Before the police ban the speeding of vehicles, they should set up notice boards in front of them according to law.

(schematic diagram, data photo)

[Reporter Wu Zhengfeng/Taipei Report] A man surnamed Li in Kaohsiung was riding a bicycle in 2020, and was photographed by a mobile speed camera at a speed of 53 kilometers per hour, exceeding the speed limit of the section by 40 kilometers. The police issued 1,200 yuan for violating the road traffic management penalty regulations ticket.

Li Nan refused to accept it, arguing that he would be punished without seeing the banning notice board set up by the police, which violated the principle of equality, and petitioned for constitutional interpretation, which was ruled by the Constitutional Court not to accept it.

Article 7-2 of the Road Traffic Regulations stipulates that when the police ban speeding, they should set up speed measurement ban signs 100 meters to 300 meters in front of ordinary roads, or 300 meters to 1,000 meters in front of expressways and expressways .

Although the police had put up a "Police 52" crackdown sign in front of them, Li Nan rode out from the alley between the crackdown point and the notice board, and did not see the notice board behind him.

Please read on...

The speed limit of this road section is 40 kilometers. Li Nan rode through the banned point at a speed of 53 kilometers per hour, and was photographed by a mobile speed camera for speeding. The police reported a violation of road traffic management and imposed a fine of 1,200 yuan and recorded 1 violation point.

Li Nan refused to accept it and filed a lawsuit to resist punishment, but was rejected by the Kaohsiung High Administrative Court.

Li Nan was dissatisfied with being fined for failing to see the notice board, and petitioned for constitutional interpretation, arguing that the legislative purpose of Article 7-2 of the Road Traffic Regulations is to remind drivers to pay attention to the speed limit, so as to maintain driving safety, not for the purpose of punishment, but the judge said Ignore the purpose of legislation and limit the interpretation by itself.

If the main road has other alleys joining the main road, the competent authority should add warning signs at the entrance, or add temporary warning signs at the entrance of the alley to meet the legislative purpose.

Li Nan believes that the judge should not dismiss his lawsuit on the grounds that he has a legal driver's license and is riding a locomotive knowing that the driving speed must not exceed 40 kilometers per hour. The judgment clearly creates unequal treatment and violates Article 7 of the Constitution in principle.

However, the Constitutional Court pointed out that the purpose of Li Nan's petition objectively did not specifically specify what violated the Constitution in determining the final judgment. Therefore, it was determined that this petition did not meet the admissibility requirements of the "Constitutional Procedure Law", and it was unanimously decided not to accept it .

The case was reviewed by the Fourth Review Division of the Constitutional Court, and its members were Chief Justice Wu Chenzhen, Chief Justice Huang Zhaoyuan, and Chief Justice Lu Tailang.