I am writing in response to the article titled "Reaction to motorbike rule mixed" (Nov. 4, page 2).
The opinion of Taiwanese automobile drivers toward motorcycles is misguided. Car drivers seem to have this feeling of entitlement to the roads and view motorcycles as a nuisance. People should consider the benefits of motorcycles before criticizing them too much.
Karen Tseng from Hsinchu should consider how much worse traffic would be in the city if every motorcycle rider were instead driving a car. By suggesting that motorcycles on the highways would add to congestion, she is ignoring the possibility that those people might have been on the highway anyway -- but in a car.
The same applies to parking spaces in the city. What difference does it make if a person chooses to park her car or motorcycle downtown? Why is her car more important than someone else's motorcycle? Three or four motorcycles could fit in the space used by one car, which reduces the parking problem.
Joanna Hsu worries that large motorcycles would split lanes or move to the front of the line at traffic lights, like scooters do. What's the problem? Splitting lanes is no more dangerous for a motorcycle than a scooter and moving to the front of the line isn't a privilege reserved for scooters.
As for the person who said she was so intimidated by the number of large motorcycles on the road that she hit a rail on the side, perhaps she shouldn't be driving in the first place as she appears to be easily rattled.
Here's a question for residents living close to Taipei's Huanhe Expressway: Are motorcycles noisier than diesel trucks and buses? I live near a highway as well and that's what keeps me awake at night.
Motorcycles save on gas, reduce traffic congestion and ease parking problems. It's a disservice to Taiwanese society that they are so heavily taxed and regulated.
Craig Dodge
Sindian, Taipei County
Monday was the 37th anniversary of former president Chiang Ching-kuo’s (蔣經國) death. Chiang — a son of former president Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石), who had implemented party-state rule and martial law in Taiwan — has a complicated legacy. Whether one looks at his time in power in a positive or negative light depends very much on who they are, and what their relationship with the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) is. Although toward the end of his life Chiang Ching-kuo lifted martial law and steered Taiwan onto the path of democratization, these changes were forced upon him by internal and external pressures,
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (傅?萁) has caused havoc with his attempts to overturn the democratic and constitutional order in the legislature. If we look at this devolution from the context of a transition to democracy from authoritarianism in a culturally Chinese sense — that of zhonghua (中華) — then we are playing witness to a servile spirit from a millennia-old form of totalitarianism that is intent on damaging the nation’s hard-won democracy. This servile spirit is ingrained in Chinese culture. About a century ago, Chinese satirist and author Lu Xun (魯迅) saw through the servile nature of
The National Development Council (NDC) on Wednesday last week launched a six-month “digital nomad visitor visa” program, the Central News Agency (CNA) reported on Monday. The new visa is for foreign nationals from Taiwan’s list of visa-exempt countries who meet financial eligibility criteria and provide proof of work contracts, but it is not clear how it differs from other visitor visas for nationals of those countries, CNA wrote. The NDC last year said that it hoped to attract 100,000 “digital nomads,” according to the report. Interest in working remotely from abroad has significantly increased in recent years following improvements in
In their New York Times bestseller How Democracies Die, Harvard political scientists Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt said that democracies today “may die at the hands not of generals but of elected leaders. Many government efforts to subvert democracy are ‘legal,’ in the sense that they are approved by the legislature or accepted by the courts. They may even be portrayed as efforts to improve democracy — making the judiciary more efficient, combating corruption, or cleaning up the electoral process.” Moreover, the two authors observe that those who denounce such legal threats to democracy are often “dismissed as exaggerating or
RSS