Higher traffic fines won’t work unless drivers fear getting caught

 

LET me be clear from the outset: I support tougher traffic fines.

If reckless driving carried a mandatory RM2,000 compound per offence, you would hear no objection from me. However, the proposed increase in traffic compounds raises a simple but important question.

If a driver has ignored 10 outstanding summonses at RM300 each, what will persuade him to pay the 11th simply because the fine has increased to RM500?

The honest answer may be: very little.

An unpaid RM500 summons is ultimately worth no more than an unpaid RM300 summons. Both represent a failure of enforcement.

This points to a larger problem in Malaysia’s road safety strategy. Decades of international research have consistently found that the certainty of being caught is a far more effective deterrent than the severity of punishment.

Criminologists and road safety researchers have repeatedly reached the same conclusion: drivers are more likely to change their behaviour when they believe enforcement is consistent and unavoidable.

Malaysia does not need to look overseas to understand this principle. We already have our own evidence.

For years, authorities have periodically offered discounts on outstanding traffic summonses to encourage settlement. While these campaigns may help reduce administrative backlogs, they also send an unintended message: delay can be rewarded.

A motorist who pays a summons immediately may end up paying more than someone who ignores it for years and waits for a discount campaign. This undermines the deterrent effect that traffic enforcement is supposed to create.

The issue becomes even more concerning when habitual offenders accumulate dozens of unpaid summonses with little immediate consequence.

At some point, a growing number of offenders may simply stop participating in the system altogether. They continue driving without renewing licences, insurance or road tax, becoming effectively invisible to the regulatory framework designed to manage road safety.

This is why raising fines alone is unlikely to deliver the desired results.

If Parliament wishes to increase compounds, the move should be accompanied by stronger enforcement mechanisms that improve the likelihood of detection and collection.

One priority should be greater use of technologies such as Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR), allowing enforcement agencies to identify vehicles linked to suspended licences, expired road tax or significant outstanding summonses in real time.

Malaysia should also consider linking traffic offences more closely to insurance premiums. Drivers with repeated violations should face higher insurance costs, creating a direct financial consequence for risky behaviour.

At the same time, chronic offenders must face meaningful penalties beyond paper summonses. In many countries, vehicle impoundment, licence suspension and other administrative sanctions play a key role in changing behaviour because they are immediate and difficult to ignore.

The objective of traffic enforcement should not be revenue collection. It should be behavioural change.

Road safety is not achieved when penalties appear impressive on paper. It is achieved when laws are enforced consistently, predictably and fairly.

The proposed increase in traffic compounds can be part of the solution. However, without stronger enforcement, improved collection mechanisms and greater certainty of detection, Malaysia risks creating little more than a larger mountain of unpaid summonses.

Drivers do not change their behaviour because fines are higher. They change their behaviour because they believe they will be caught. 

Shahrim Tamrin is a road safety advocate and sustainable transport advocate. He previously served on the Board of Directors of the Malaysian Institute of Road Safety Research (MIROS).

The views expressed are solely of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of MMKtT.

- Focus Malaysia.