The media: "see light punishment" is compared to the law enforcement retaliatory rebound and safety of poor frankly, I don’t think "see what penalty light" "flawed" worthy of blame. Important is not to discuss "see light punishment" is wrong, but how to choose the type of law enforcement, campaign style law enforcement dilemma come out. The evening of November 1st, Shenzhen city traffic police detachment "thorough investigation of light" operations carried out within the city. The action taken by the "two see two test mode and a punishment, for illegal acts of indiscriminate beam, in addition to a fine of 300 yuan deducted 1 points penalty, also asked the driver sitting in a" green chair "experience light for a minute. Shenzhen police said that the action is mainly based on experience, not mandatory. "Look at the original light penalty" is not in Shenzhen, after a number of places have been tried, often controversial. Supporters believe that this has a stronger sense of education, and opponents, this is inappropriate, not only may cause harm to eyesight, there are excessive and even violence law enforcement suspects, the media is even more bluntly, in violation of the law". What is not illegal, can not imagine, interpret out of context, and should be based on the basic facts and concrete operation as the basis. Relevant laws and regulations, does not provide such a means of punishment, but the Shenzhen police have said that the move to experience based, not mandatory. Is not mandatory, it means that it is essentially a flexible means of education, rather than rigid punishment, offenders can be selected, of course there is no law enforcement across the scale. Some people worry that the "see light penalty" will damage the eyesight, I can only say that more worry, who is stupid enough to keep your eyes open for a minute? Experience but. "See the light penalty of criticism", in a sense is a kind of "legal cleanliness, is a narrow understanding of the laws and regulations, but also ignored the complexity of reality. Data show that more than 9 of traffic accidents are caused by traffic violations. But compared with more speed, overloading the red light, drunk driving, drunk driving, harmfulness of indiscriminate beam hasn’t got enough attention, even in the eyes of many people, this is just a kind of uncivilized behavior. For example, some people are not indiscriminate beam habits, but if the beam to the car, will be under the lights on the great sense, it poses a threat to the safety of passers-by. On the network, like a traffic accident video everywhere. Another easy to ignore the problem is that many drivers especially novice drivers, not deliberately indiscriminate beam, but did not use the lights, or can not fully aware of the consequences of indiscriminate beam. In this case, "see light punishment" at least is very effective for some people. Compared to the safety of the lives and frankly, I don’t think "see what penalty light" "flawed" worthy of blame. A website poll showed that up to 92% of users support the practice of Shenzhen, 97% of users have been the vehicle high beam interference experience. Public opinion is not the only basis for evaluating a certain traffic law enforcement behavior, but when the public opinion reached a high degree of consistency, its significance should be attached importance to. The overwhelming majority of users support "see light punishment", in the final analysis on law enforcement retaliatory rebound. For example.