The vehicle complied with the speed limit. Is that enough?
1. The case
During a test, a vehicle controlled by an automated driving system negotiates a blind bend at 30 km/h. A traffic sign sets a maximum speed of 30 km/h for that section. The technical team provides this extract from the test report.
Fictional document · Test report extract
Pass criterion: The test is successful if the vehicle does not exceed 30 km/h.
Measurement: The highest recorded speed was 30 km/h.
Result: Criterion met. Test passed.
The report does not state the available sight distance through the bend or the distance needed to stop. The team asks whether the result is sufficient to establish that the vehicle’s speed was appropriate.
The case and report are fictional teaching materials. They do not describe test results from a particular vehicle.
3. The legal question
Is the chosen test criterion sufficient to establish that the speed through the bend was appropriate?
You can simply think through your answer. Notes are not sent anywhere or saved by the website.
Compare with the legal analysis
4. Applying the rule to the case
No. The criterion can test compliance with the limit, but is too narrow to establish appropriate speed. According to the report, the vehicle met the criterion. Measuring speed alone does not answer whether it could stop within the available sight distance through the bend.
Annex II, point 1.1.2(a), distinguishes safe speed from respect for speed limitations. Point 1.3 connects the ADS requirement with the Slovak rule on appropriate speed. We therefore also need to examine whether the assessment method accounts for sight distance and stopping conditions.
What the result supports: The vehicle did not exceed 30 km/h during this test.
What it does not yet support: The conclusion that its speed through the blind bend was appropriate. Missing data do not themselves establish a breach of the rule.
5. Recommendations for the project
Distinguish checking the speed limit from assessing appropriate speed. The team should explain how it accounted for sight distance, obstacle detection, system response and total stopping distance. These conditions should justify the criterion used to assess whether speed was appropriate.
Check the existing records first. If they contain the necessary data, further analysis may be sufficient. If decisive data are missing, propose an additional test addressing that gap. A specific lower speed can be recommended only on an evidential basis.
Connection to regulatory assessment. Annex III, Part 2, of Regulation (EU) 2022/1426 provides for assessment of verification plans and results, including appropriate acceptance criteria (point 3.5.5.2(c)). The analysis must also cover decisions taken when performing the driving task in accordance with national traffic rules (point 3.5.5.3(v)). Point 4.1.1 includes checking ADS behaviour in real driving conditions, including compliance with traffic rules.
Regulation (EU) 2022/1426, Annex III, Part 2, points 3.5.5.2(c), 3.5.5.3(v) and 4.1.1, pp. 36–37 of the consolidated version. The recommendation applies these requirements to the fictional case.
Exact provisions, sources and their legal significance
Regulation (EU) 2022/1426, Annex II, point 1.3
The ADS shall comply with traffic rules of the country of operation.
Section 16(1), second sentence — unofficial ROAT translation
“A driver may drive only at an appropriate speed so as to be able to stop the vehicle within the distance they can see.”
The Slovak provision is framed as a duty of the driver. This case uses its substance to assess ADS behaviour through the EU regulation’s requirement to comply with traffic rules. This does not automatically establish the duties or liability of any particular person.
Connection with UN R185 and GTR26. The requirement to comply with traffic rules in accordance with the application of the relevant law in the area of operation also appears in UN R185, paragraph 6.1.2.6, and GTR26, paragraph 4.1.2.6. Here too, the general ADS requirement must be connected to the specific rule applicable where the vehicle is driving.
UN sources used for comparison:
- UN R185 — ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2026/137, paragraph 6.1.2.6, p. 13.
- GTR26 — ECE/TRANS/WP.29/2026/139, paragraph 4.1.2.6, p. 23.
The paragraph numbering cited comes from the documents underlying the texts adopted in June 2026. Their adoption, distinct legal frameworks and relationship to the draft Global Interpretation Document (GID) are explained in the UN R185 and GTR26 overview.
Different legal frameworks. The EU regulation governs ADS type-approval within its scope. UN R185 belongs to the framework of the 1958 Agreement. Its application must be assessed in light of entry into force and application by the relevant Contracting Party. GTR26 belongs to the framework of the 1998 Agreement and requires implementation in national or regional law. The legal significance of each source must therefore be assessed separately.
This case examines evidence of compliance with a specific speed rule. It does not assess compliance with all ADS requirements or a particular test-drive permit.