After long renegotiations due to a formal error, the changes in the catalog of fines will come into effect on November 9th. Instead of driving bans, there are now above all higher fines and points in Flensburg. Speeders are particularly hard hit; Cyclists and pedestrians, on the other hand, are better protected. But does that really lead to different behavior on the street? Traffic psychologist Jens Schade teaches at the TU Dresden and explains why punishment alone is not enough.
SZ: Mr. Schade, what is more of a deterrent: fines or points in Flensburg?
Jens Schade: Fines are something like a trade in indulgences. I screwed up a bit of crap, I’ll give you money for that, everything is fine again. The points that remain have a much greater impact.
When it came to the changes to the catalog of fines, however, the main decision was made in favor of fines. If you drive too much through the city at 20 km / h, you pay 70 euros instead of 35 euros. Can that lead to a change in behavior on the road?
The effect is less, on the other hand there are significant increases to what was previously threatened for this offense. But the punishment alone is not enough – at least not without traffic surveillance. My colleagues and I have been criticizing this for years. These two things go together. I know: driving fast is expensive, I am checked, so I leave it. When I notice that nothing is happening, the behavior doesn’t change either. Then the amount of the penalty is more or less irrelevant.
That means: whether higher fines, points or driving bans, it doesn’t really matter what I threaten if I don’t check it.
Exactly. It’s a simple equation. If the chance of being checked is zero and the fine is 100 euros, the result is still zero in the end. The likelihood of being discovered plays a major role.
Jens Schade researches and teaches at the TU Dresden.
(Photo: private)
With some of the regulations in the new catalog of fines, the question arises as to how this should work. For example: car and motorcyclists pay 140 euros, get two points and a month’s driving ban if they endanger pedestrians when turning.
Many crimes are very difficult to monitor. Drink driving, for example – you have to stop every car and let the driver blow. This turning regulation is about a special prevention. So less to deter, but to achieve a learning effect afterwards. Which is of course bitter because then usually someone has already been injured.
The Germans seem to have a particular problem with the rescue alley. Now, in addition to a fine of 200 euros and two points, there is a risk of a month’s driving ban. Why is this simple principle so difficult for us?
In my opinion, this is totally overrated. There are no figures for this. The attention is based on reports from emergency services, eyewitnesses or YouTube videos. This certainly shows irresponsible behavior, but that is not because most of them do not know how a rescue alley is formed. The problem with this principle is: it is a collective effort. If only one person steps out and does something wrong, the whole system no longer works.
The subject of too high a speed runs through many of the new regulations. Why don’t we just stick to the speed limit?
Speed has a positive connotation in our society. That’s not a reproach – but we watch football, we watch the Olympics, and it’s all about speed. The one who crosses the finish line first is the winner, the one who shoots the ball into the goal is the hero. Children are taught that right from the start: first come, first served. That’s why it sticks so stubbornly in traffic. For many, excessive speed is a minor offense.
When looking at the new regulations, it is noticeable that cyclists in particular experience more protection. Are you trying to fix something with fines that politicians have failed to do – a consistent traffic turnaround?
That is symbolic politics. Penalties for parking on the bike path, in the second row, on the e-car charging point. Politicians show that they have recognized the problem, they act, it is publicly perceived, but the work gets stuck with the municipalities. They need the law enforcement officers who later have to go through there to punish the offenses.
Are we not exacerbating the conflict between pedestrians, cyclists and motorists who are all fighting over the same space?
I cannot rule out that this will be perceived by these groups. But I think that most road users understand it and don’t see it as a personal attack. That the tone on the streets is getting rougher is a hypothesis that has been maintained for years. That cannot be scientifically proven. The idea of the new catalog of fines was to punish high speeds and protect weaker road users. How we shape mobility in cities and distribute the limited space so that everyone can move forward fairly is a much bigger issue. That would overwhelm an instrument like the catalog of fines.