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
A nation has several pillars of national defense, among them are military strength, energy and food security, and national unity. Military strength is very much on the forefront of the debate, while several recent editorials have dealt with energy security. National unity and a sense of shared purpose — especially while a powerful, hostile state is becoming increasingly menacing — are problematic, and would continue to be until the nation’s schizophrenia is properly managed. The controversy over the past few days over former navy lieutenant commander Lu Li-shih’s (呂禮詩) usage of the term “our China” during an interview about his attendance
Bo Guagua (薄瓜瓜), the son of former Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Central Committee Politburo member and former Chongqing Municipal Communist Party secretary Bo Xilai (薄熙來), used his British passport to make a low-key entry into Taiwan on a flight originating in Canada. He is set to marry the granddaughter of former political heavyweight Hsu Wen-cheng (許文政), the founder of Luodong Poh-Ai Hospital in Yilan County’s Luodong Township (羅東). Bo Xilai is a former high-ranking CCP official who was once a challenger to Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) for the chairmanship of the CCP. That makes Bo Guagua a bona fide “third-generation red”
Following the BRICS summit held in Kazan, Russia, last month, media outlets circulated familiar narratives about Russia and China’s plans to dethrone the US dollar and build a BRICS-led global order. Each summit brings renewed buzz about a BRICS cross-border payment system designed to replace the SWIFT payment system, allowing members to trade without using US dollars. Articles often highlight the appeal of this concept to BRICS members — bypassing sanctions, reducing US dollar dependence and escaping US influence. They say that, if widely adopted, the US dollar could lose its global currency status. However, none of these articles provide
US president-elect Donald Trump earlier this year accused Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) of “stealing” the US chip business. He did so to have a favorable bargaining chip in negotiations with Taiwan. During his first term from 2017 to 2021, Trump demanded that European allies increase their military budgets — especially Germany, where US troops are stationed — and that Japan and South Korea share more of the costs for stationing US troops in their countries. He demanded that rich countries not simply enjoy the “protection” the US has provided since the end of World War II, while being stingy with
RSS