Maintenance of a good social order depends on observation of
rules and norms by all members of society. Violations should be
punished. But maintaining order should focus on preventing offenses
rather than on punishing them.
The Traffic Regulation Bureau of Wuhan, capital of central
China's Hubei Province, announced over the weekend that the
administration would "no longer take the number of traffic
violations a policeman handles as a criterion to gauge his
performance of duty".
A leading official in the bureau said that in the past a traffic
policeman on duty had been required to handle at least 15 traffic
violations each day. "The regulation actually set a quota of
violations a policeman had to handle. This distracted him from
directing traffic," the official said.
The official's remark represents the first time that any traffic
authorities in China have overtly admitted the existence of such
quotas.
It has long been suspected that law enforcement authorities set
quotas for policemen. Some even suspect that the fines end up in
officers' bonuses.
Critics have said that such incentives prompted policemen to
catch traffic violators from hidden positions. Some even set traps
to tempt motorists to violate rules, critics alleged.
Honestly, I don't believe that our public security authorities
would encourage officers to tap new sources of income by creating
opportunities for imposing fines. My question is about the
transparency of the enforcement of traffic laws.
Since there are so many rumors about the fines' destination, why
don't the authorities explain to the public or to the annual
sessions of the People's Congress how the money has been used? Even
if part of the fines are used to pay the officers, it is
understandable since their work load is unusually heavy given
China's traffic conditions. But there must be an explanation to the
public.
In fact, what the public most resents is the unfairness and
ambiguity in the course of carrying out the law. Though one cannot
claim that unfair treatment is commonplace, it is not rare. For
instance, police never punish those drivers who force their way
into a queue of vehicles before the crossroads. Instead, someone
who accidentally takes the wrong lane because of ambiguous signs is
usually caught by an officer who has appeared from
God-knows-where.?
Unintentional offenses should be treated leniently. Traffic
regulations should try to prevent these offenses rather than punish
them.
For instance, roadside parking is a highly risky business. On
many streets, there are no "No parking" signs and vehicles are
often seen parked there.
But if one day you park your car there then leave, you are
likely to find a ticket on your windscreen when you come back. If
you argue with the police, you will be told: "You should know this
is a no- parking area because there are not any parking lines drawn
on the ground." I am not inventing the scenario. I was fined twice
this way.
I remember my experience in Australia and the United States.
Most streets are clearly marked with signs of no parking or limited
parking. Where there are no such signs, you can park your vehicle
freely. Here in our cities, the rule is that if there are not any
parking lines on the ground, it can be a no- parking place. The
fact, however, is that there are so many unmarked roadsides and in
many cases parking is not penalized. Who knows when the penalty
will come?
The Wuhan traffic official said that the new method of
appraising policemen's performance would focus on the traffic flow
and safety in the area the officer is in charge of. This is good
news. I also hope traffic regulations will be less ambiguous.
(China Daily January 31, 2007)