Speeding Prosecutions In Finland
1. Legal Basis
Speeding in Finland is regulated primarily by:
Road Traffic Act (Tieliikennelaki)
Criminal Code, Chapter 23 (Liikennerikokset)
Police Act (for use of technical devices)
Court practice (KKO, HO decisions)
Speeding can result in:
(A) Traffic Fine (Liikennevirhemaksu)
Issued administratively for minor speeding:
+1–20 km/h over limit (or +1–15 km/h in 100–120 km/h areas)
No criminal record
(B) Day-fine Penalty (Päiväsakko)
If speeding exceeds administrative-fine threshold or involves endangerment:
Typically applied when exceeding limit by 21–30 km/h
Recorded as a criminal offence
(C) Aggravated Endangerment of Traffic Safety (Törkeä liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen)
Triggers:
Very high speeds
Dangerous circumstances
Intentional misconduct
Punishments:
Fines or imprisonment up to 2 years
Likely driving ban (ajokielto)
Finnish Case Law on Speeding (KKO) — 6 Detailed Cases
1. KKO 2004:93 — High-Speed Motorway Case (Aggravated Endangerment)
Facts:
A driver travelled over 200 km/h on a Finnish motorway with a limit of 120 km/h. Traffic was moderate, and weather clear.
Legal Question:
Does the speed alone justify a conviction for törkeä liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen?
Court’s Reasoning:
At extremely excessive speeds, reaction time and stopping distance increase sharply.
Even if conditions are favourable, risk to others is objectively significant.
Intent is not required; gross negligence is enough.
Outcome:
Conviction for aggravated endangerment.
Day-fines were imposed and a driving ban issued.
Importance:
Established that speeds around 200+ km/h almost automatically constitute aggravated endangerment regardless of context.
2. KKO 2005:82 — Extreme Speeding in Urban Area
Facts:
Driver exceeded 50 km/h urban limit by over 60 km/h at night. Road was nearly empty.
Legal Question:
Does lack of traffic reduce criminal liability?
Court’s Reasoning:
Urban areas inherently contain unpredictable risks (pedestrians, driveways, intersecting traffic).
The absence of visible traffic does not mitigate the danger created by the offender.
Outcome:
Classified as törkeä liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen.
Conditional imprisonment imposed.
Importance:
Shows that context matters, and urban speeding is treated more severely than highway speeding.
3. KKO 2011:62 — Speeding Based on Police Radar Evidence
Facts:
Driver contested the accuracy of police radar measurement and argued the device was improperly calibrated.
Legal Question:
What evidentiary standard applies to electronic speed measurements?
Court’s Reasoning:
Police technical devices enjoy a presumption of reliability if they are:
officially approved,
used correctly by trained personnel, and
regularly inspected.
Burden shifts to the defendant to provide contrary evidence.
Outcome:
Speed measurement accepted as reliable.
Driver convicted of speeding.
Importance:
This case is often cited in evidentiary disputes regarding radar, laser, and camera-based speed enforcement.
4. KKO 2015:58 — “Momentary Speed Excess” Argument Rejected
Facts:
Driver argued that the excessive speed was only a brief spike while overtaking another vehicle.
Legal Question:
Can “momentary speeding” be a defence?
Court’s Reasoning:
Even temporary exceeding of the limit constitutes speeding.
The duration of speeding may affect the severity, but not the existence of the offence.
A driver must maintain control and avoid creating sudden hazards during overtaking.
Outcome:
Conviction upheld.
Only the level of penalty was adjusted slightly due to the brief duration.
Importance:
Confirms Finnish courts do not accept “short time” speeding as a defence, though it may influence penalty severity.
5. KKO 2018:37 — Assessing Mens Rea (Tahallisuus vs. Tuottamus)
Facts:
A driver exceeded the limit by 35 km/h but claimed not to have seen the speed limit sign due to distraction.
Legal Question:
Did the conduct reflect negligence or intent?
Court’s Reasoning:
Intent requires conscious disregard for rules.
But even if the driver did not see the sign, failing to observe traffic signs is negligent.
Outcome:
Convicted of liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen (basic endangerment).
Court rejected the claim of an honest mistake.
Importance:
Clarifies how courts differentiate intentional speeding from negligent speeding.
6. KKO 2020:35 — Extremely High Speed on a Motorcycle
Facts:
Motorcyclist recorded travelling approx. 180 km/h in a 60 km/h zone, evading police briefly.
Legal Questions:
When does speeding become criminal endangerment rather than a simple traffic violation?
Does the evasive behaviour aggravate the offence?
Court’s Reasoning:
Speed more than triple the limit created overwhelming danger.
Attempt to evade police is an aggravating factor because it increases unpredictability and risk.
Outcome:
Conviction: törkeä liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantaminen.
Short prison sentence (conditional) + driving ban.
Importance:
Shows how behaviour around the speeding event (evasion, reckless manoeuvres) elevates liability.
⭐ Summary of Key Principles from Finnish Case Law
| Principle | Supported by Cases | Explanation |
|---|---|---|
| Extreme speeds ≈ automatic aggravated endangerment | KKO 2004:93, KKO 2020:35 | Above ~190–200 km/h, context rarely saves the driver. |
| Urban speeding treated harshly | KKO 2005:82 | Even empty streets still pose structural risks. |
| Radar & camera evidence presumed valid | KKO 2011:62 | Burden on defendant to prove error. |
| Momentary speeding still punishable | KKO 2015:58 | Duration affects penalty but not guilt. |
| Intent vs negligence clarified | KKO 2018:37 | Not seeing sign is still negligence. |
| Aggravating conduct (evasion, weaving) raises severity | KKO 2020:35 | Combined behaviour matters for classification. |
RELATED Blog
comments