On June 30, the Ministry of Transportation and Communications revised the temporary parking rules, implementing a system of penalty points and cracking down on stopping at red lines.
As the ministry prepares to create more yellow parking line and stopping zones, it is to be lenient with enforcement of penalty points, but drivers are still to be fined if they stop at red lines, even to pick up passengers or unload cargo.
However, the Vision Zero Alliance and professional drivers have expressed discontent.
My daughter was fined recently. She was not happy. Usually, it takes less than 30 seconds and does not disrupt traffic when drivers pick up a passenger, but now they face the risk of a fine simply for stopping at a red line — and most of the lines are red at the moment.
For many, fines under these circumstances are unreasonable. The new rules must be re-examined.
Have you ever stopped at a red line to allow a passenger to get out? Have you hailed a taxi at a red line? Are the regulations reasonable?
It is wrong to break the law, but in urban areas, it is almost impossible to abide by the traffic rules all the time.
In a radius of a few hundred meters around my house, there are few spaces for parking, which are almost always occupied, while yellow lines are also in short supply. Otherwise, its red lines.
Are the long red lines needed at intersections? If the rules are obeyed, getting into a car or hailing a taxi becomes nearly impossible.
More often than not, convenience stores, rehabilitation centers and long-term care centers are surrounded by red lines, meaning delivery trucks and vehicles carrying passengers in wheelchairs have to stop at them.
Some people take great pleasure in reporting traffic offenses. If they watch a red line zone in such an area for a short time, they would see many drivers breaking the rules.
Moreover, professional drivers who are reported might lose their job.
The ministry has received many complaints from drivers of taxis, buses and cargo trucks who have been repeatedly fined and given points for temporary parking in zones with red lines, which has hurt their incomes.
Taiwan is a densely populated nation where many people rely on automobiles. Drivers need to park temporarily — red lines notwithstanding — to complete their tasks. If they lose their job because of a traffic rule, is it in line with the principle of proportionality regarding road safety?
Drivers who illegally occupy road space are annoying, but sometimes, drivers need to stop temporarily. If the result is a penalty, the law is neither reasonable nor fair.
The ministry has asked local governments to create more yellow line areas and stopping zones, while the penalty point system is likely to be implemented next year, but does that mean parking spaces will be reduced? Is it going to become even more difficult to park legally?
Perhaps the red lines at intersections could be shortened and other areas be made yellow instead of red.
Or perhaps the ministry should revise the rules, allowing drivers to stop at red lines for a short time, if there is obvious need and traffic is not impeded.
That way, elderly people and other passengers with mobility issues would also be able to access vehicles more easily.
The ministry should also disregard public reporting of temporary parking, as fines do not improve traffic flow, but only lead to further annoyance.
Chang Yen-ming is a former Water Resources Agency section head.
Translated by Emma Liu
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS