The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress Standing Committee on Legal Affairs recently announced to the public the results of the public solicitation of opinions on the Draft Law on Vehicles and Boats. The results showed that of the nearly 100,000 comments received, 54.6% of the opinions were proposed to be revised and tax burdens reduced. This explains the importance of “opening the door legislation” on the one hand; in addition, it also proves that although the draft of the vehicle and ship tax law had sought the opinions of several provinces, regions, municipalities, and ministries and manufacturers prior to the publication of the draft laws, it failed to expand public opinion through the media. It is a lack and regret.

The same attention has recently been paid to the measures taken by Beijing’s relevant departments to solicit public opinions on the New Deal. As the draft for sojourning the policy on plugging involves a wide range of issues, and the key terms are not described in detail, the opinions of the people are also very scattered: Some people think that the bus reform should intensify its efforts, and some think that the pace of public transport construction should be accelerated. The level of management should go up the steps, there are for the construction of road transport hardware facilities, but also for the expression of vague "limit line" "control motor vehicle growth," "congestion blocking fees."

From the reporter’s point of view, the most important aspect of public policy is to follow the spirit of the rule of law. The most important legal basis that can be found for the number-one and double-number limit line that Beijing has implemented and the number of routes that may be implemented is Article 39 and Number 40 of the “Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China”. Article 39 stipulates that “the traffic management department of the public security organ may, in light of the specific conditions of roads and traffic flow, take measures such as dredging, restricting access, and prohibiting traffic for motorized vehicles, non-motor vehicles, and pedestrians. In the event of large-scale mass activities In the case of large-scale construction, etc., measures to restrict traffic or to make decisions directly related to the public's road traffic activities shall be announced to the public in advance. "Article 40 stipulates that natural disasters, adverse weather conditions, or major Traffic accidents, etc., seriously affect traffic safety, and when other measures are adopted to make it difficult to ensure traffic safety, the traffic control department of the public security organ may implement traffic control." However, since the implementation of the single and double number limit and tail number restriction in Beijing, there has been no authoritative legislature to interpret whether there are such “powers” ​​in the relevant provisions of the Act.

In particular, Beijing’s “five-day banking system” that has been implemented since the Beijing Olympic Games has been subject to controversy because of the absence of hearings and open solicitation of public opinions before the implementation of the restrictions. Although some people once thought that “the five-day restricted line violates citizens’ right to use the motor vehicle property” is actually a misreading of the property rights law, but in a society ruled by law, citizens’ understanding of national laws is not “misreading”. Exactly who should make the most authoritative explanation with legal validity needs to be clear. Liu Jiahui, a lawyer of Beijing Derun Law Firm, once told reporters that it should be the relevant department of the National People's Congress.

The Xinhua News Agency’s overseas correspondent recently sent back to Japan, the United States and other international metropolises to manage urban congestion. A careful analysis of the “stones of other hills” can easily be found out that the roadblocks of auto-developed countries are more dependent on market-oriented control measures, improved management, high-tech strength, and careful design of systems. There is almost no limit to the use of these administrative measures, and the reasons for this are worthy of consideration by relevant departments.

Professor Cai Dingjian, a former professor at the China University of Political Science and Law, once published an article after the Beijing Olympics and pointed out: “How can the government’s car limit involve private property infringement? The legality is very simple because it limits the value of the property.” Reporter believes that after the Beijing Olympics, Legal experts' legal questions about the value of the right to use private cars cannot be evaded.

It is the same reason that the public questioned whether it is necessary to return some of the taxpayer's taxes. Although some experts have publicly stated recently that there is no need to refund the tax paid by vehicles for each year, it is a contradiction that after the Olympic Games, government agencies have refunded the road maintenance fees and reduced the taxes on the vehicles to the owners who were restricted. According to the introduction of the Beijing Municipal Traffic Police Committee, the total number of road maintenance fees returned during the Olympic Games only during the Olympic Games and the one-day suspension after the Olympic Games totaled 1.518 billion yuan, involving 2.7 million motor vehicles, of which private cars accounted for 80. %. This undoubtedly proves that the right to use the property lost in private cars is limited and can be quantified. It deserves to be valued and cannot be overwhelmed by the high-sounding reasons of governance congestion.