Facts
On 30 May 2019, shortly after 7.00 p.m., the appellant drove a motor vehicle with a sports equipment trailer near Oetwil am See onto the A52. The single-axle trailer, loaded with a motorboat, lost its left wheel at the height of the motorway entrance. The appellant continued with the trailer, without a wheel, for approximately 4.3 km towards Zurich at a speed of about 80 km/h. During the inspection by the Zurich Cantonal Police, two different tyres were found on the trailer axle, and a removable registration plate was missing.
By a final penal order of 19 February 2020 from the Office of the District Governor of Uster district, the appellant was found guilty, among other things, of violating Art. 93 para. 2 lit. a RTA and Art. 96 RVTRO, and was fined CHF 300.--.
By decision of 11 May 2020, the Road Traffic Office of the Canton of Zurich withdrew the appellant's driving licence for one month for a moderately serious violation of road traffic regulations. The Security Directorate of the Canton of Zurich dismissed the appeal on 9 July 2020. The Administrative Court of the Canton of Zurich, 1st Division, single judge, dismissed the appeal on 22 September 2020.
The appellant lodged an appeal in public law matters with the Federal Supreme Court and requested that the driving licence withdrawal be waived. The Road Traffic Office, the lower court and the Federal Roads Office (ASTRA) requested dismissal. The Security Directorate waived its response.
The subject matter of the dispute is the classification of the violation as moderately serious (Art. 16b para. 1 lit. a RTA) rather than minor (Art. 16a para. 1 lit. a RTA). The appellant did not dispute the violation or his culpability.
Considerations
The appeal in public law matters against the final cantonal decision is admissible (Art. 82 ff. FSCA). As holder of the driving licence, the appellant has standing to appeal under Art. 89 para. 1 FSCA. The appeal is to be admitted.
The law distinguishes between minor (Art. 16a RTA), moderately serious (Art. 16b RTA) and serious (Art. 16c RTA) violations. A moderately serious violation is a residual category: it exists where the privileging elements of a minor violation or the qualifying elements of a serious violation are not cumulatively present. Where the endangerment is low and culpability is high, or conversely where the endangerment is high and culpability is low, a moderately serious violation exists. A danger within the meaning of Art. 16a-c RTA exists in cases of concrete or heightened abstract endangerment, to be assessed on the circumstances of the individual case.
The appellant argued that his culpability was low, so the endangerment could not be assessed independently of culpability, and relied on BGE 125 II 561. The Federal Supreme Court held that this case law was based on a provision of the RTAO that was amended with the revision of road traffic law and is outdated (BGE 135 II 138 E. 2.2.3). As the lower court did not find high culpability, the objections regarding culpability need not be examined further.
The appellant further disputed that the endangerment had been serious, pointing…