Lithuania
Cap in the app: 90 km/h.
Speed
90 km/h on roads with an asphalt or concrete surface, 70 on other roads. The 70 is a surface condition: exactly the same 70 applies to a car on its own under point 131.1.
Source. e-seimas, Kelių eismo taisyklės, point 131.4
Dimensions — the exception stands in the heading of the whole section
Lithuania is quoted everywhere with 2.55 / 4.00 / 18.75. The figures exist and they stand in an instrument in force. But the heading immediately above them lifts out the car:
I. Maksimalūs leidžiami transporto priemonių, išskyrus tas, kurios turi ne daugiau kaip 8 sėdimas vietas keleiviams ir 1 vietą vairuotojui, matmenys (metrais)
"Maximum permitted dimensions (in metres) for vehicles, except those having no more than 8 seats for passengers and 1 seat for the driver." That is the definition of category M1, expressed in seats instead of a letter. The whole of section I — lengths, widths, height — is written for everything but the car.
The content of the section:
1.1. pavienio automobilio – 12,00 m; 1.2. priekabos – 12,00 m; 1.3. sujungtos transporto priemonės (vilkikas su puspriekabe) – 16,50 m; 1.4. autotraukinio (automobilio su priekaba) – 18,75 m; 1.5. sujungto autobuso – 18,00 m.
2.1. visų kelių transporto priemonių – 2,55 m; 2.2. refrižeratoriaus su šilumą izoliuojančiomis sienelėmis – 2,60 m. 3. Aukštis: visų kelių transporto priemonių – 4,00 m.
The three remaining sections — II masses, III axle loads, IV characteristics — contain no dimension rule for M1 either. That was checked by reading all the section headings in the version in force.
But the line is not sharp, and that should be said outright. The exception is written on seats, and a caravan has neither passenger seats nor a driver's seat. The caravan therefore does not fall under the exception's wording, and 1.2 (12.00 m for a priekaba) and 3 (4.00 m for visų kelių transporto priemonių) read as though they reach it. 1.4, however, cannot be applied to a car-and-caravan outfit: it measures an autotraukinys, a car with a trailer, and the car is excepted in the heading. What can be stood behind is therefore that there is no Lithuanian length limit for the outfit in this instrument, while the caravan's own dimensions lie under 12.00 and 4.00.
The motorhome falls the other way from the caravan. The exception is written on seats, and a motorhome has both a driver's seat and passenger seats — under nine together in anything built on a car or van chassis. It is therefore caught by the same exception as the car, and 1.1 (12.00 m for a pavienis automobilis) does not reach it. The cell becomes not applicable, for exactly the same reason the width cell for the car already is.
Source. e-seimas.lrs.lt, susisiekimo ministro įsakymas Nr. 3-66 of 18 February 2002, Maksimalūs leidžiami transporto priemonių matmenys, leidžiamos ašies (ašių) apkrovos, leidžiamos bendrosios masės, consolidated version in force from 2024-01-30.
| Dimension | Lithuania | Article |
|---|---|---|
| Width, car | not applicable — M1 excepted | section I, the heading |
| Width, trailer | 2.55 m | I.2.1 |
| Height | 4.00 m | I.3 |
| Length, caravan | 12.00 m | I.1.2 |
| Length, motorhome | not applicable — M1 excepted | section I, the heading |
| Length, outfit | no applicable limit | I.1.4 read with the heading |
Method note: the e-seimas HTML view requires a session, the PDF export does not. The legalActPrint address returns an empty page of a little over 2 kB without a valid jfwid parameter, that is, a server session that only comes about by clicking through the portal. The format endpoint https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/rs/legalact/TAD/TAIS.161448/format/ISO_PDF/ on the other hand delivers the whole version directly (157 kB, HTTP 200). The variants OO3_PDF, MSO_DOCX and HTM give 404 — only ISO_PDF works.
And what could not be verified. Several summaries state that the Lithuanian transport safety authority LTSA applies 2.55 / 4.00 / 18.75 to a car with a trailer as well. That could not be confirmed: ltsa.lrv.lt answers 403 behind Cloudflare's JS check, both through the fetching tool and through curl with a browser UA. The only material for the claim was an AI-generated search summary, and such a thing may not be cited as a legal source. The question therefore stands open. What is in the instrument stands.
