There were 2,990 people killed in traffic accidents in 2021, a mortality rate of 0.000124, which is five times higher than in many other countries. Taiwan has been called “a living hell for pedestrians” in a Facebook post.
Today, civic group Vision Zero is to host a march on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei, calling on the government to “return the road to the people.” The idea of Vision Zero originated from the Swedish government’s “Nollvision” launched in 1997, which holds that pedestrians should be regarded as the main subject of transportation (ie, roads are for pedestrians, not cars), and drivers should be taken as the cause of all traffic accidents. Therefore, drivers should be responsible for everything, and they should be trained rigorously.
Over the past two decades, many countries have emphasized that all roads should be more “pedestrian-oriented.” Governments in Japan, Australia, Europe and the US all suggested that the improvement of road planning should be valued more than law enforcement.
However, no matter how much enforcement is done, people would break the rules. In Taiwan, drivers and pedestrians often do not abide by traffic rules.
Traffic researchers found that it would be easier for the government to implement traffic measures after the public has formed a consensus on safety. In addition to law enforcement, it is most important to re-examine road designs. Work could be done to increase the distance between sidewalks and roads, establish pedestrian refuge islands and reduce the length of sidewalks. To have cars slow down at intersections, the areas for driving and the size of lanes can be reduced, and roundabouts can be set up to replace traffic lights. The purpose is to make driving more inconvenient, so that drivers would rather not drive. It used to be believed that traffic congestion should be criticized and that the government should do more to solve the problem, but today, traffic congestion can be considered as a way to prevent more cars from running on the roads. This is an innovative concept worth thinking about. After all, pedestrians’ lives should never be sacrificed only to save a few minutes journey time for a handful of people.
The fundamental problem of Taiwan’s traffic is that the government is not enforcing the rules and members of the public do not abide by the road laws. In the past two months, the situation has greatly improved to the extent that the intersections do not need to be renovated. As long as drivers are “forced” to follow the rules and stop at crosswalks to yield the right of way to pedestrians, Taiwan would no longer be a living hell for pedestrians.
Vision Zero should advocate that pedestrians and drivers are not to be set against each other, promoting the idea that both are on the same side. Many pedestrians have never become drivers, but it is impossible for a driver to sit in a car for the rest of their life. A driver can become a pedestrian at any time and hence needs to be protected by rules. In this sense, “return the roads to the people” is not only for the sake of the pedestrians, but for everyone. Even if people rely a lot on cars and scooters, drivers should maintain their dignity as human beings.
It is hoped that Vision Zero would keep urging local governments to penalize drivers who fail to stop before intersections. This is the first step to solve the traffic problems in Taiwan. All driving lessons should also be required to instruct drivers to be vigilant and stop before crosswalks, and motor vehicle offices should not let anyone get a license if the person fails to stop at intersections.
Jeremy Wang is a physician and a founding director of the Taiwan Association of Family Medicine.
Translated by Emma Liu
A gap appears to be emerging between Washington’s foreign policy elites and the broader American public on how the United States should respond to China’s rise. From my vantage working at a think tank in Washington, DC, and through regular travel around the United States, I increasingly experience two distinct discussions. This divergence — between America’s elite hawkishness and public caution — may become one of the least appreciated and most consequential external factors influencing Taiwan’s security environment in the years ahead. Within the American policy community, the dominant view of China has grown unmistakably tough. Many members of Congress, as
The Hong Kong government on Monday gazetted sweeping amendments to the implementation rules of Article 43 of its National Security Law. There was no legislative debate, no public consultation and no transition period. By the time the ink dried on the gazette, the new powers were already in force. This move effectively bypassed Hong Kong’s Legislative Council. The rules were enacted by the Hong Kong chief executive, in conjunction with the Committee for Safeguarding National Security — a body shielded from judicial review and accountable only to Beijing. What is presented as “procedural refinement” is, in substance, a shift away from
Taiwan no longer wants to merely manufacture the chips that power artificial intelligence (AI). It aims to build the software, platforms and services that run on them. Ten major AI infrastructure projects, a national cloud computing center in Tainan, the sovereign language model Trustworthy AI Dialogue Engine, five targeted industry verticals — from precision medicine to smart agriculture — and the goal of ranking among the world’s top five in computing power by 2040: The roadmap from “Silicon Island” to “Smart Island” is drawn. The question is whether the western plains, where population, industry and farmland are concentrated, have the water and
The shifting geopolitical tectonic plates of this year have placed Beijing in a profound strategic dilemma. As Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) prepares for a high-stakes summit with US President Donald Trump, the traditional power dynamics of the China-Japan-US triangle have been destabilized by the diplomatic success of Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi in Washington. For the Chinese leadership, the anxiety is two-fold: There is a visceral fear of being encircled by a hardened security alliance, and a secondary risk of being left in a vulnerable position by a transactional deal between Washington and Tokyo that might inadvertently empower Japan
RSS