China recently introduced a new term called "contactless traffic accidents," meaning that even if two vehicles don't physically collide, if your actions are deemed to have affected the other party and caused them to have an accident, you may still bear responsibility. The concept itself isn't entirely unreasonable, but the reason many people resent it isn't really about traffic rules themselves—it's because it reminds them of something familiar: the boundaries of rules are unclear, and many matters ultimately depend on interpretation and discretion.

Looking deeper at this phenomenon, you can actually see a larger problem: power is too concentrated, and rules lack sufficient certainty.

In many sectors, large quantities of critical resources and decision-making authority are concentrated in the administrative system, allocated top-down—such as land, urban space, business licenses, and various approvals and opportunities. While resources themselves are limited, distribution authority is highly centralized, which easily creates a problem: unbalanced allocation, and the process often lacks transparent and stable rules.

When resources are obtained primarily through allocation rather than open rules, society easily slides from a "rule-based society" toward a "relationship-based society" and a "game-based society." Many matters aren't determined by rules, but by who interprets the rules and who exercises discretion.

This produces a very typical phenomenon: the space for personal rule expands, discretionary power increases, and the certainty of rules themselves diminishes.

Once rules become uncertain, social behavior changes accordingly. Those who follow rules may actually be more likely to suffer losses, while those bold enough to exploit loopholes and test boundaries are more likely to gain short-term benefits. Overtime, society enters a vicious cycle—everyone starts learning to exploit gaps in the rules.

Many phenomena we observe are actually different manifestations of the same logic: e-bikes riding against traffic, non-motorized vehicles crossing intersections recklessly, shops encroaching on sidewalks, rural homes blocking roads, various public spaces continually being invaded, even various gray-area operations. Many people simply attribute these to "quality issues," but when a behavior exists at large scale and over long periods in a society, it's often not purely an individual problem—it's a problem of institutional incentives.

When rule enforcement is unstable, discretionary space is vast, and resources are highly concentrated in distribution, society easily develops an atmosphere where fewer people follow rules and more people test them. Gradually, a typical "bad money driving out good" phenomenon emerges—those who follow rules become marginalized, while more aggressive, less rule-abiding people are more likely to thrive.

From this angle, the reason "contactless accidents" provoke so much criticism isn't merely a traffic rule issue—it's more like a microcosm. It reflects a deeper structure: when power is too concentrated, distribution is unbalanced, and personal rule exceeds rules themselves, many social phenomena may look different on the surface, but their underlying logic is actually quite similar.