Well, turns out that speed limits for “trucks that carry passengers” appear in quite a few legislations, especially in the erstwhile Communist bloc countries and developing countries. Well, perhaps actually in the whole world except for the Western world.
I think that using the column in the access-name is problematic (e.g. maxspeed:forward:hgv:passengers??)
Also works, but does also not avoid the American-English word “truck”, plus does not directly link to a wikipedia article.
But anyway, I should perhaps open a topic in Q&A or on the tagging mailing list for that.
One thing I would like to still clear up in this topic:
Does anyone also think that letter (i) contradicts with letter (h) for buses with a weight between 3.5t and 8t?
Well, it says “o ad altri usi” in (i). Thus, this includes pretty much any vehicle to my understanding. Which makes also sense that way: A limitation in speed because of a driving a heavy vehicle should apply to any vehicle based on the weight, not just lorries. (I.e. motorhomes, big vans, landcruisers and, well, buses). (But I am well aware by now that legislations in many country “forget” this)
Actually, the only thing I find puzzling is the existence of letter (f), because one could remove the letter and nothing would change: The speed limit for buses above 8t weight, specified in (f), is the same speed limit specified for “vehicles used for the transport of goods or other uses” above 3.5t weight.
Let’s assume for a moment that (i) does not apply to buses. Then, the speed limit of 130 km/h on a motorway and 90 km/h on other roads would apply to buses below 8t weight. 8t is already quite the bus. For example, this bus here is below 8t. I can’t imagine this kind of bus going at this speed considering that HGV that are much lighter than that may only go 100 on a motorway and 80 on other roads.
So, right now, I explain myself this unnecessary duplication by that the traffic law just grew this way over the time, just like any law text. E.g. maybe (f) used to limit the max speed for heavier buses even lower or something.
Oh, I am sorry, I mixed up the letter: I meant letter (g), not (i), in my last post.
So, I think this is cleared up now. (g) and (h) apply to buses as well, making letter (f) superfluous (but nevermind). Letter (i) is meant to overwrite other rules for trucks with passengers even though it is not explicitly stated as such (but also nevermind).
I do not understand what you are after, do you want to remove redundancy from the Italian law?
I agree they might have been able to write the same with fewer paragraphs, but being concise is in general not a strength of Italian legal texts
At least there are no contradictions. I guess they have written it like this because they wanted to avoid any doubt about applicability to commonly used vehicle classes (i.e. being explicit about them, even if for a superclass the same rules are already declared).