What Hungary’s 1975 Traffic Code Still Gets Wrong
Hungary's road traffic code, the KRESZ, dates from 1975. In an interview with Forbes Hungary, transport lawyer Borbély Zoltán argues it has largely stood the test of time and does not need a full replacement, but its treatment of micromobility is now a serious weakness.
The most urgent gap is the electric scooter. Borbély says roughly 700,000 e-scooters are already in use in Hungary, yet the legal definition is unclear. A Kúria ruling classified an electric scooter as a mechanically propelled vehicle in a drink-driving case, effectively to make drink-driving prosecutable, but the lawyer says this reasoning cannot be derived from the KRESZ itself.
He also warns against raising the 130 km/h motorway speed limit, arguing that if 150 km/h were permitted, speeds around 200 km/h would not remain rare. He points to a Pécs case in which an elderly driver is the sole defendant after pulling out in front of cars reported at 170 km/h and 212 km/h, and argues extreme speeding should be treated as a misleading speed that can reverse liability.
The new KRESZ draft is being shaped by professionals including former judge Fülöp Ágnes and police colonel Major Róbert, but there have been inter-ministerial disputes, including over zero tolerance for alcohol. Borbély also flags a separate problem: outside motorways, drivers who hit wildlife currently have almost no chance of compensation and may even pay for the animal.
Where Borbély Zoltán Would Draw the Legal Line
The Electric Scooter’s Legal Limbo
Borbély's core criticism is that the scooter's status has been settled by judicial improvisation, not legislation. He notes that under four relevant legal instruments a scooter is not a vehicle, yet a Kúria decision treats it as one for drink-driving enforcement. Among micromobility devices, he calls the one-wheel the most dangerous because a single pothole or drain cover can cause severe injury, but the scooter is the more pressing legal problem because of its scale. If the new KRESZ defines powered micromobility devices as a distinct category, it would give police, courts and riders a common language.
Speeding, Fault and the Pécs Case
The lawyer's most controversial position is that extreme speeding should not be treated as a secondary issue. He acknowledges that priority violations are statistically a major accident cause, but argues that danger is highest in extreme speed. He cites the Pécs prosecution, where a 71-year-old driver is charged but the two cars were reportedly travelling at 170 km/h and 212 km/h. To Borbély, those speeds are inherently misleading and should reverse responsibility rather than leaving the priority violation as the sole ground for prosecution.
Why He Would Keep 130 km/h
On speed limits, the interview explicitly links policy to probability. Borbély argues that a long-standing limit is better observed than one that changes rapidly. His prediction that allowing 150 km/h would normalise 200 km/h is an interpretation, not a proven fact, but it is consistent with the current legal distinction between ordinary speeding and misleading speed.
The Professionals and the Politics of the Draft KRESZ
Borbély separates the new code from political figures such as Lázár János and Vitézy Dávid. He says the drafters include former appellate judge Fülöp Ágnes and police colonel Major Róbert, whose practical experience he regards as a guarantee. But he concedes politics still intrudes, pointing to the unresolved debate over zero tolerance for alcohol and to what he calls a powerful hunting lobby that has left drivers exposed after wildlife collisions.
What the KRESZ Debate Means for Drivers and Riders
- E-scooter users: because a Kúria ruling currently treats electric scooters as mechanically propelled vehicles for drink-driving cases, assume a zero-alcohol rule applies even though the KRESZ definition is contested.
- Drivers: do not expect the 130 km/h motorway limit to rise; Borbély explicitly advises against 150 km/h and warns that extreme speeding may be treated as misleading speed that can reverse fault in a collision.
- Drivers involved in wildlife collisions outside motorways: be aware that current practice gives little chance of compensation and may require paying for the animal; the issue sits outside the KRESZ, mainly in the Civil Code and hunting law, so any fix would need separate legal changes.
- Road users evaluating the draft KRESZ: watch whether the final text creates a distinct powered micromobility category rather than reusing vehicle terminology; the draft’s plain-language choices, such as zebra for pedestrian crossing, do not change legal categories.
Risk & Opportunity Assessment
| Commercial Risk | Low | The interview does not identify any company or market exposure; the stakes are regulatory and road-user focused, not commercial. |
| Competitive Risk | Low | No competitive market shift is described; no scooter operators or automotive companies are parties to the debate. |
| Regulatory Risk | High | Electric scooters rest on a Kúria ruling rather than a clear statutory definition, and the new KRESZ could change drink-driving, speeding and micromobility rules. |
| Reputation Risk | Low | The controversy is institutional, concerning courts and ministries, but no named organisation faces direct reputational damage in the article. |
| Technology Disruption | Medium | Roughly 700,000 e-scooters have outpaced the legal framework; a new powered micromobility category would be a significant regulatory adaptation. |
| Commercial Opportunity | Low | No commercial opportunity is identified in the interview; the discussion focuses on legal clarity and road safety rather than market entry. |
Comments 0