近年來，隨著交通安全議題受到高度重視，科技執法逐漸成為政府提升交通秩序、降低事故風險及補充警力不足之重要政策工具。其中，路口多功能科技執法因能針對闖紅燈、不依標誌標線行駛、未禮讓行人等多種違規態樣進行自動偵測與影像蒐證，已成為地方政府推動交通治理的重要措施。然而，科技執法雖具有效率化、標準化與防弊功能，其實際運作仍可能衍生裁量轉移、程序參與延後、申訴救濟困難及教育功能弱化等問題。
本研究以臺北市大安區路口多功能科技執法為研究對象，採用文獻分析、文件資料整理、半結構式深度訪談及多重個案研究法，選取義交指揮案、設備誤判與參數設定錯誤案、通知時間差與重複違規累積案、固定鏡頭死角與現場條件變動案，以及偽造車牌案等五起代表性案例，分析科技執法於實務運作中所呈現之制度挑戰。
研究發現，科技執法並未消除警察裁量，而是將裁量由現場即時判斷轉移至後端影像審查與事實查證程序；其雖提升形式上的客觀性與一致性，卻未必能完全轉化為民眾主觀上的公平感受。其次，民眾多於事後接獲通知後，始能理解違規理由並提出陳述，使程序參與呈現後置化特徵。再者，申訴救濟雖具有補正錯誤之功能，但仍受限於通知時間差、證據取得困難、影像範圍不足及跨機關資訊不同步等因素。最後，科技執法使交通治理逐漸由現場互動、即時說明與柔性勸導，轉向系統監測、後端審查與事後追訴，進而削弱傳統交通執法所具有之即時教育與行為矯正功能。
本研究認為，未來路口多功能科技執法之發展，不應僅以增加設備、提高取締件數或強化辨識率為主要目標，而應進一步強化後端審查指引、設備參數檢核、重複違規提醒、資訊揭露、申訴分流、跨機關通報及責任界線配置，使科技執法由單純取締工具，轉型為兼具安全治理、程序保障、民眾溝通與行為改善功能之交通治理機制。

In recent years, as traffic safety issues have received increasing public and policy attention, technology-based traffic enforcement has gradually become an important policy instrument for governments to improve traffic order, reduce accident risks, and supplement police manpower. Among various enforcement approaches, multi-functional technology-based traffic enforcement at intersections has become an important measure for local governments in promoting traffic governance, as it is capable of automatically detecting and recording multiple types of traffic violations, including red-light running, failure to obey traffic signs and markings, and failure to yield to pedestrians. However, although technology-based traffic enforcement offers advantages in efficiency, standardization, and corruption prevention, its practical operation may still give rise to problems such as the shift of discretion, delayed procedural participation, obstacle to appealing, and the weakening of educational functions.
This study focuses on multi-functional technology-based traffic enforcement at intersections in Da'an District, Taipei City. It adopts literature review, documentary analysis, semi-structured in-depth interviews, and a multiple-case study approach. Five typical cases are selected for analysis, including a case involving the on-duty of volunteer traffic controller, cases of equipment misjudgment and parameter-setting errors, a case of delayed notification and accumulated repeated violations, cases involving blind spots of fixed cameras and changes in on-site traffic conditions, and a forged license plate case. Through these cases, this study examines the institutional challenges caused by technology-based traffic enforcement in practical operation.
The findings indicate that technology-based traffic enforcement does not eliminate police discretion; rather, it shifts discretion from frontline judgment to backroom image review and fact-verification procedures. Although such enforcement enhances objectivity and consistency, this does not imply citizens’ subjective perceptions of fairness. Second, offenders do not understand what they offended until they have received notifications, resulting in a post hoc form of procedural participation. Third, although an appealing mechanism can serve a corrective function, it remains constrained by notification delays, obstacle to obtaining evidence, limited image coverage, and insufficient interagency information synchronization. Finally, technology-based traffic enforcement has gradually shifted traffic governance from on-site interaction, immediate explanation, and flexible admonition toward system monitoring, backroom review, and post hoc enforcement, thereby weakening the immediate educational and behavioral-correction functions associated with the traditional traffic enforcement.
This study argues that the future development of multi-functional technology-based traffic enforcement at intersections should not focus solely on increasing the number of devices, expanding enforcement capacity, or improving recognition accuracy. Instead, greater attention should be paid to strengthening backroom review guidelines, equipment parameter checks, repeated-violation alerts, information disclosure, complaint triage, interagency notification, and the delineation of responsibilities. In this way, technology-based traffic enforcement can be transformed from a mere enforcement tool into a traffic governance mechanism that integrates safety governance, procedural protection, public communication, and behavioral improvement.

壹、中文參考文獻
方文宗（2018）。交通警察違反作為義務與廢弛職務罪之思維。法令月刊，69（3），82-99。
王錦程（1992）。交通違規執法裁量行為之研究。中央警察大學公共行政學系碩士論文，未出版，桃園市。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統：https://hdl.handle.net/11296/6324jk。
交通部（2025）。全國道路交通安全資訊平台，2025年4月28日，取自：https://roadsafety.tw/#。
中央社（2022）。台灣交通為何爛到被外媒報導？學者指政府1大錯誤：只有落後的國家才靠科技執法，2022年12月13日，取自：https://www.storm.mg/lifestyle/4656164。
朱金池（2005）。行政裁量正當合法性之研究。2005年第三屆「台灣公共行政與公共事務系所聯合會」年會，國立臺北大學，臺北市。
吳昇儒（2025）。基隆阿嬤幫愛孫買早餐 被科技執法連開1個月罰單？路口曝光、警方也回應了，2025年6月26日，取自：https://news.ltn.com.tw/news/society/breakingnews/5087619。
邱毓玫（2008）。基層官僚政策執行裁量行為之研究：以基層員警執行交通違規舉發為例。國立臺北大學公共行政暨政策學系碩士論文，未出版，臺北市。
林柏廷（2024）。論舉發交通違規之警察任務與民眾檢舉：兼論科技執法之法律探討。國立高雄大學政治法律學系碩士論文，未出版，高雄市。取自臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統：https://hdl.handle.net/11296/4yp97x。
洪煜勛（2025）。測速照相機是「政府斂財工具」？加拿大1省將全面拆除，反觀台灣近年大擴張成強烈對比，2025年11月5日，取自：https://www.storm.mg/lifestyle/11079027。
郭怡均、馮佩君（2023）。警察人員面對非理性陳情人之挑戰與因應之研究。警察行政管理學報，9，93-111。
徐德芬（2025）。彰化採科技執法降低交通事故 吳韋達籲重視教育駕駛與行人，2025年3月10日，取自：https://tw.news.yahoo.com/彰化採科技執法降低交通事故-吳韋達籲重視教育駕駛與行人-071157544.html。
崔正綱、程炳璋、陳淑芬（2023）。罰單撤銷率高！科技執法烏龍多挨批擾民警解釋原因，2023年8月13日，取自：https://tw.news.yahoo.com/罰單撤銷率高-科技執法烏龍多挨批擾民-警解釋原因-223418210.html。
彭文暉（2020）。交通違規之科技執法議題探討（編號：A01543）。臺北市：立法院法制局。
彭渰雯（2008）。基層員警取締性交易的執行研究：批判性詮釋途徑之應用。公共行政學報，28，115-151。
黃心怡、曾冠球、廖洲棚、陳敦源（2021）。當人工智慧進入政府：公共行政理論對AI運用的反思。文官制度，13（2），91-114。
黃旭昇（2022）。新北桃竹員警涉收賄配合開罰單 11人遭收押禁見，2022年6月23日，取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202206235002.aspx。
黃耀緯（2023）。國內外科技執法作法初探。臺北市：交通部運輸研究所運輸安全組。
楊漢鵬（2019）。運用科技設備於交通執法之研究。交通學報，19（1），1-12。
臺北市政府（2022）。交通事故降3成大同區路口科技執法今年增4處，2022年10月28日，取自：https://www.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=F0DDAF49B89E9413&s=48D9539D1CE4529C&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6。
臺北市政府警察局（2021）。111年元月起，鄭州西寧科技執法上路，2021年12月14日，取自：https://td.police.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=B19CFD7B4346611D&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=AE2BCA664BFA2670。
臺北市政府警察局（2022）。北橋機車瀑布也入列，大同區增4處科技執法，2022年11月22日，取自：https://td.police.gov.taipei/News_Content.aspx?n=B19CFD7B4346611D&sms=72544237BBE4C5F6&s=A164C800E22E7077。
臺北市政府警察局交通警察大隊（2026）。本局固定式科技執法設備設置地點一覽表，2026年4月21日，取自：https://td.police.gov.taipei/cp.aspx?n=6FEDE1F9DBFD656E。
監察院（2024）。近10年來行人道路交通事故死亡與受傷之人數整體呈現遞增態樣，112年行人事故之死亡與受傷人數，發生於路口之比率，皆創近年新高，無法擺脫「行人地獄」惡名監察院糾正行政院，2024年4月11日，取自：https://www.cy.gov.tw/News_Content.aspx?n=528&s=29770。
蔣昭弘（2020）。初探傳統與科技交通執法應用於取締交通違規之研究。109年道路交通安全與執法研討會，中央警察大學，桃園市。
陳斐鈴（2015）。民眾對警察的信任：從公正、廉潔、手段正當及維護治安績效等要素論述。刑事政策與犯罪研究論文集，18，239-259。
陳玟君（2025）。全台進入科技執法時代！違規開單量3年增65萬件激增330％，2025年2月24日，取自：https://cars.tvbs.com.tw/life/238819。
陳煜彬、何柔嫺（2025）。影／科技執法讓「錢包破洞」？交通罰鍰收入創新高罰單申訴暴增149倍，2025年3月25日，取自：https://autos.udn.com/autos/story/121040/8629794。
警政署（2024）。科技執法減少事故守護行人安全，2024年9月16日，取自：https://www.npa.gov.tw/ch/app/news/view?module=headnews&id=2136&serno=9ad62bfd-9a88-4fae-8ebc-2e629b1d5be4。
蘇木春（2024）。台中西屯派出所員警涉開單圖利第一波18人起訴，2024年12月25日，取自：https://www.cna.com.tw/news/asoc/202412250140.aspx。
貳、英文參考文獻
Barkane, I., Adamsone-Fiskovica, A., & Kilis, E. (2023). Creeping road traffic surveillance in Latvia: Social and legal implications of digital policing tools. Surveillance & Society, 21(4), 432–446.
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 102(1), 119–170.
Bovens, M., & Zouridis, S. (2002). From street‐level to system‐level bureaucracies: How information and communication technology is transforming administrative discretion and constitutional control. Public Administration Review, 62(2), 174–184. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00168
Bowen, G. A. (2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27–40.
Bullock, J. B. (2019). Artificial intelligence, discretion, and bureaucracy. The American Review of Public Administration, 49(7), 751–761. https://doi.org/10.1177/0275074019856123
Chang, W. (2022). Taiwan’s ‘living hell’ traffic is a tourism problem, say critics. Retrieved April 28, 2025, from https://edition.cnn.com/travel/article/taiwan-traffic-war-tourism-intl-hnk/index.html
Conner, M. (2017). Traffic justice: Achieving effective and equitable traffic enforcement in the age of vision zero. Fordham Urban Law Journal, 44(4), 969–1006.
Davis, K. C. (1969). Discretionary justice: A preliminary inquiry. Louisiana State University Press.
European Transport Safety Council. (2022). How traffic law enforcement can contribute to safer roads (PIN Flash Report 42). Brussels: European Transport Safety Council.
Gössling, S. (2017). Police perspectives on road safety and transport politics in Germany. Sustainability, 9(10), 1771. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9101771
Hobson, Z., Yesberg, J. A., Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2023). Artificial fairness? Trust in algorithmic police decision-making. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 165–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09484-9
Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry (Vol. 75). Sage.
Lipsky, M. (1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public services. Russell Sage Foundation.
Marciniak, D. (2021). Data-driven policing: How digital technologies transform the practice and governance of policing (Doctoral dissertation, University of Essex). University of Essex Repository.
Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2000). State agent or citizen agent: Two narratives of discretion. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 10(2), 329–358.
Merriam, S. B. (1988). Case study research in education: A qualitative approach. Jossey-Bass.
Owen, R., Ursachi, G., & Allsop, R. (2016). The effectiveness of average speed cameras in Great Britain. London: RAC Foundation.
Patton, M. Q. (2014). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Sage Publications.
Poole, B., Johnson, S., & Thomas, L. (2017). An overview of automated enforcement systems and their potential for improving pedestrian and bicyclist safety. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2661(1), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3141/2661-01
Rankin, S. M. G., Moses, M., & Powers, K. L. (2024). Automated statecraft: Electronic enforcement technology and the economic predation of Black communities. Wisconsin Law Review, 2024(2), 237–290. https://doi.org/10.59015/wlr.MHYJ2379
Retting, R. A., Farmer, C. M., & McCartt, A. T. (2008). Evaluation of automated speed enforcement in Montgomery County, Maryland. Traffic Injury Prevention, 9(5), 440–445. https://doi.org/10.1080/15389580802221333
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2011). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Smith, G. J. D., & O’Malley, P. (2017). Driving politics: Data-driven governance and resistance. British Journal of Criminology, 57(2), 275–293. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azw075
Soole, D. W., Watson, B. C., & Fleiter, J. J. (2013). Effects of average speed enforcement on speed compliance and crashes: A review of the literature. Accident Analysis & Prevention, 54, 46–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aap.2013.01.018
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. Sage.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1558689806292430
Thomas, L. J., Srinivasan, R., Decina, L. E., & Staplin, L. (2008). Safety effects of automated speed enforcement programs: Critical review of international literature. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). Princeton University Press.
Wells, H. (2008). The techno-fix versus the fair cop: Procedural (in)justice and automated speed limit enforcement. British Journal of Criminology, 48(6), 798–817. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azn058
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (4th ed., Vol. 5). Sage.
Zuiderwijk, A., Chen, Y.-C., & Salem, F. (2021). Implications of the use of artificial intelligence in public governance: A systematic literature review and a research agenda. Government Information Quarterly, 38(3), 101577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.giq.2021.101577