In a judgment dated June 3rd, 2022, the District Court of Frankfurt decided under file number 974 OWi - 533 Js 18474/22 to impose a higher fine for a red light violation with an SUV.

The judge is of the opinion that the boxy design and the increased front end due to the greater ground clearance increased the risk of injury to other road users.

There is an increased operating risk compared to a passenger car of conventional design.

Due to the greater abstract danger, the red light violation is more serious than the normal case, especially since the regulations in the road traffic regulations are aimed at protecting crossing road users in the intersection area.

Therefore, the violation with an SUV is a special feature that deviates from ordinary circumstances.

As far as can be seen, this first-time use of a vehicle segment to determine the fine appears populist and promotes the stigmatization of drivers of such cars.

It is also illegal.

It must be clarified that the fine increased from 200 to 350 euros by the court was essentially justified by the driver's warnings (speeding out of town by 23 km/h, use of an electronic device, ignoring the red light with a small electric vehicle).

The use of the SUV was also used.

Fines and driving bans are determined according to the Catalog of Fines Ordinance (BKatV).

Their sanctions relate to standard cases that assume negligent inspection and ordinary circumstances.

For example, exceeding the speed limit, which occurs under normal conditions and does not particularly affect traffic safety.

Special circumstances can lie in the execution of the offense and in the person of the perpetrator.

If, for example, the person concerned has already committed earlier offenses, this is no longer the norm, since the BKat basically assumes that the first offender was the offender.

Here, the standard fine can be increased, as the court has done without objection, and a driving ban that was not intended for a first violation can be ordered or extended.

The rule sets of the BKat are also fundamentally based on negligent inspections.

For example, the argument "I was in a hurry" suggests that I was speeding intentionally.

This should regularly lead to a doubling of the standard fine rate.

The BKatV does not specify the amount of the fine based on a vehicle designation and is therefore incorrect in law.

Arbitrary Legal Consequences

The legislator distinguishes between pedestrians, vehicle drivers and cyclists or drivers of small electric vehicles.

No other distinctions are provided.

Because SUV is not a legally defined term, a vehicle designation and legal consequences based on it appear arbitrary.

SUVs may also be difficult to distinguish from other vehicles, for example vans and minivans have similar characteristics.

Since the SUV segment, which is determined solely by the vehicle manufacturers in the course of the type approval process, has risen from around 10 percent in 2010 to over 30 percent of the passenger car market today, the district court criminalized a third of all drivers with its decision.

Incidentally, taking vehicle designations into account when determining the amount of the fine should lead to

that the public order office always determines the type of vehicle in addition to the driver.

On the other hand, the standard fine would have to be reduced for small car drivers.

Finally, the judge refers to an increased operating risk for SUVs compared to other vehicles and tries to introduce a legal concept from civil law on strict liability into administrative offenses and criminal law.

Operational risk is the abstract risk that emanates from a motor vehicle at any time when it is being driven on the road.

However, it would be illegal to derive higher liability for fines from this to the detriment of the driver of an SUV.

The affected party has appealed against the verdict.

Hopefully the next instance will sort it out.