Research On Judicial Determination Of Crime Of Obstruction Of Safe Driving

According to the National Bureau of Statistics,in 2021,there were 38,608 buses in Shenzhen,23,010 buses in Beijing,17,899 buses in Shanghai,15,948 buses in Chengdu and 15,388 buses in Guangzhou.Besides,there are countless taxis.Because of the massive migration of urban and rural populations and the increase in urban population,crimes against public transport are on the rise,especially the "10.28" bus crash cases in Chongqing and "7.8" bus crash cases in Guizhou have aroused widespread social concern.In order to crack down on crimes in the field of public transport,To better regulate the behaviors that hinder the safe operation of public transportation and maintain social harmony and stability,the three departments of the Public Security Law jointly issued guidelines for improving the standards of identity identification in 2019,which pointed out the direction for the judicial department to convict and sentence.Then,Crime of impairing safe driving in the newly promulgated amendment of Criminal Law,and the act of obstructing safe driving was formally punished in response to the public’s voice.The crime of nuisance of safe driving has been newly released,which has changed the past history of regulation of nuisance of safe driving by guiding opinions,It also provides legal support for the correct conviction and sentence in judicial practice.It is of great significance to protect human rights and promote the construction of socialist rule of law in China.At the same time,there are some shortcomings in the setting of the crime of impairing safe driving,which brings challenges to judicial determination.Mainly manifested in the following aspects: various modern means of transport,coupled with the popularity of shared cars and bike-sharing,the definition of public transport is different.Its standard is not uniform,This brings difficulties to identification in judicial practice.The definition of violence is vague,and it is necessary to refine the circumstances under which the violence in the behavior that impairs safe driving can constitute a crime.At the same time,it limits the driver’s right to self-defense.Because of the particularity of his profession,the driver must sacrifice his right to self-defense,but it does not mean that the driver should always tolerate illegal infringement.In addition,the definition of the crime of endangering public safety is vague,and it hovers between abstract dangerous crime and concrete dangerous crime,which is embodied in the difference with Article 114 of the Criminal Law.Different understandings of endangering public safety lead to different identification results.By studying the historical evolution of the judicial knowledge of crimes against safety,combined with China’s national conditions and relevant judicial practice experience,this paper puts forward the following suggestions on the problems existing in the judicial knowledge of crimes against safety in China:First,define the boundaries and standards of public transport and expand the scope of application.Incorporate shared cars,shuttle buses for employees,rental cars and small taxis into the scope of regulation.The second is to refine the boundary of violence identification.Violence is understood as the behavior that impairs the normal driving of drivers,and it is not required to reach the point of causing more than minor injuries.The third is to appropriately expand the driver’s right to self-defense.The driver’s AWOL nuisance of driving is interpreted as the driver’s failure to perform his duties and actively fighting or beating others,thus endangering public safety.The fourth is to refine the standards that endanger public safety.Understand this crime as a quasi-abstract dangerous crime,and reduce the burden of judicial identification.To interpret endangering public security as threatening public security,and at the same time to make a narrow interpretation,it must pose a threat to public security in a specific environment,and it should be analyzed in combination with social danger and infringement of legal interests.