On June 30, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised the temporary parking rules, implementing a system of penalty points and cracking down on stopping at red lines.
As the ministry prepares to create more yellow parking line and stopping zones, it is to be lenient with enforcement of penalty points, but drivers are still to be fined if they stop at red lines, even to pick up passengers or unload cargo.
However, the Vision Zero Alliance and professional drivers have expressed discontent.
My daughter was fined recently. She was not happy. Usually, it takes less than 30 seconds and does not disrupt traffic when drivers pick up a passenger, but now they face the risk of a fine simply for stopping at a red line — and most of the lines are red at the moment.
For many, fines under these circumstances are unreasonable. The new rules must be re-examined.
Have you ever stopped at a red line to allow a passenger to get out? Have you hailed a taxi at a red line? Are the regulations reasonable?
It is wrong to break the law, but in urban areas, it is almost impossible to abide by the traffic rules all the time.
In a radius of a few hundred meters around my house, there are few spaces for parking, which are almost always occupied, while yellow lines are also in short supply. Otherwise, its red lines.
Are the long red lines needed at intersections? If the rules are obeyed, getting into a car or hailing a taxi becomes nearly impossible.
More often than not, convenience stores, rehabilitation centers and long-term care centers are surrounded by red lines, meaning delivery trucks and vehicles carrying passengers in wheelchairs have to stop at them.
Some people take great pleasure in reporting traffic offenses. If they watch a red line zone in such an area for a short time, they would see many drivers breaking the rules.
Moreover, professional drivers who are reported might lose their job.
The ministry has received many complaints from drivers of taxis, buses and cargo trucks who have been repeatedly fined and given points for temporary parking in zones with red lines, which has hurt their incomes.
Taiwan is a densely populated nation where many people rely on automobiles. Drivers need to park temporarily — red lines notwithstanding — to complete their tasks. If they lose their job because of a traffic rule, is it in line with the principle of proportionality regarding road safety?
Drivers who illegally occupy road space are annoying, but sometimes, drivers need to stop temporarily. If the result is a penalty, the law is neither reasonable nor fair.
The ministry has asked local governments to create more yellow line areas and stopping zones, while the penalty point system is likely to be implemented next year, but does that mean parking spaces will be reduced? Is it going to become even more difficult to park legally?
Perhaps the red lines at intersections could be shortened and other areas be made yellow instead of red.
Or perhaps the ministry should revise the rules, allowing drivers to stop at red lines for a short time, if there is obvious need and traffic is not impeded.
That way, elderly people and other passengers with mobility issues would also be able to access vehicles more easily.
The ministry should also disregard public reporting of temporary parking, as fines do not improve traffic flow, but only lead to further annoyance.
Chang Yen-ming is a former Water Resources Agency section head.
Translated by Emma Liu
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