Copyright scmp
Recently a video went viral of a plain clothes Hong Kong police officer aboard a minibus counting how many passengers had not fastened their seat belts. The police said summons would be issued to commuters who had been found to be not wearing seat belts. Social media lit up with surprise, amusement and debate. Some wondered if undercover policing could soon spread to buses or taxis. The law itself is hardly new. Minibus passengers have been required to buckle up for more than 20 years. What unsettles people is not the law, but the method of enforcement and the sense that small, routine choices are being scrutinised. The undercover operation seemed to be about prompting immediate compliance. Yet, when minor infractions are policed this way, people may feel they are constantly being watched and trust between the community and authorities risks being eroded. A routine minibus ride begins to feel like a moral test and small everyday interactions grow tense. Commuters might wonder if the next ride will be a trap. Drivers may feel pressure to monitor passengers as much as the road. It also raises a larger question: why are these measures needed at all? Are passengers ignoring seat belt laws because the rules are inconvenient or because enforcement has historically been inconsistent? Perhaps the issue is not defiance but a lack of understanding or public education. Are people truly aware of the law or simply uncertain about compliance? Before expanding undercover operations, policymakers might ask whether the law itself aligns with daily life, and whether enforcement could be more intuitive while still effective. Governance that is effective requires more than deterrence through surprise; it requires clarity, engagement and practical alignment with how people actually live. Another regulation may be making parents more anxious. As of this month, drivers of private cars must ensure children under eight years old or shorter than 1.35 metres are secured in appropriate child restraints. Failure to comply carries a fine of HK$230 (US$29), with more serious cases potentially going to court for penalties of up to HK$2,000. Taxis and buses are apparently exempt. On paper, this law is straightforward: protect children in private vehicles. In practice, it introduces complexity and, for some families, real logistical challenges. Families that often travel with multiple children may struggle to comply. The law’s uneven coverage raises questions about fairness and consistency. It goes without saying that safety concerns are valid. Taxi accidents have increased. However, policymakers are creating a patchwork of confusing rules, which could undermine the goal of child safety. Even for private car owners, challenges remain. Portable restraint devices such as belt adjusters, harness vests or foldable booster seats are legal but generally offer less protection in side-impact crashes than proper child safety seats. Families also face the cost and space constraints of storing multiple seats in smaller vehicles. Some vehicles might not be able to easily accommodate three or four child restraints without compromising comfort or safety. For parents with more than one child under eight, long car rides would require strategic packing and planning, far from the spontaneity many have relied on when picking up children from school or after extracurricular activities. It’s also unclear how ride-hailing platforms will be treated once they are fully legalised. For now, Uber has announced a booking option with child safety seats. However, once the regulatory framework for ride-hailing platforms is implemented next year, would the same exemptions that apply to taxis apply to Uber vehicles? Without clear indicators on the vehicle, enforcement could become inconsistent. Drivers might face uncertainty while parents worry about safety and legality. Grey areas create tension for ordinary residents. The undercover minibus enforcement and the new child seat law highlight a broader challenge in urban life: how to keep people safe while respecting the rhythms of daily life. When compliance is secured through fear rather than understanding and the cultivation of new habits, public trust suffers. People may follow the law, but not necessarily embrace its purpose. Traffic laws and safety regulations should be intuitive, proportionate and applied evenly. Education and public awareness should accompany enforcement to ensure people understand why rules exist. Covert operations and strict mandates may deliver short-term compliance, but long-term adherence – the foundation of a society where laws are respected without constant supervision – requires nuance, clarity and sensible solutions. Safety is non-negotiable. But laws that seem arbitrary just make people anxious. Policymakers must ask whether their goal is to crack down on infractions or create a system that genuinely keeps people safe. Compliance born of understanding and trust will endure far longer than compliance born of fear. Achieving safety while maintaining trust and flexibility may be the true test of effective governance. When laws are pragmatically introduced and enforced, people feel supported rather than policed.
