Khaberni - The Performance Index Center – Efficiency launched its new study titled "Absentee Traffic Violations: Between Law and Implementation Mechanism", aimed at providing a comprehensive analytical reading of the legal framework governing traffic violations, tracking the impact of the expansion in automated monitoring and legislative tightening on citizens, along with evaluating the extent to which absentee violations comply with the mandatory legal requirements for ensuring their accuracy and transparency.
The study clarified that Jordan witnessed an unprecedented increase in the number of violations in 2024, coinciding with an increase in the number of vehicles and the expansion in the introduction of traffic monitoring devices, in addition to amendments to the Traffic Law of 2008. The study pointed out that absentee violations have become more controversial among citizens, not because of the violation itself, but because of the absence of accompanying photos or their non-compliance with the legal requirements stipulated in Article (44/b) of the Traffic Law.
The study also highlighted that one of the main reasons for objections to violations is the high error rate in electronic monitoring, and the difficulty of challenging them in court. The economic simulation presented in the study shows that the cost of challenging a simple violation (such as using a phone while driving) can equal or exceed the value of the violation itself up to 130% of its value, leading many to refrain from exercising their right to object and to pay regardless of their doubts about the presence of errors.
The study also indicated that the increase and expansion in violations without the completion of their legal evidence have a significant negative impact in raising and escalating levels of stress and anger among citizens towards the government, and to a decline in confidence in law enforcement mechanisms, due to the absence of clear procedures that ensure the accuracy of the photo, place, and time of the violation, and the complete match between the data and the plate.
The study recommended a number of practical recommendations to enhance traffic justice and ensure transparency, including:
• Enhancing administrative and technical monitoring of the staff and devices responsible for issuing violations to ensure accuracy and safety of procedures.
• Developing a system for objections through automated procedures electronically to facilitate the submission of objections and reduce cost and time for individuals.
• Adhering to existing legislation, especially Articles (151) of the Criminal Procedures Law and (44/b) of the Traffic Law to ensure the legality of the controls and their evidential strength.
• Mandating the publication of a realistic photo of the violation on the inquiry platform to ensure transparency and reduce challenges due to the absence of photos or their lack of clarity.
Engineer Moaz Al-Mubaideen, CEO of the Center, indicated that this study provides a scientific and practical reference for decision-makers, enabling them to develop fair and effective traffic policies that contribute to improving road safety, reducing financial and social burdens on citizens, and enhancing trust between official institutions and the public.
Among the prominent findings:
The widespread increase in absentee violations imposes a direct financial burden on citizens, especially with their unprecedented increase.
The non-compliance with the formal conditions imposed by the law when issuing violations, particularly absentee violations, raises doubts about their validity and legitimacy.
The increase in cases of errors in issuing absentee violations weakens citizens' confidence in traffic monitoring devices and the electronic monitoring system, creating a sense of absence of justice in law enforcement.
The widespread occurrence of violations and their repetition limits the ability of many citizens to license their vehicles or pushes them to delay licensing them, which entails legal and economic effects.
The practical simulation of objecting to a violation proved that the cost of objection can equal or exceed the value of the violation itself among the most common violations and may reach up to 31% of its value, limiting citizens' exercise of their legal right to challenge.
