December 15, 2004 N 120-ST.
The defendant, referring to the plaintiff's failure to comply with the specified requirements of GOST, believes that if there was a "Height restriction" sign, damage to the heating main could have been avoided. The plaintiff's failure to take measures to equip the heating main with the "Height restriction" sign indicates, in the defendant's opinion, the plaintiff's (victim's) gross negligence, which contributed to causing damage to his property (paragraph 2 of Article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation).
These arguments of the defendant are unfounded, since the absence of the sign "Height restriction" on the heating main owned by the plaintiff is not in a causal relationship with damage to the heating main, admitted by the defendant's employee.
In accordance with clause 23.5 of the Rules of the Road, approved by Government Decree of 23.10.93 N 1090 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules of the Road), the transportation of heavy and dangerous goods, the movement of a vehicle whose overall parameters with or without cargo exceed 2 .55 m (2.6 m - for refrigerators and insulated bodies), 4 m in height from the surface of the carriageway, 20 m in length (including one trailer), are carried out in accordance with special rules.
In accordance with the Instructions for the transportation of oversized cargo and heavy cargo by car on the roads of the Russian Federation, approved by the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation of May 27, 1996 (hereinafter referred to as the Instruction), the transportation of bulky goods must be carried out with a mandatory control measurement of the height under overpasses and other artificial structures and communications on the transportation route (paragraph 5.11 of the Instruction).
It can be seen from the submitted documents that, in violation of the above provisions of the Instruction, the necessary approvals and permits were not obtained, the driver (P.) did not take control measurements of the height, but relied on the loader’s advice (P.’s explanation of 06.06.2006, Sh.’s explanation of 06/06/2006).
Referring to the lack of fault of the tortfeasor in the occurrence of losses, the defendant points out that the actions of P. did not establish the elements of the offense (the decision to terminate the proceedings in the case of an administrative offense of 06/07/2006 (v. 2, case file 4) , decision of the Industrial District Court of Izhevsk dated April 13, 2007 N 12-149-07 (vol. 1, case file 144), decision of the Supreme Court of the Udmurt Republic N 7-89 (vol. 2, case file 145).
At the same time, when considering the case of an administrative offense on the fact of a traffic accident, only the absence in the actions of P. of an offense entailing liability under clause 10.1 of the Rules of the Road was established, that is, exceeding the established speed limit without taking into account the characteristics and condition of the vehicle and cargo , road and meteorological conditions. However, the damage was caused by other reasons, namely the fact that the driver did not take measures to find out whether the height of his load allows him to pass under the heating main and overpass, therefore, under such circumstances, it does not matter if P. complies with the speed limit,
These circumstances testify to the fault of the defendant and do not prove the gross negligence of the victim himself, which excludes the possibility of releasing the defendant from liability.
The Respondent did not provide evidence refuting the fact of causing damage established by the documents listed above. Therefore, the court of first instance reasonably considered the commission of an unlawful act by the employee of the defendant guilty of it, as a result of which the plaintiff incurred expenses to restore the disturbed heating main and overpass (Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation), as proven.
The defendant's arguments that a road is located on the territory where the traffic accident occurred, since this strip of land is adapted and used by PO "O" for the movement of vehicles, which is confirmed by the Regulations on the checkpoint mode of the enterprise PO "O", rejected by the Court of Appeal for the following reasons.
In accordance with Article 21 of the Federal Law of December 10, 1995 N 196-FZ "On Road Safety", measures to organize road traffic in order to increase its safety and road capacity are carried out by federal executive authorities, executive authorities of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local self-government bodies, legal entities and individuals in charge of motor roads.
The concept of "road" is given in clause 1.2 of the Rules of the Road and is defined as a strip of land equipped or adapted and used for the movement of vehicles or the surface of an artificial structure.
The territory where the traffic accident occurred was provided by PO "O" for the operation and maintenance of the warehouse base and, in accordance with the Rules of the Road, is an "adjacent territory", that is, an area directly adjacent to the road and not intended for through traffic of vehicles (courtyards, residential areas, parking lots, gas stations, enterprises, etc.). The fact that the territory of the base, in fact, is a technological site, and not a road, is confirmed by the fact that on the cartographic, schematic materials of the territory provided by PO "O" available in the case, the road is like a separate strip of land, equipped and adapted for the movement of vehicles funds, not indicated (Resolution of the administration of Izhevsk on the provision of a land plot dated 02.12.2004 N 531/7 (vol. 1, case files 104, 109), plan of the land plot (vol. 1, case file 101-103), map (plan) of the land plot provided for rent (annex to agreement N 261/3 (v. 1, case file 108), scheme of the incident (v. 2, case file 7, 8) .
In addition, the damage to the heating main that occurred on the territory of the base was not regarded by the insurance organization as an insured event, since it did not take place on the road, but on the internal territory of the organization.
The court of first instance assessed this circumstance by rightly referring to subparagraph "i" of paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Federal Law of April 25, 2002 N 40-FZ "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Vehicle Owners" and subparagraph "k" of paragraph 9 of the Compulsory Insurance Rules civil liability of vehicle owners approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of 07.05.2003 N 263.
In addition, the Regulations on the checkpoint regime of the enterprise PO "O", submitted to the case file by the defendant, approved by the chairman of the Council of PO "O" on September 1, 1999, provide that in case of damage during loading, unloading of goods, as well as during the passage on the territory of the enterprise, the owner of the vehicle, who caused harm to the owner of the enterprise, or to third parties, is liable for the damage caused in the manner prescribed by law (paragraph 7 of the Regulations). Said provision was known to the workers of the defendant, who is also located on the territory of PO "O" at the address: g. Izhevsk, st. Mayakovsky, 18.
According to the plaintiff, the amount of losses incurred to restore the damaged heating main, in accordance with the report of the limited liability company "E" N 49n-06/2006, is 315,246 rubles. (vol. 1, pp. 18-36). The valuation was carried out by limited liability company "E", which has a license dated 04.09.01 N 000766, a certificate dated 13.10.2005 N 432 (v. 1, ld 47-49) and has the right to carry out valuation activities .
The cost of services for assessing the specified damage in the amount of 2,400 rubles. the plaintiff was paid, which is confirmed by the payment order dated 03.07.2006 N 4230 (v. 1, case file 59).
The court of first instance calculated the amount of damage caused in the amount of 308,910 rubles, based on the repair costs incurred by the plaintiff, excluding the cost of scrap metal, according to the acceptance certificate of November 16, 2006 N 4834, and also in the amount of 2,400 rubles. in terms of expenses for the assessment of damaged property, which in total amounted to 311,310 rubles.
Under such circumstances, the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic of November 26, 2007 (the operative part of November 20, 2007) is legal and justified, adopted in accordance with the norms of substantive and procedural law and is not subject to cancellation (Article 271 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation) .
The state fee for an appeal is borne by the applicant in accordance with Article 110 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.
Based on the foregoing and guided by articles 176, 258, 268, 269, 271 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Seventeenth Arbitration Court of Appeal
decided:
the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Udmurt Republic dated November 26, 2007 in case N A71-234 / 2007 is left unchanged, the appeal is not satisfied.

The decision can be appealed in the order of cassation to the Federal Arbitration Court of the Urals District within two months from the date of its adoption through the Arbitration Court of the Perm Territory.
Information about the time, place and results of the consideration of the cassation appeal can be obtained on the website of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Urals District www.fasuo.arbitr.ru.

The base of the road sign is made of galvanized steel 0.8-1mm thick, to increase the rigidity, the workpiece is rolled to obtain a double flanging. A road sign mask is applied to the surface of the base, made of high-quality reflective films in accordance with GOST R 52290-2004 and GOST 32945-2014. Additional stiffening ribs and reinforced fasteners make it possible to exclude the possibility of sign bending both from wind load and under the influence of any forces. To fix the road sign, the base is equipped with a special tongue-type mount.

It is forbidden to enter any vehicle whose dimensions (with or without cargo) exceed the established figure in height. Road sign 3.13 is installed in cases where the distance from the surface of the road surface to the bottom of the span structure of an artificial structure, utilities, etc. less than 5 m.

Road signs 1.8, 1.15, 1.16, 1.18-1.21, 1.33, 2.6, 3.11-3.16, 3.18.1-3.25, made on a yellow background, are used in places where road works are carried out. At the same time, signs 1.8, 1.15, 1.16, 1.18-1.21, 1.33, 2.6, 3.11-3.16, 3.18.1-3.25, made on a white background, are covered with covers or dismantled

Table E.4

Pickup:

Pickup from a warehouse at the address: Moscow, st. Shosseinaya, 90, building 5

Working hours: Mon-Fri, 10:00 - 18:00

For legal entities upon receipt of the goods, you must have a power of attorney or seal with you. For individuals- the passport.

Delivery in Moscow and Moscow region*:

Delivery in Moscow within the Moscow Ring Road - 1000 ** rub.
Delivery up to 10 km outside the Moscow Ring Road - 1500 ** rub.
Delivery from 10 to 20 km outside the Moscow Ring Road - 2000** rub.
Delivery from 20 to 30 km outside the Moscow Ring Road - 2500 ** rub.

Delivery is carried out daily, except weekends and public holidays from 10:00 to 18:00.

*Orders are delivered to the entrance or to the nearest possible parking place, the rise to the floor is carried out by the customer.
** The price is indicated for the delivery of an order with a total weight of not more than 1000 kg, a length of not more than 4 meters.

Delivery across Russia:

Delivery in Russia is carried out by transport companies.

Delivery to the terminals of TC "PEK", TC "GlavDostavka", "DK Transit" (IP Litovchenko) in Moscow - free of charge. To other terminals transport companies(except TK Business Line) according to the price list of delivery in Moscow and the Moscow region.

Prohibiting road signs limiting movement by vehicle dimensions: “Height limit”, “Width limit”, “Length limit” and “Minimum distance limit” sign. What are they used for, where and how are they installed. What do the numbers on these signs mean and the fines for violating the requirements of these signs.

Sign 3.13 "Height limitation"

Road sign 3.13 "Height restriction" is used to prohibit the movement of vehicles whose overall height (with or without cargo) is greater than that indicated on the sign.

The sign is installed in cases where the distance from the road surface to the bottom of the span structure of an artificial structure, utilities, gates, etc. (span height) less than 5 meters.

The height indicated on the sign is less than the actual height by 0.2 - 0.4 meters. These are the norms. Moreover, this difference between the actual and the height indicated on the sign can be increased depending on the evenness of the road surface (the figure on the sign is slightly less than the actual height of the span).

If the height of the vehicle (with or without cargo) is greater than indicated on the sign, the driver must detour the section of road on a different route. To warn the driver about the vehicle height restriction ahead, sign 3.13 is duplicated, i.e. also installed in advance.

Preliminary sign 3.13 "Height restriction" with a sign is installed behind the intersection at the beginning of the section of the road where restrictions on the height of the vehicle are introduced. Accordingly, at this intersection it is possible to choose another route.

Repeated sign 3.13 (main) is installed directly at the place of restriction. It is allowed to install a sign on the span of an artificial structure, and if there is a clearance gate in front of it, on the gate.

The yellow background of the sign 3.13 "Height restriction" means that the sign is temporary.

Penalty for violation of the sign 3.13 "Height limit"

For non-compliance with the requirement of the sign 3.13 "Height restriction", sanctions may be imposed on the driver in the form of a warning or a fine of 500 rubles under part 1 of article 12.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

If an attempt to pass under the “Height restriction” sign caused undesirable consequences for the flight, cargo or vehicle in the form of damage, i.e. caused an accident, then the sanctions will be different.

Sign 3.14 "Width limitation"

Road sign 3.14 "Width limitation" is used to prohibit the movement of vehicles whose overall width (with or without cargo) is greater than that indicated on the sign.

The sign is installed in front of the passage if its width is less than 3.5 meters (for example, in a tunnel, between bridge supports and in other narrow places). The width indicated on the sign is less than the actual width by 0.2 meters. Those are the rules.

If the width of the car (with or without cargo) is greater than on the sign, then the driver must go around this section of the road on a different route. To warn the driver about the limit on the width of the vehicle ahead, sign 3.14 is installed twice, i.e. first there will be a preliminary sign.

Preliminary sign 3.14 "Width limitation" with a sign is installed behind the intersection at the beginning of the road section, where restrictions on the width of the vehicle are introduced. At this intersection, the driver can change his route and choose another direction.

Repeated sign 3.14 (main) is installed directly at the place of restriction. It is allowed to install a sign on a span or support of an artificial structure.

The yellow background of the sign 3.14 "Width limitation" means that the sign is temporary.

Penalty for violation of the sign 3.14 "Width limitation"

For non-compliance with the requirement of the sign 3.14 "Width limitation", sanctions may be imposed on the driver in the form of a warning or a fine of 500 rubles under part 1 of article 12.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

If an attempt to pass under the “Width Limit” sign caused undesirable consequences for the structure of the span, cargo or vehicle in the form of damage, in other words, caused an accident, then the sanctions will be different, based on the results of the investigation.

Responsibility for the driver for violation of the permissible dimensions of the vehicle during the carriage of goods is determined by parts 1-6 of Article 12.21.1 of the Code of Administrative Offenses. The "range" of fines varies from the degree of violation of the rules for the transportation of goods from 1 to 10 thousand rubles per driver, with the detention of the vehicle.

Sign 3.15 "Length limitation"

Road sign 3.15 "Length limitation" prohibits the movement of vehicles (or combinations of vehicles), the overall length of which (with or without cargo) is greater than that indicated on the sign.

The “Length Limit” sign is used to prohibit the movement of the above vehicles on sections of roads with a narrow carriageway, dense buildings, sharp turns, etc., where their movement or passing with oncoming vehicles is difficult.

If the overall length of the vehicle or vehicle composition (with or without cargo) is more than indicated on the sign, the driver must go around this section of the road on a different route. To warn the driver about the restriction on the length of the vehicle ahead, the sign 3.15 is installed twice, i.e. first there will be a preliminary sign.

Preliminary sign 3.15 "Length limitation" with a sign is installed behind the intersection at the beginning of the road section, where restrictions on the length of the vehicle are introduced. At this intersection, the driver can change his route and choose another direction.

Repeated sign 3.15 (main) is installed directly at the beginning of the restriction.

The yellow background of sign 3.15 "Length limitation" means that the sign is temporary.

Penalty for violation of sign 3.15 "Length limit"

For non-compliance with the requirement of the sign 3.15 "Length limitation", sanctions may be imposed on the driver in the form of a warning or a fine of 500 rubles under part 1 of article 12.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

If an attempt to pass under the “Length Limit” sign caused undesirable consequences for the structure of the passage, cargo or vehicle in the form of damage, i.e. caused the accident, then the sanctions will be different, based on the results of the investigation.

Sign 3.16 "Minimum distance limitation"

Road sign 3.16 "Minimum distance limitation" is used to prohibit the movement of vehicles with a distance between them less than indicated on the sign. Sign 3.16 can be found on bridge structures with spans of limited carrying capacity, on ice crossings, in tunnels, etc.).

The effect of sign 3.16 extends from the place where the sign is installed to the nearest intersection behind the sign, and in locality in the absence of an intersection - to the end of the settlement.

If necessary, the coverage area of the sign 3.16 can be reduced by using a plate.

The yellow background of the sign 3.16 "Minimum distance limitation" means that the sign is temporary.

Penalty for violation of the sign 3.16 "Minimum distance limit"

For non-compliance with the requirement of sign 3.16 "Minimum distance limitation", sanctions may be imposed on the driver in the form of a warning or a fine of 500 rubles. in accordance with Part 1 of Article 12.16 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

You should not confuse a fine for violating sign 3.16 with a fine for, so to speak, general non-observance of the distance at which an accident occurs (collision from behind). Failure to observe the distance is interpreted as a violation of the location of the vehicle on the roadway, and is punishable under Art. 12.15 part 1 - a fine of 1500 rubles.

In the case of sign 3.16, sanctions will follow for violating the minimum distance.

Navigating a series of articles

The sign is used to prohibit the movement of vehicles whose overall height (with or without cargo) is greater than that indicated on the sign. The sign is installed in cases where the distance from the surface of the road surface to the bottom of the superstructure of an artificial structure, utilities, etc. less than 5 m.

The height indicated on the sign must be less than the actual one by 0.2-0.4 m for utilities, by 0.3 and 0.4 m - for overpasses, along which automobile and railway. The difference between the actual and indicated height can be increased depending on the evenness of the road surface. The repeated sign 3.13 is allowed to be installed on the span of an artificial structure, and if there is a clearance gate in front of it, on the gate.

Signs are made of galvanized metal with a thickness of 0.8-1 mm, with double flanging, which gives additional rigidity to the body of the sign. Each sign has two attachment points in the form of "tongues". The fastening elements are attached to the body by a pecking method, which does not distort the image of the badge and provides much higher reliability than spot welding or rivets.