Area: Poslovni SOS
Competent authority: MzI
EZU URL: .nan
Initiative ID: 553
Initiative accepted and completed: '2015-05-28'
Initiative classified in EZU: .nan
Initiative forwarded in response: '2015-05-04'
Initiative published: '2015-05-04'
Initiative submitted: '2015-04-28'
Response from the competent authority: "RESPONSE FROM THE MINISTRY OF INFRASTRUCTURE:\
  \ On 23 March 2015, the Infrastructure Directorate of the Republic of Slovenia received\
  \ a request from Interedent d.o.o. for the installation of a traffic mirror, dated\
  \ 20 March 2015. On the basis of the request, a field inspection of the actual visibility\
  \ on the driveway was carried out on 1.4.2015. During the field visit it was found\
  \ that the visibility of the driveway towards \u010Crnivac is obstructed by a concrete\
  \ wall, as can be seen in Figure 1. The concrete wall is built as an extension of\
  \ the wall next to the stairs. On the basis of the findings of the field visit,\
  \ photographs of the national road from several years ago were checked and it was\
  \ found that the wall was in fact raised, as can also be seen from the photographs\
  \ taken in September 2010 and 2012 and in August 2013. Having established that the\
  \ wall was in fact raised between August 2013 and 1.4.2015, it was checked whether\
  \ the consent for the raising of the wall had been granted by the Roads Directorate\
  \ of the Republic of Slovenia, Roads Management Division, Celje Zone. The wall is\
  \ located in the buffer zone of a national road. It has been established that the\
  \ residential house at ***, Gornji Grad, adjacent to which the wall in question\
  \ is located, has been granted consent for the renovation of the roof structure\
  \ and roof covering, renovation of the fa\xE7ade and renovation of the joinery,\
  \ No 37167-875/2014/2 of 23.4.2014 8. The elevation of the wall in question has\
  \ not been considered as part of this renovation. On the basis of the above findings,\
  \ we have therefore sent a reply to the applicant (Interdent Ltd.) stating that\
  \ the visibility in the driveway has been impaired due to the elevation of the wall\
  \ and that this does not comply with the provisions of Articles 5 and 75 of the\
  \ Roads Act. These articles stipulate that it is prohibited to erect fences, plant\
  \ hedges, trees, other tall plants, install any material or objects along a national\
  \ road in the field of visibility if this would damage the road, its visibility\
  \ or reduce traffic safety. We have also asked them to take steps to lower the wall,\
  \ otherwise we will file a complaint with the Infrastructure Inspectorate of the\
  \ Republic of Slovenia. As is clear from the above, it was not the entire wall that\
  \ was requested to be demolished, but only the part of the wall that was built between\
  \ August 2013 and 1.4.2015 (and not 50 years ago, as stated in the communication)\
  \ and for which the consent of the Infrastructure Directorate was not obtained.\
  \ The visibility is in fact obstructed by this part of the wall (which is elevated).\
  \ Therefore, no permission for the installation of a traffic mirror has been granted\
  \ because the visibility of the connection can be improved by removing the part\
  \ of the wall for which no consent has been granted by the Infrastructure Directorate\
  \ of the Republic of Slovenia. However, the customer may, once the original situation\
  \ has been restored, reapply for the installation of a traffic mirror if it turns\
  \ out that the length of the visibility of the connection does not, however, comply\
  \ with the provisions of Article 3(2)(3) of the Regulation on road connections to\
  \ public roads and the installation of a mirror is warranted. In this case, the\
  \ owner of the connection or the local authority must bear the costs of the purchase,\
  \ installation and subsequent maintenance of the traffic mirror (the customer may\
  \ contact the authorised maintenance company of the national road, which in this\
  \ case is VOC Celje d.d., Lava 42, 3000 Celje, about the cost of the traffic mirror).\
  \ If the customer agrees to this, he must notify the company in writing and specify\
  \ the person who is to pay the costs. On the basis of the received declaration on\
  \ the coverage of the costs, the Infrastructure Directorate of the Republic of Slovenia,\
  \ in accordance with the Road Act and the Regulation on Traffic Signalling and Traffic\
  \ Equipment on Public Roads, shall issue an order for the installation of a traffic\
  \ mirror to the authorised concessionaire of the national road (in this case VOC\
  \ Celje d.d.).We would like to mention again that according to the Road Act, it\
  \ is allowed to erect (or reconstruct) structures in the buffer zone of public roads\
  \ only with the consent of the road operator (in this case DRSI), which is also\
  \ responsible for the safety of the transport infrastructure, which also includes\
  \ adequate visibility.  The provision is intended solely to ensure road safety and\
  \ is therefore necessary.  Owners or users of structures in the buffer zone of the\
  \ road are obliged to respect these rules, otherwise they endanger road safety.Below\
  \ we provide an explanation \"why it is more appropriate to demolish a retaining\
  \ wall than to issue a permit for the installation of traffic equipment (a traffic\
  \ mirror)\": A traffic mirror should only be used as a last resort to improve visibility\
  \ when other measures cannot ensure visibility. This is because indirect vision\
  \ makes the image in the mirror less visible. The mirror must therefore provide\
  \ a significantly greater viewing distance than the clear view in order to ensure\
  \ at least approximately the same level of safety. This is particularly important\
  \ if motorcyclists are involved, as they are even more difficult to detect in a\
  \ traffic mirror. The installation of a traffic mirror is also not permitted under\
  \ the Regulation on road connections to public roads in locations outside settlements\
  \ (except in exceptional cases).The fact is that the part of the wall that currently\
  \ obstructs visibility was built without the consent of the Infrastructure Directorate.\
  \ As such, it is also in breach of Articles 5 and 75 of the Roads Act. Article 5\
  \ states, inter alia, that it is prohibited to erect fences, bollards, plant hedges,\
  \ trees, vines or other tall plantations or crops, install or deposit wood, bricks,\
  \ earth, other material or objects on the road surface of a public road, or to fill\
  \ land or install any object which may obstruct or prevent the smooth and safe flow\
  \ of road traffic. Article 75 states that no vegetation of any kind or the erection\
  \ of objects, devices or other objects or anything else which would obstruct the\
  \ visibility of the road, intersection or connection shall be permitted in the area\
  \ of a level crossing of a national road, a national road with a municipal road,\
  \ a railway line (a visibility space) or in the area of a road connection with a\
  \ national road (a visibility field), or on the inside of a curve of a road (a visibility\
  \ berm).As can be seen from the above articles, the current situation is contrary\
  \ to the provisions of the Road Act, nor has the consent of the Infrastructure Directorate\
  \ been granted, and thus the installation of the mirror is not justified. The current\
  \ situation puts not only drivers at risk, but also road users on the national road.\
  \ As we have already stated at the beginning, the level of road safety in the area\
  \ of the connection is definitely higher if the visibility is unobstructed. In this\
  \ context, it is also necessary to take into account the fact that when a traffic\
  \ mirror is installed, drivers driving on the national road have a lower (delayed)\
  \ perception of vehicles on the connector."
Text file: 553.txt
Title: traffic mirror
URL: https://www.stopbirokraciji.gov.si/pobuda/?st=553
