I parked within the coverage area of ​​the "8.2.6" sign.
It is charged that I “failed to comply with the requirement of the road sign “6.4” with the plate “8.17” and “8.2.6”. But we know from the traffic rules that the sign “8.2.6” indicates the direction (to the left) and the coverage area of ​​the signs “3.27” - “3.30”, while stopping or parking is prohibited along one side of the square, the facade of the building and with the sign “6.4” does not apply. Likewise, the CEP suggests that the sign is not an independent element and is installed only with the sign, and does not extend its influence to another sign that still hangs under the sign.

“Explanation on the procedure for use and coverage area of ​​road sign 6.4 “Parking, parking space” installed together with the road sign additional information(sign) 8.17 “Disabled people.” It directly says:

In accordance with the requirements of clause 5.9.6 GOST R 52289-2004 " Technical means organizations traffic. Rules for the use of road signs, markings..." road signs for additional information (placards) 8.2.5(6) "Validity area" together with signs 6.4 "Parking area" - do not apply

GOST R 52289-2004 states that of all the additional information signs of section 8.2 “Validity area” with sign 6.4 “Parking area” only plate 8.2.1 can be used, and plates 8.2.2-8.2.6 “Validity area” can only be used with signs 3.27-3.30.

GOST R 52289-2004 Technical means of organizing traffic. Rules for the use of road signs, markings, traffic lights, road barriers and guide devices.
5.9.5 Plate 8.2.1 “Area of ​​Effect” is used:
- with sign 6.4 installed with a sign(s) clarifying or limiting its effect, while sign 8.2.1 is placed under other signs if the sign’s effect does not extend to the nearest intersection.
5.9.6 Plates 8.2.2-8.2.6 “Value area” are used only with signs 3.27-3.30:
- plates 8.2.5 and 8.2.6 - to indicate the coverage area of ​​the sign, to the right and (or) to the left of it, when stopping or parking is prohibited along the edge of the roadway of the square, the facade of a building, etc.

In the traffic rules: DECISION of October 23, 1993 N 1090 ON THE ROAD RULES Appendix 1 to the Traffic Rules:
8. Additional information signs (plates):
8.2.2 - 8.2.6 "Coverage area". 8.2.2 indicates the coverage area of ​​prohibitory signs 3.27 - 3.30; 8.2.3 indicates the end of the coverage area of ​​signs 3.27 - 3.30; 8.2.4 informs drivers that they are in the coverage area of ​​signs 3.27 - 3.30; 8.2.5, 8.2.6 indicate the direction and coverage area of ​​signs 3.27 - 3.30 when stopping or parking is prohibited along one side of the square, the facade of a building, etc.

Consequently, plate 8.2.6 “Area of ​​Operation” under sign 6.4 “Parking Place”, as well as plate 8.17 “Disabled Persons” above sign 6.4, were installed in violation of the requirements of GOST and traffic rules.

There are a lot of such signs all over the city. And 3 official documents say that such a configuration of the sign is not permissible. Where to look for the truth?

More fun:
There were 2 mistakes made in the protocol: that I “did not comply with the requirement of the road sign “6.4” with the sign “8.2.5”, and “8.2.5” is a sign with an arrow to the right and the location of the offense is indicated on the street. Rokossovsky 3. This residential building is located on the other side of the street, 70m from the sign, the requirements of which I allegedly violated. But the sign is installed about 8 meters from the Maria-ra store at the address: st. Rokossovsky 2a. And for some reason I thought that since the case materials were compiled with errors, they did not have legal force, well, at least because the “8.2.5” sign is not on this sign and in the place indicated by the protocol there is neither a parking lot nor this sign. But the Ilyinsk judge “Kora*ovskaya” considered that she was smarter than mere mortals and left the ruling unchanged; the Kemerovo court also left the ruling unchanged. And I am only challenging the protocol because of mistakes made.
Now for the sign: if only you knew what ridiculous replies the king of all NVKZ traffic policemen Glotov writes on this sign! This is just cruel, I’m surprised how he still holds his post, he was talking such nonsense when I came to the meeting, I don’t know what I wanted more, to laugh or cry. He's not much of a lawyer. The manager seems to be too.
In the first reply they wrote that they were not in business at all and had nothing to do with the signs! Can you imagine? I even began to doubt that if someone wants to install a sign, he will simply go to DORZNAK and buy it and he does not need to coordinate the installation with the traffic police! And in the second reply he wrote, attention!: “Most likely the sign was installed due to the fact that in the winter season the markings on the asphalt are not visible” (Meaning a sign for a disabled person painted on the asphalt). Can you imagine?! - "MORE LIKELY"! Despite the fact that the violation took place in September, there is video recording and the heat was 20 degrees. And this is written by the head of the traffic police! I was sick of such a statement and made a conclusion for myself: most likely it’s time for him to retire, it looks like he overworked himself.