Among traffic regulations violators, those who commit repeat violations account for only 1%, but they are responsible for 11% of all traffic regulation violation cases.
Samsung Fire & Marine Insurance Traffic Safety Culture Research Institute released a report on the ‘Status and Management Measures of Habitual Offenders of Automated Traffic Enforcement’ on the 17th. This study analyzed traffic regulation violation data from 2019 to 2023.
From 2019 to 2023, the number of individuals caught by automated enforcement equipment totaled approximately 13.98 million, representing about two-fifths of all drivers. Among them, 167,000 individuals (1.1%) were habitual violators of traffic regulations, having received fines 15 times or more.
The number of instances where habitual violators of traffic regulations were caught totaled over 4.18 million, accounting for 11.3% of all automated enforcement.
Habitual violators of traffic regulations also had a higher probability of causing accidents. The number of accidents involving drivers who received fines 15 times or more was 16,004, yielding an incident rate of 9.6%. This is 3.5 times higher than the incident rate of 2.7% for drivers with 14 or fewer fines.
The research institute argued that to eradicate habitual violation of traffic regulations, the driver's responsibility for proof should be imposed when fines are levied, and a progressive fine system for habitual offenders should be established.
The research institute also pointed out that the differences in penalties between automated enforcement and police enforcement should be improved. When caught by automated enforcement, the vehicle owner must decide whether to receive 'points + fine' or an additional 10,000 won fine. Most choose the fine without points. In contrast, being caught directly by police incurs both a fine and points, and accumulation of points can lead to administrative actions such as license suspension or cancellation.
In contrast, in countries like Australia and Japan, individuals caught by automated enforcement equipment often receive the same penalties as those caught by police enforcement. The research institute noted that if the distinction between human and automated enforcement remains, there is a risk that 'not only the issue of fairness in punishment will persist but the effectiveness of law enforcement may also decline.'