The Supreme Court has filed the order 23726/2018 concerning the new devices for detecting the speed of vehicles that can read the infringements in both directions of travel. Remote speed controls, specifies Il Sole 24 ore, are governed by a series of rules, including article 4 of the DI 121/2002 and article 2 of the Infrastructure Ministerial Decree of 15 August 2007. The ordinance just filed requires the owner of the road to notify the user of the presence of the station at a reasonable distance from it and on roads other than motorways and main suburban areas, on the basis of the prefectural decree authorizing its installation.
From this, according to the Supreme Court, the consequence derives that it is this decree that sets the requirements to be respected in the specific case. The recent ordinance decrees that whoever authorized the positioning must also specify the side on which the speed detection must take place. The case started from the municipality of Macchia d'Isernia where the legal office, now, can no longer rely on the principle that the Supreme Court itself had affirmed in the sentence 10206/2013, where it was observed that no rule requires the Prefectures to specify in the they also decree the side of the road and the direction of travel.
Rather, yesterday's ordinance states that that ruling must be interpreted in the sense that, when the provision of the Prefecture goes into detail, the checks "may be considered legitimate if they refer to the speed camera as positioned in accordance with the authorization decree and not, instead" on the carriageway or opposite lane not mentioned in the decree. The matter with the recent provision of the Supreme Court can be considered overcome by choosing a speed meter designed to carry out measurements in both directions of travel or in any case that can be installed on a high pole and therefore able to frame most of the offenders also from the side opposite their direction. of running (however respecting the condition of showing the rear part of the vehicle, in order not to unduly favor vehicles that do not have a front plate). But, with the criteria set today by the Supreme Court, this flexibility of use must still deal with the authorization measures of the prefect and the body that owns the road.