Imagine driving in the outside lane only to suddenly realize that it had become a left-turn-only lane. You want to move to the right lane, but vehicles block your way. You have to stay in the left lane, but if caught, you could be fined. Now picture yourself riding a scooter. Some cars stop ahead of you. You cross the double white line while passing the vehicles. If caught, you could receive a traffic ticket.
Here are a few more scenarios: You stop your car temporarily to unload some goods or pick someone up. You could be fined for parking at the red lines.
You accidentally exceed the speed limit while driving on a wide downhill road. It is captured by traffic cameras and you get fined.
When you return home at night, you leave your car in an area for temporary parking. Even without disturbing anyone, you could be fined for illegal parking.
If you turn on your car’s underglow lighting by accident, you might be fined.
In some places, traffic signs can be unclear or ambiguous, but you might break the rules and receive a traffic ticket simply for turning left or right. At the same time, many unreasonable people who — either for no good reason or with vicious intent — like to report traffic infractions.
In densely populated Taiwan, those who drive a car or ride a scooter must have received at least one traffic ticket.
How do agencies distribute and use the revenue that comes from traffic fines? The local governments where the traffic contraventions occur receive 75 percent of the revenue from fines, while law enforcement agencies get 24 percent. Only 1 percent is allocated to the national treasury.
In other words, local governments are the major beneficiaries of traffic fines.
However, the public tends to blame the central government and the ruling party for traffic fines. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) has a good record on governance, it has suffered two consecutive major setbacks in local elections. Perhaps it has something to do with traffic tickets and fines.
My job requires me to drive to work every day. For almost three decades, I have been a law-abiding driver, but in Taiwan, it is easy for a driver to receive traffic tickets.
In 2016, people reported 1.53 million cases of traffic contraventions. Last year, that number reached 7 million.
When local governments make their annual budgets, traffic fines are considered a significant source of revenue.
For example, in 2018, the administration of Taichung Mayor Lu Shiow-yen (盧秀燕) forecast about NT$480 million (US$15.47 million) in revenue to come from traffic fines.
Since then, that figure has drastically increased. From 2020 onward, the Taichung City Government expected to receive NT$1.58 billion in revenue from traffic fines. As it turned out, the city has received more than NT$2 billion from traffic fines for three consecutive years. Last year, that revenue was nearly NT$3 billion, almost twice the expected amount.
Taichung is not the only example. This is happening in other local governments as well.
However, local governments are not for-profit organizations. Is it appropriate for them to consider traffic fines an expected part of their budgets? In doing so, local governments are essentially targeting vehicle users, waiting for them to break the law, while drivers and scooter riders are becoming ATMs for governments.
Moreover, is it appropriate for people who are not law enforcement officers to report traffic contraventions? Dashboard cameras are intended to protect drivers, providing evidence when traffic disputes occur. Now, dashcam videos are often used to report drivers, which should be the work and responsibility of the police, not civilians.
The Ministry of Transportation and Communications should define clearer rules concerning traffic tickets and fines. Amendments should be made if necessary. If further regulations regarding the usage of traffic fines are needed, the ministry should create them. Central and local governments should work together and agree on those terms.
Drivers should not be considered cash cows for local governments.
It is fortunate that DPP legislative candidate Wang Yi-chuan (王義川), a popular TV political pundit and chief strategist at the Taiwan Thinktank, is a specialist in traffic matters. Wang has proposed revising traffic reporting regulations and policy, suggesting that road users’ experiences should be considered when formulating traffic laws.
In this way, traffic rules can be more grounded and reasonably implemented. This is the change that many drivers want to see.
Traffic policy should be aimed at enhancing road safety. Traffic tickets should only be issued when necessary, and fines should not be considered as an official agency’s major source of revenue. Resentment from drivers would only increase if they are treated unfairly.
Lin Chin-kuo is a business manager at a technology company.
Translated by Emma Liu
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS