Rules for the installation of road signs height restrictions. Signs height restriction, mass restriction, length restriction

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. In order for the driver to follow the rules of the road without fail, signs indicating the height limit are installed on the roads.

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. The calculation of permissible values ​​​​is carried out by specialists, taking into account a certain additional margin, the value of which can reach forty centimeters. Such a reserve is important, because over time the roads need to be repaired, respectively, a new pavement can be laid, following such actions, the total value 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 liability, 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.

Currently, there is a height restriction on the roads in the country. According to GOST, when using road devices, in particular, those of a cargo nature, dimensions are subject to accounting, through which safe movement on highways is carried out. The geometry in the SDA is formulated in accordance with the international agreements concluded by Russia. In addition to our country, it includes states that are members of the CIS. Width and other height restrictions are specified in the said act. The clause has the wording 6.3. Mathematics indicates that the EAC has a height limit of four meters. In China, the limit value for vehicles will be referred to as 4.3 meters.

The sign about the height restriction has a prohibitive character. Concerning it in the legislation there are separate positions. In particular, the legislator reflects the rules according to which the said sign is installed. This is done to ensure the safety of the people of the country.

Places of such installation are:

• sections of the route where gas pipelines are located;
• overpass location;
• bridges.

This also includes other structures that provide that cars pass under them. The height restriction sign is also placed in those areas where the tunnels are located. Any route should be built taking into account what is shown on the map. According to the rules, the use of these structures is allowed when the car has a lower height than provided for by the building.

Subway travel is not affected by these provisions. Gates in some situations also have an indication of the sign in question. Transportation of goods by transport is also required in accordance with the established provisions. The height sign indicates the presence of the maximum size that a car can have. Drivers of vehicles must take these provisions into account. The height will be given in meters. At the same time, the motorist takes into account not only the car itself, but also the cargo that is transported by it.

The general level - those who on their way do not comply with the established rules regarding the height of the car and cargo - will not be able to negative consequences. In this situation, violators are subject to liability. These provisions are enshrined in legislation. In addition, it should be borne in mind that the performance of these actions during movement indicates a violation of the structure under which the car passes. It also affects the health of pedestrians and other motorists.

The main violation may be that the fence is destroyed and falls on a person, and damage is also caused to devices that supply light, systems through which video surveillance and other important objects are made. In fact, the person driving the vehicle at the moment in question violates the rules enshrined in the law. These provisions apply to all motorists moving around the country.

If there is a violation of traffic rules, then the driver will not be able to avoid punishment. Moving around objects where signs with restrictions are installed, he violates the rules regarding moving along them. Installation is carried out in accordance with the specified provisions of the law. Buy protection from punishment will not work. Measures of responsibility that are of an administrative nature are assigned. In addition, those provisions reflected in the civil law law may also apply. An important line - the consequences of the violation should be taken into account.

The height restriction sign is in the form of a prohibition and is placed on the ground. It is worth considering that the installation work on the installation of this sign is carried out before the zone of action of the sign in question begins. The placement of the height vector, as an example, can be fixed as 3.5 meters. It depends on what the maximum size is envisaged by the design as possible. Height must be taken into account, affecting the distance from the pedestrian crossing or other area on the floor of the road to the edge of the building. In this case, the bottom edge is taken into account. The location of the sea does not matter in this case.

According to the fixed GOST, a small spare distance is established relative to the value in question. Photo symbols in this situation does not apply in statutory provisions. However, legislators reflect that for structures such as flyovers and bridges, the height will be about twenty cm less, while for various kinds of overpasses, such a distance becomes less than about 40 cm. The indicated centimeters are subtracted from the height that is permissible by law. Provisions are provided according to which evacuation or fire routes can be laid at a given distance in the future.

The designation of this sign applies only to freight transport.

In particular, it states:

1. The sign to some extent repeats the legislative provisions. They affect the rules of vertical layout.
2. Such marking is applied to structures that have a lateral or upper character.

In order for the sign to be visible in the dark, its drawing will be depicted using paint that has reflection properties. Evacuation, even from a familiar object, is carried out according to detour signs. Garages also have height restrictions in some situations. Flying in aircraft may also affect clearance positions, which indicates that the aircraft cannot be lowered to a certain level.

The construction of the buildings in question is implemented at the level prescribed by law. If the sign is applied on a yellow background, this indicates that it is temporary. When there are discrepancies between permanent and temporary signs, you need to follow the information reflected on the latter.

Responsibility

In private, you can download traffic rules and periodically repeat this, especially for novice drivers. The legislator stipulates that such provisions should be taken into account by all motorists. The consequences of non-compliance with the prescribed rules are various factors. In particular, when a person decides, contrary to physics, to drive under the buildings in front of which the act in question is installed, the consequence will be a catastrophe. The spikes can hook on the structure.

When a truck tries to pass under the indicated buildings, its design is violated. Damage is mechanical in nature. At the same time, these provisions apply to both transport and engineering structures. In this case, the driver endangers both his health and life, and also threatens other people with his actions. At the same time, those who are not guilty of anything suffer.

There are situations when a motorist drives through a structure at his own risk and does not cause damage to a car or structure - in fact, there is a violation of administrative norms.

In this case, the offender may apply:

• penalties;
• they are expressed in the amount of 500 rubles.

Considerable attention is recommended in these situations. This applies at all times when the vehicle is being driven. In this case, this allows you not to lose sight of all the warnings that are located along the route. If the motorist pays attention to all the signs, this helps him to reach his destination as quickly as possible. Such provisions are associated with the lack of the need to return to a certain point on the route in order to take a detour. Signs for detours are installed next to those indicated. If the goods are damaged, the violator will bear material and other liability. The height restriction sign is important among traffic rules.

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 roads and railways pass, respectively. 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 the peeping method, which does not distort the image of the badge and provides much higher reliability than spot welding or riveting.

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 dated 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, Closed Joint-Stock Company "M" was involved as a third party that did not file independent claims (vol. 2, case sheet 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. He believes that the court did not correctly apply the substantive law, article 1083 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was not applied. 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 accident, 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 assessing 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 the established) boundaries of the land plot dated September 27, 2002 (vol. 1, case file 100), by the Decree of the Izhevsk City Administration "On the provision of land plots for lease to the Optovik consumer society for operation and maintenance of the warehouse base at 18 Mayakovskogo St. in the Leninsky District" dated 02.12.2004 N 531/7 (v. 1, case file 104), agreement on amending the land lease agreement dated 04.29.2005 N 261/3 (vol. 1, case sheet 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 03.07.2006, 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 wrongfulness 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 (the absence of the "Height restriction" sign on the steel overpass and pipeline) in accordance with the requirements of the Federal Law of December 10, 1995 N 196-ФЗ "On Road Safety movement" (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 paragraph 23.5 of the Rules of the Road, approved by Government Decree of 10.23.93 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 road 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 oversized cargo must be carried out with a mandatory control measurement of the height under overpasses and other artificial structures and communications on the transportation route (clause 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 there is a road in 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.