“Drivers’ interests should come last” – Speed tolerance hike faces public backlash

The government has introduced a draft law to the Oliy Majlis that would grant drivers a “right to speed,” raising the deductible speed limit tolerance from 5 km/h to 10 km/h before fines are issued. “When we talk about increasing speed limits, we must think of our fellow citizens — especially children — dying on the roads,” an expert warns. Kun.uz explored the opinions of experts and activists regarding this proposal, which has triggered public backlash.

Draft law submitted to parliament

On March 15, the Cabinet of Ministers submitted a draft amendment to the Administrative Responsibility Code to the Legislative Chamber under its legislative initiative rights, as announced on the chamber’s official page.

The proposal stipulates that, accounting for potential errors in radars and speedometers, the speed tolerance before penalties apply would increase to 10 km/h, up from the current 5 km/h. Curiously, the Legislative Chamber’s official statement, accompanied by an image, implied that this yet-to-be-debated document is already set for implementation: “Now, 10 km/h will be deducted from the recorded speed.”

In 2024, Uzbekistan recorded over 9,000 road traffic accidents, injuring nearly 9,000 people and claiming more than 2,200 lives. Is such a decision necessary now? Kun.uz sought perspectives from activists and a road safety expert on this contentious issue.

“Most accidents are due to speed, and children are victims of that speed”

Nosirjon Zokirov, a road traffic safety expert, opposes raising the speed tolerance from a safety standpoint. In a conversation with Kun.uz, he explained why this initiative should not proceed.

“Lowering the speed limit from 70 km/h to 60 km/h required significant effort, facing substantial resistance and objections. Some claimed reducing it to 60 km/h would ease congestion, yet they still ask, ‘Did deaths decrease after dropping it to 60?’ They don’t say, ‘Maybe it didn’t increase.’ Now, raising the tolerance from 5 km/h to 10 km/h is like taking one step forward and two steps back. Soon, someone will say, ‘10 km/h isn’t enough, let’s make it 15,’ then ‘20,’ and it’ll keep escalating. That’s the first issue.

“Secondly, in our populated areas, the maximum speed is capped at 70 km/h, not 60 km/h, due to inconsistencies in traffic rules. The regulations state that the speed limit in populated areas must not exceed 70 km/h, but in cities — specifically noting Nukus and Tashkent — and district or regional centers, it’s 60 km/h. This creates two different standards. If we raise the tolerance to 10 km/h in Tashkent, where the limit is 70 km/h, it becomes 80 km/h elsewhere in district or regional centers. Uzbekistan is vast, with settlements, neighborhoods, and villages. While 80 km/h isn’t explicitly set, if the upper limit is 70 km/h and we add a 10 km/h tolerance, it will lead to more deaths.

“To avoid empty claims, let’s look at research. Imagine two identical cars traveling side by side. One moves at 60 km/h, the other at 65 km/h — a mere 5 km/h difference. Both drivers are the same age, healthy, and sober. Suddenly, they spot an obstacle — be it a pedestrian, another vehicle, or a tree. From the moment they react, their brain signals their foot to brake, and both press the pedal equally. The car at 60 km/h slows to 5 km/h upon impact with a pedestrian, while the one at 65 km/h hits at 32 km/h — a 27 km/h difference. Can someone survive being hit at 32 km/h? Unlikely, it’s nearly impossible.

“That’s why we must carefully consider every km/h increase and conduct studies. In exams, there’s a question: ‘If speed doubles, how much does the stopping distance increase?’ The answer is four times, because stopping distance grows with speed. We’re talking about roads with high friction now, but rain or snow can make them slippery. Every condition matters. As speed rises, so does the risk. Most accidents stem from speed, and children are often its victims. When discussing speed increases, we must think of our compatriots — especially children — dying prematurely,” he said.

“The sector needs civilian leadership”

Economic analyst Otabek Bakirov views this proposal as a step backward, especially when the country’s leadership is emphasizing adapting city streets for pedestrians. He also highlighted that the draft was submitted to parliament without public consultation.

“At a time when pedestrians vastly outnumber drivers in Uzbekistan — statistically, even if we assume 4.5 million cars, the rest of the population can conditionally be considered pedestrians — it’s notable that drivers themselves are pedestrians at certain times. The fact that an issue affecting the majority is submitted to parliament without discussion raises questions. The president himself, upon forming the new parliament, instructed, ‘Increase public consultations; decisions should involve public debate.’ Yet, we’re seeing the opposite in practice, even in parliament. That’s the first concern.

“Secondly, we’ve observed that our parliament, especially this new session, isn’t a place for debate. Many issues pass quickly, easily, and without discussion. In another society or country, people might reassure themselves, ‘Our representatives in parliament will protect our interests; this anti-public decision won’t pass.’ But we know how decisions are made in our parliament — often in hours or minutes, even if they’re critical or harmful to Uzbekistan’s future, without debate. This creates a second worry: Why have we reached this point?

“I still hold some optimism. If this increase from 5 km/h to 10 km/h accounts for speedometer or device errors, perhaps it’s tied to a decision to lower urban speed limits from 60 km/h to 50 km/h, which might be introduced after parliamentary debate. But days have passed, and we’ve heard or seen nothing about this angle,” Bakirov noted.

He added that the lack of transparency — between initial drafts, readings in the Legislative Chamber, Senate approval, and final signed texts — fuels distrust, as laws have been altered or lost between stages in the past. He also criticized officials for dismissing public opinion and hiding certain road safety incidents, calling it a troubling trend.

“This decision isn’t needed; we need to calm our roads”

Journalist Muhrim A’zamkho’jayev argues that, given the current situation, raising the speed tolerance is less urgent than other issues awaiting the government and parliament. He proposed a system where parliament cannot adopt documents not subjected to public debate.

“If this had been announced for discussion, there’d be a brief: ‘Why is this proposed? What’s the basis? What’s the necessity?’ We’d know and understand why the government reached this stance, whether we’d agree or not. Now, it’s likely something we wouldn’t support even if we saw it, but it’s not the top priority. There are other pressing road safety issues; this isn’t needed now.

“If it wasn’t put to public debate, perhaps parliament should establish a rule: ‘If you didn’t consult the public first, we won’t adopt it.’ That would avoid the current cynical, mocking attitudes,” he suggested, noting that while some foreign countries have speed tolerances, Uzbekistan’s current conditions might warrant removing the 5 km/h buffer entirely, forcing drivers to self-regulate using modern car features like cruise control.

He emphasized that recent recklessness has led to accidents, such as those on Amir Temur Street, where poorly planned road markings exacerbated risks. Public consultation with urbanists and experts could have prevented such incidents, he argued, advocating for calming roads and reducing lanes rather than raising speed tolerances.

“Radical measures are needed”

Journalist Shuhrat Shokirjonov links the issue’s root to a societal view of cars as a luxury, driving a culture where drivers’ convenience trumps all. He argues that decision-makers prioritize car users, sidelining pedestrians — women, children, and the elderly.

“In our society, cars are still seen as a luxury; someone without one is deemed a ‘loser.’ This car-worship is pervasive — everything must cater to cars. Decision-makers, ministers, and deputies are ‘auto-terrorists’ who want to drive and ensure all conditions favor cars. Otherwise, they’d sit in a desert parliament or ministry, undisturbed, driving at 350 km/h.

“Look at the population: pedestrians without cars are women, children, and the elderly. Why not consider them? Why must everything cater to ‘auto-terrorist’ men aged 20-50? They don’t even drive themselves; they have chauffeurs. Their cars are safe, with 18 airbags, surviving 150 km/h crashes. They know this and don’t care — they’re doing it for themselves, their drivers, sons, or relatives, complaining, ‘These radars fined us for just 1 km/h over 66 km/h.’

“We need radical measures. ‘Drivers won’t like it; we’ll upset them’ — their interests should come last. If they can’t cope, no one begged them to drive or buy a car. Parking? Is the state obligated to provide it? Our driving culture is zero; strict measures are needed. School zone 30 km/h signs are ignored — make drivers comply,” he urged, advocating for studying pedestrian-focused Scandinavian models over car-centric ones.