Due to enduring the Kafkaesque situation of having two accidents in 30 minutes, one involving an accident with an ambulance, I would like to share my personal experience. Both cases show the loopholes of Taiwanese law, which is a driving factor for the terrible traffic conditions in the nation.
I was driving my scooter on the main road in Taoyuan’s Yangmei District (楊梅). Despite there being no cars behind me, a young man in an old car made a sudden left turn and I bumped into his vehicle. At first, the man tried to run away, but was blocked by other cars. My blood and flesh started immediately to color the paving while the young man was preoccupied with his cellphone. Other people stopped, put me down and tried to stop the bleeding until the ambulance arrived a few minutes later. Some people were very helpful with first aid and traffic control — not the young man playing with his cellphone.
The ambulance drove at a low speed with flashing lights on a four-lane road. When the ambulance slowly turned left, it was hit by another scooter. It was unthinkable that the other young man could not see it. He just considered his time to be more valuable. Bleeding and in pain, I had to wait for another ambulance while the second man was keeping the first ambulance busy. Time is relative and it passes more slowly when you are bleeding and in pain.
I stayed in the hospital for three weeks, but might recover in three months. My leg was at risk even after two operations and daily painful bandage changes. My wife and kids had no life during those few weeks, because they had to come to the hospital every day. The first man was not really under pressure, and he even asked my wife if we can help him to repair his car. He told us that he has no money for damages. The second guy was never seen again.
Why can both men enjoy such stoicism? Because they simply do not face any legal or financial risks.
A person who negligently causes injury to another shall be sentenced to prison for not more than one year, short-term imprisonment, or a fine of not more than NT$100,000 under Article 284 of the Criminal Code. The first man in practice would be charged with NT$20,000 as a first-time offender. He could excuse himself by saying that he was shocked, so he made the wrong decision when he tried to run. It would be very difficult to prove that he stopped due to traffic conditions. Civil litigation is not feasible and not enforceable — he could work off the record to avoid the enforcement of a judgement. From a financial point of view, it is much better for him to object to negotiations with me, and accept the sentence of NT$20,000 to NT$30,000 instead of paying damages. Obviously, he found that advice on the Internet.
The second man? Nothing. In other countries, he might lose his driving license for a very long time. If he said that he did not see the ambulance with lights and a horn, he would prove himself to be unqualified for driving a scooter. I do not even mention his selfish and childish attitude when he prioritized saving time over the life of a person in an ambulance. Imagine if I had a heart attack or a stroke. Ten minutes could have meant life or death.
Actually, I often see drivers blocking ambulances, which is surprising for a developed country like Taiwan. It is a very developed country with nice people, but the traffic conditions are terrible and more comparable to Somalia.
There are two reasons European drivers are much better than Taiwanese drivers: Heavy fines and strict law enforcement.
Risky driving is just too expensive in Europe.
Taiwan has to increase the penalties to a level that really hurts. Cars should be seized under some circumstances. Under the current law, both men would forget the accidents soon without changing their behavior. Two people not fit for driving are still on the road and sharing their experiences with their peers. In criminal statistics, young (male) drivers are over-represented. Taiwan has to require mandatory insurance for third party damages such as loss of income and personal suffering, at least for beginners.
At the moment, the obligatory insurance burdens my medical expenses, which are mostly covered by the National Health Insurance.
Claudius Petzold is a counsel at Washington Group and Associates.
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
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS