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.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS