Your Car, Someone Else at the Wheel: Naming the Driver on a Taiwan Traffic Notice

A person cited for a Taiwan traffic violation who believes someone else was responsible must identify that person to the penalty authority before the notice's appearance date (應到案日期), with relevant evidence and that person's supporting documents, under Article 85(1). A challenge to the cited facts has a separate 30-day period counted from receipt under Article 9(1). The dates need not coincide. If the notice was served late, its printed appearance date requires a further check under handling rules Articles 15(2) and 36(1), explained below.

Taiwan's Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例) explains why the notice reached the owner. Article 7-2(1) permits a citation without a roadside stop (逕行舉發) for listed conduct when officers cannot stop the driver at the scene or it would be inappropriate to do so. The list includes running a red light or a railway crossing (item 1) and conduct proved unlawful by evidence gathered with scientific instruments (item 7). Under Article 7-2(5), the highway authority or police must record the plate number, vehicle type and other identifying details, then issue the notice to the owner or a main driver the owner designated. For a rental business vehicle leased for at least a year, the notice may instead name the lessee if the business applies.

An American designer living in Taipei lends her car to a friend for a long weekend. Later, a no-stop notice arrives in her name for running a red light (an invented example). Her friend was driving. She considers paying the fine, but also wants the penalty authority to know who was behind the wheel.

When you say someone else was driving

Article 85(1) governs what she must send. A person cited who believes the violation should be attributed to someone else must tell the penalty authority (處罰機關) who the responsible person (應歸責人) is before the appearance date on the notice. The submission must include relevant evidence and supporting documents relating to that person. A name alone falls short. When several members of a household share a car and the owner cannot tell who drove that day, there is not yet a person for the owner to identify as responsible.

Under Article 85(1), after receiving this information, the penalty authority must immediately notify that person separately to appear for handling under law. A person who misses the applicable deadline without following the required process remains subject to the penalty under the provision violated. For a notice served late, the printed date alone does not establish whether that deadline has passed; the service and filing dates need the check described below under handling rules Articles 15(2) and 36(1).

Her messages record the car loan. She may also need her friend's cooperation to obtain documents about him. If she asserts that he was responsible, she must send the relevant evidence and his supporting documents to the penalty authority before the appearance date. How the authority assesses them remains open under Article 85(1).

Which office decides the penalty

Where should the owner send the attribution? Article 8(1) assigns penalties for violations of Articles 12 to 68 and Article 92(7)–(8) to the highway authority (公路主管機關); the police handle violations of Articles 69 to 84. Either the highway authority or the police can issue a no-stop notice under Article 7-2(5), so the issuing office and the penalty authority need not be the same. Article 85(1) directs the owner to the penalty authority. For the ranges Article 8(1) lists, the provision cited determines which body that is.

Negligence in a no-stop citation

For a no-stop citation under the Act, or a case in which another person is punished at the same time, Article 85(3) presumes negligence on the part of the person cited without a stop or that other person. The owner may have been nowhere near the car. Even then, the presumption concerns negligence; it does not establish who drove. A cited person who believes someone else was responsible still has the Article 85(1) route.

Thirty days, counted from receipt

Starting when the person liable receives the notice, Article 9(1) allows 30 days to pay at the designated place under the fine standard referred to in Article 92(4), closing the case without a ruling. Payment is an option (得). Someone who disputes the cited facts must (應) state their objection to the penalty authority within that 30-day period. If the person also fails to attend the designated place by the applicable appearance deadline to await a ruling, and neither pays nor states an objection within the prescribed period, the penalty authority may rule directly. For late service, the appearance deadline needs the check explained below under handling rules Article 15(2).

Fine standards, fine payment, and the procedure for statements to the penalty authority and for rulings are left to handling rules that the Ministry of Transportation and Communications makes together with the Ministry of the Interior under Article 92, paragraph 4.

The notice may reach its addressee with fewer than 30 days left before its stated appearance date, or after that date has passed. In either case, Article 15(2) of the handling rules permits attendance within 30 days after service takes effect. That provision speaks to attendance; Article 36(1) still describes the attribution submission as due before the appearance date stated on the notice. Have the service record and the deadline applicable to the Article 85 submission checked promptly with the penalty authority. The printed date alone does not show that the opportunity to submit has expired.

If the designer also believes the car never crossed on red, she must state that objection to the penalty authority within 30 days of receiving the notice under Article 9(1). If she believes her friend was responsible, Article 85(1) requires her to identify him to the penalty authority, with relevant evidence and his supporting documents, before the appearance date.

If the weekend also involved a collision, scene response and compensation are separate issues discussed in Taiwan Traffic Accident Q&A: Scene Safety, Fault, Settlement, and Compensation.

Her messages about the car keys may help place the loan alongside the date on the notice. If she believes her friend was responsible, she must inform the penalty authority who he is, with relevant evidence and his supporting documents, before the appearance date under Article 85(1).

Legal help with the notice and records

A Taiwan lawyer can check the notice itself: whom it names, the appearance date, and when it was received. If it arrived close to or after that date, the lawyer can review when service took effect and promptly ask the penalty authority which deadline applies to the Article 85(1) submission in light of handling rules Articles 15(2) and 36(1). The lawyer can review the vehicle-use records and the material identifying the driver, and work out from the provision cited which body is the penalty authority under Article 8(1). They can prepare the Article 85(1) notice with the evidence and the driver's documents for timely filing with that authority, along with a request asking the friend for his documents. If the cited facts themselves are disputed, a separate Article 9(1) statement can be prepared for the penalty authority within 30 days of receipt. No lawyer can promise how the authority will assess the material.

To talk a notice like this through with an English-speaking lawyer in Taipei, email Hovering International Law Firm at wei@hoveringlaw.com.tw with a photo of the notice and the date you received it. The office is at 7F-2, No. 35, Sec. 1, Chengde Rd., Datong Dist., Taipei City 103, Taiwan. Include the appearance date and the name of the person you believe drove the car.

Official sources

• Road Traffic Management and Penalty Act (道路交通管理處罰條例), Art. 7-2, Art. 8, Art. 9, Art. 85, Art. 92, and the full text; current text checked (the official database shows August 17, 2026 as the latest amendment of the Act as a whole)
• Official English translation, used for the Act's English name; the Chinese text governs
• 違反道路交通管理事件統一裁罰基準及處理細則, Art. 15 and Art. 36; current text checked (the official database shows May 26, 2026 as the latest amendment of the rules as a whole)

Checked: October 16, 2026