Safe driving can’t be enforced
The stated rationale for the Taipei City police “crackdown” on scooter drivers to improve road safety is both false and dishonest (“Taipei police target scooters in crackdown,” Aug. 13, page 2).
It is false to claim that police intimidation tactics reduce fatalities — if this really were so, then why haven’t the police always maintained a high level of intimidation? It isn’t as if the police will run out of money.
That obvious logical objection aside however, the chief reason why police intimidation does not improve road safety is that most traffic accidents are caused not by violation of traffic laws, but by the criminal negligence of drivers.
There is nothing more important to being a good driver than paying attention to what is happening on the road at all times — a driver who does not pay scrupulous attention at all times is a dangerous driver, even when, and especially when, he or she behaves within the enforceable scope of traffic laws.
For example, failure to check mirrors properly, signaling too late and even outright daydreaming are all extremely dangerous and extremely common behaviors that cannot be adequately reined in by laws.
Merely enforcing traffic laws with more gusto will have zero effect on the behaviors that actually cause accidents.
This being the case, it is hard to avoid coming to the conclusion that the claim that police intimidation tactics actually reduce fatalities is a falsehood. I would gladly examine any statistical evidence that suggests otherwise.
Aside from issues of infrastructure quality, maintenance (or lack thereof) and ownership, the principle solution to the problem of poor road safety must be psychological, in the sense of education and normative pressure toward promoting road awareness and shifting drivers’ sense of responsibility away from robotic observance of traffic laws and toward themselves as fully cognizant adults capable of paying attention to the road and thinking about what they are doing.
Such solutions however, cannot be mandated by law and least of all by this country’s utterly absurd and worthless licensing system.
It is impossible to force people to think by threatening them with violence; it is a responsibility that people have to take upon themselves and encourage in others by social pressure — not the violence of government.
To believe otherwise is to commit oneself to the childishly nonsensical and yet monstrously common precept of mind control.
MICHAEL FAGAN
Tainan
Prior to marrying a Taiwanese and moving to Taiwan, a Chinese woman, surnamed Zhang (張), used her elder sister’s identity to deceive Chinese officials and obtain a resident identity card in China. After marrying a Taiwanese, surnamed Chen (陳) and applying to move to Taiwan, Zhang continued to impersonate her sister to obtain a Republic of China ID card. She used the false identity in Taiwan for 18 years. However, a judge ruled that her case does not constitute forgery and acquitted her. Does this mean that — as long as a sibling agrees — people can impersonate others to alter, forge
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers on Monday unilaterally passed a preliminary review of proposed amendments to the Public Officers Election and Recall Act (公職人員選罷法) in just one minute, while Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators, government officials and the media were locked out. The hasty and discourteous move — the doors of the Internal Administration Committee chamber were locked and sealed with plastic wrap before the preliminary review meeting began — was a great setback for Taiwan’s democracy. Without any legislative discussion or public witnesses, KMT Legislator Hsu Hsin-ying (徐欣瑩), the committee’s convener, began the meeting at 9am and announced passage of the
In response to a failure to understand the “good intentions” behind the use of the term “motherland,” a professor from China’s Fudan University recklessly claimed that Taiwan used to be a colony, so all it needs is a “good beating.” Such logic is risible. The Central Plains people in China were once colonized by the Mongolians, the Manchus and other foreign peoples — does that mean they also deserve a “good beating?” According to the professor, having been ruled by the Cheng Dynasty — named after its founder, Ming-loyalist Cheng Cheng-kung (鄭成功, also known as Koxinga) — as the Kingdom of Tungning,
A retired elementary-school teacher surnamed Lai (賴) said that, after retiring at the age of 50, he earned a monthly pension of over NT$60,000. Since retirement, he has earned over NT$10 million (US$306,457). If the government does not allocate more funding, the pension funds would soon go bankrupt. There is an urgent need for reform. If his monthly pension were lowered to NT$50,000, it would still be enough to cover basic life expenses, he said. In response, Taipei School Education Union president Lee Hui-lan (李惠蘭) said to Lai: “What do you mean by using your own pension as an example?”
RSS