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
Father’s Day, as celebrated around the world, has its roots in the early 20th century US. In 1910, the state of Washington marked the world’s first official Father’s Day. Later, in 1972, then-US president Richard Nixon signed a proclamation establishing the third Sunday of June as a national holiday honoring fathers. Many countries have since followed suit, adopting the same date. In Taiwan, the celebration takes a different form — both in timing and meaning. Taiwan’s Father’s Day falls on Aug. 8, a date chosen not for historical events, but for the beauty of language. In Mandarin, “eight eight” is pronounced
In a recent essay, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” a former adviser to US President Donald Trump, Christian Whiton, accuses Taiwan of diplomatic incompetence — claiming Taipei failed to reach out to Trump, botched trade negotiations and mishandled its defense posture. Whiton’s narrative overlooks a fundamental truth: Taiwan was never in a position to “win” Trump’s favor in the first place. The playing field was asymmetrical from the outset, dominated by a transactional US president on one side and the looming threat of Chinese coercion on the other. From the outset of his second term, which began in January, Trump reaffirmed his
Despite calls to the contrary from their respective powerful neighbors, Taiwan and Somaliland continue to expand their relationship, endowing it with important new prospects. Fitting into this bigger picture is the historic Coast Guard Cooperation Agreement signed last month. The common goal is to move the already strong bilateral relationship toward operational cooperation, with significant and tangible mutual benefits to be observed. Essentially, the new agreement commits the parties to a course of conduct that is expressed in three fundamental activities: cooperation, intelligence sharing and technology transfer. This reflects the desire — shared by both nations — to achieve strategic results within
It is difficult not to agree with a few points stated by Christian Whiton in his article, “How Taiwan Lost Trump,” and yet the main idea is flawed. I am a Polish journalist who considers Taiwan her second home. I am conservative, and I might disagree with some social changes being promoted in Taiwan right now, especially the push for progressiveness backed by leftists from the West — we need to clean up our mess before blaming the Taiwanese. However, I would never think that those issues should dominate the West’s judgement of Taiwan’s geopolitical importance. The question is not whether
RSS