To clear Taiwan’s dishonor of being a “living hell for pedestrians,” the Ministry of Transportation and Communications has pulled out all the stops to ensure that drivers give right of way to pedestrians at intersections.
Although the legislation was established to create a more pedestrian-friendly environment, it has received unexpected criticism since its implementation. One of the biggest complaints is the “emperor complex” of pedestrians: No matter what they do, whether it be crossing on a red light or deliberately loitering on the crosswalk, drivers always have to give way to them or face a fine of NT$6,000.
“Pedestrians come first” is the iron rule in ensuring pedestrians’ safety.
However, as road traffic safety should be observed by pedestrians and drivers, it is not fair to establish legislation that favors pedestrians.
A while ago, at the intersection of Fuxing N Road and Nanjing E Road, a man was reportedly “lost in reverie” on the crosswalk, preventing vehicles from turning right for up to 15 seconds, and people lambasted him for intentionally making a nuisance of himself.
Before traffic safety and mobility is improved at intersections, a better solution might be to make a clear distinction between pedestrian signals and right or left signals, so that pedestrians and drivers have guidance, as well as a benchmark for traffic contraventions.
Otherwise, as long as there is a pedestrian on the crosswalk, all vehicles need to stop at a distance of at least 3m. Even when pedestrians cross on a red light, drivers still need to yield to them. This kind of overcorrection has caused people to question the purpose of traffic signals under such circumstances.
Feasibility, validity and impartiality are central to any legislation. Just as the idiom “If a prince violates the law, he must be punished like an ordinary person” underscores impartiality, it is unjust to mete out strict penalties to drivers who do not yield, and give pedestrians crossing on a red light a mere slap on the wrist.
Accidents happen for many reasons, whether it be heavy traffic, badly designed intersections or vehicles breaking down, but the key still lies with drivers. Neglect, carelessness and speeding are all common reasons for accidents.
As a result, having drivers follow traffic rules and develop safe driving habits in a bid to ensure everyone’s safety is the most important priority. Meting out heavy penalties treats the symptoms not the problem and causes unnecessary public anger.
The ministry has of late been relying on enforcing the speed limit enforcement and traffic cameras to force drivers to adhere to the traffic safety rules, yet statistics show that there has been no reduction in the number of traffic casualties and accidents.
If the government wants people to follow traffic rules, it must first ensure that there is appropriate road planning, adequate parking spaces and a reasonable speed limit.
However, by setting up speed cameras and traffic enforcement cameras, and conducting average speed enforcement the government is treating citizens like criminals. It is little wonder that citizens do not voluntarily observe traffic laws.
In the Wanli period during China’s Ming Dynasty, academic and official Lu Kun (呂坤) gave profound insight into the stringent laws made by the court.
He said, to establish an unchanging law due to an occasional event, and to make the entire people suffer to punish one person’s mistake is the root of the problem with a malignant law.
Given the government’s overreliance on traffic enforcement cameras and the forced implementation of a problematic law, perhaps this insight hits closer to home than ever.
Shiao Fu-song is a lecturer at National Taitung University.
Translated by Rita Wang
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS