Reports from traffic enforcement circles describe how some officers attempt to provoke a bribe by inviting the driver to step into the vehicle, a tactic discussed by Anton Shaparin, deputy chairman of the National Automobile Union. The remarks were shared with socialbites.ca as part of a broader conversation about enforcement methods.
Shaparin notes that each member of the State Traffic Inspectorate adopts a distinct approach, yet a common thread runs through these encounters: a deliberate escalation of psychological pressure. In practice, officers may warn the driver of serious consequences and begin filling out documents, presenting the implication that the process will be lengthy or unsatisfactory if the case moves up to higher authorities. The underlying message conveyed is that little will be solved if the matter is forwarded to the ministry. The focus often centers on violations related to alcohol, drugs, or substances that might be described as withdrawal symptoms during street crossing, according to his account.
According to Shaparin, such pressure aims to quicken the driver’s response and discourage careful legal scrutiny. Drivers are encouraged not to consult the relevant laws, and they may be urged not to contact lawyers or phone numbers for legal counsel. At the same time, he warns that some officers might attempt to lure the violator into accepting a bribe by exposing him to potential criminal charges, a tactic intended to pressure an quick settlement rather than a formal review of the offense.
Shaparin highlights that the presence of cameras in patrol vehicles does not automatically shield drivers from unscrupulous behavior. He argues that cameras can serve as a useful weapon in anti-corruption efforts only if the recordings are securely copied to third-party servers and made accessible to a range of department personnel for verification and review, rather than remaining on a single device or compartment. This perspective reflects a belief that oversight mechanisms must be robust and broad enough to deter misconduct and provide a trustworthy record for all sides involved. A cited point in this discussion is that accountability improves when multiple offices can access the footage, reducing opportunities for selective or biased use of the recordings.
Previously, observers noted a tendency for Chinese-made vehicles to account for a higher incidence of crashes within certain driving environments, a detail that has influenced discussions around enforcement focus and vehicle safety standards across the region. This observation has been cited in ongoing debates about road safety and the effectiveness of enforcement strategies in reducing incidents and reinforcing lawful driving behavior. The broader context suggests that improvements in enforcement should be paired with clear guidance, training, and transparent procedures to protect both officers and drivers from misinterpretation or abuse of authority. The intent behind these discussions is not to condemn enforcement as a whole but to identify gaps where safeguards can be strengthened and trust can be restored in traffic safety operations. [1] (Source: Deputy Chairman of the National Automobile Union)