Traffic and Road Safety
Some people believe that raising the minimum driving age is the best solution to enhance road safety. I disagree with this idea because I believe that other methods are equally important and should be taken into account as well.
On the one hand, I agree that increasing the minimum age for getting a driving licence can be an effective road safety measure. Firstly, since people are often more mature and have more life experience when they get older, they can make quicker and wiser decisions to avoid dangerous situations on the road compared to younger drivers. My father, for example, will never use his phone when driving as he knows that he could easily lose his concentration and cause an accident. Secondly, raising the minimum driving age can allow adolescents to have more time to sharpen their driving skills. They can attend defensive driving courses to learn how to deal with different driving scenarios, which will help them minimize the risk of accidents when driving in the future.
On the other hand, I think that better road safety can be achieved by other more effective methods without increasing the driving age. To begin with, more stringent traffic regulations should be imposed, which would act as a deterrent to would-be traffic law breakers. In Singapore, people who run red lights are fined heavily, and therefore this will make them more responsible in order to avoid future punishments. In addition, governments should allocate financial resources to improving public transport, which would encourage citizens to drive their private cars or motorbikes less. As a result, these residents will no longer worry about the risks that they may face when driving their own vehicles, such as drunk driving or falling asleep at the wheel.
In conclusion, while raising the legal driving age can make our roads safer to some extent, I believe that governments should also introduce other road safety measures that are discussed above.
Nowadays, an increasing number of people are concerned about measures to ensure road safety. However, whether imposing stricter penalties for driving offenses is the only way to protect people is still a controversial issue. Although I agree that harsher punishments can act as an effective way to deter people from committing road offenses, I believe that there are better methods to protect the welfare of road users.
Firstly, it is obvious that the implementation of rules can act as a deterrent to would-be lawbreakers. For example, in Vietnam, a motorist not wearing helmet can be fined with $20 to $40, and thus he will be in fear of facing further punishment and avoid committing another offense. Furthermore, more stringent punishments for traffic crimes can be efficient way to reduce traffic accidents. For instance, in the past, China witnessed a significant number of annual road casualties when it had very loosely enforced regulations. However, once harsher laws related to road safety were implemented in 2009, there was a notable reduction in the total number of traffic accidents.
This is not to say that only by using stricter rules can we enhance the safety of our roads. It is true that there are still other effective measures to ensure people’s safety, such as heightening people’s awareness through the media about the consequences of committing driving offenses, or promoting the use of public transport systems such as buses or trains. To achieve the best results, the most effective method may be to combine all the aforementioned ideas.
In conclusion, I believe that stricter punishments are not the only way to deal with minimizing driving offenses. Measures, including raising people’s awareness and promoting the use of public transport systems, can also contribute to maintaining road safety.
Increased traffic and lack of housing supply are major concerns in many places. By relocating large businesses, including their factories and employees, to rural areas, these issues can be properly addressed. I personally find this Idea justifiable; however, at the same time, some other initiatives should be implemented if we expect to solve traffic and housing problems effectively.
Moving businesses and their facilities to the countryside will cause urban population to shrink substantially as successful companies, such as Apple, provide work for thousands of people. This, as a result, will relieve pressure on urban housing supply systems. Another apparent advantage of a decreased population is lower volumes of traffic which help reduce traffic congestion. In Hanoi for example, most people travel to work by private vehicles, and this leads to overcrowded roads during the rush hour. If big companies are based in a rural area and offer accommodation to their employees near their workplaces, this will no longer be the case.
Nonetheless, I think the mentioned problems are rather complicated and can only be solved completely by the introduction of some other measures. One example involves the development of road systems because narrow roads largely contribute to traffic jams in major cities. Building wider roads and motorways will allow a greater number of vehicles, both private and public, and therefore reduce traffic congestion. Also, residential areas with small living spaces that can accommodate a growing population should be established in urban centers.
In conclusion, I agree that relocating businesses to the countryside is one way to deal with traffic and housing problems. I also believe that we need a combination of this approach and a number of other actions, as listed above, to tackle these problems in a more comprehensive manner.
These days with increasing urban populations, there are major problems with congestion and not only the price, but also availability of accommodation in large cities of the world. It seems that one possible solution could be to relocate large companies and factories as well as their respective employees out of these urban areas and into more rural ones. In my opinion, I strongly agree that this would have a desired effect in making cities more liveable.
To begin with, the traffic problem in cities doesn’t only exist from commuting employees, but also the general public travelling around the city. While this may be a fact, if the number of worker’s vehicles is reduced on city streets, a large percentage of traffic will obviously decline in rush hours. For example, peak hour traffic is undoubtedly made up largely of staff from companies going to and from home.
Secondly, in regards to housing problems, populations will always continue to grow in cities and therefore inadvertently decrease the number of cheap and available apartments. This is certainly obvious, however, a large proportion of these apartments are occupied by employees from large firms and their families. If this workforce is relocated to housing estates in the country, city apartment blocks will fall in price and certainly increase in availability.
In conclusion, by relocating workers to rural areas to work and reside, heavy traffic conditions and lack of adequate accommodation in city centres will obviously change for the better. As far as I’m concerned, I agree that the government should enforce such a law in order to increase our standard of living in our hectic city life.
Opinions diverge widely on who should be responsible for road maintenance costs due to the proliferation of private cars recently. While some people argue that those who use cars should shoulder the responsibility for the improvement of road systems, I believe that such costs should be the liability of the government.
The principal reason why car commuters should take the responsibility for these costs stems from their overuse of roads. Compared to other means of transport like a motorcycle, a car obviously not only occupies much more road space, but also wears the roads more due to its larger size and weight. It was estimated in Thailand in 2015 that the number of private cars made up nearly 85% of total vehicles commuting on the roads to and from work. As a result, the need for the expansion and enhancement of roads is mainly to facilitate a more comfortable journey for car users. Therefore, it is reasonable to assign the costs to car owners to pay for the maintenance and enhancement of the infrastructure.
However, I believe that the expenditure for road infrastructure projects should be incurred by the government for the following reasons. Firstly, the main role of governments is to improve the citizens’ standard of living, and an efficient transportation system is just one of the residents’ basic needs. In fact, the efficiency in road transport is the backbone of a country’s economy, and therefore it would be wrong if governments did not give this top priority. Secondly, as in many countries, car buyers are charged an exorbitant amount of tax in order to own and drive a car on roads, and therefore it is unfair to solely lay the responsibility for road upgrade works on them. For example, people in Vietnam have to pay almost twice as much to own a car than in other countries since taxes and fees account for 40-50% of car prices. Therefore, it is better to use these taxes for road infrastructure investment, rather than forcing citizens to pay for it.
In conclusion, although the argument in favor of road infrastructure costs belonging to car owners might be convincing to some extent, I think that the government should be the one to take the full responsibility for this.
It is argued that money should be spent on developing roads and motorways rather than on public transport systems. Personally I think both road and public transport systems have vital roles to play in modern society, and therefore should be equally invested in.
On the one hand, better road quality increases the level of safety and reduces traffic congestion. In many cities and provinces in Vietnam for example, the number of road accidents is ever-increasing due to the condition of the road’s surface. This is clear evidence that the government should spend money improving the quality of road systems in order to ensure the safety of people. Additionally, building wider roads and more motorways in big cities like Ho Chi Minh, where traffic congestion is still a major problem, will help to increase the space for a larger number of vehicles, hence reducing pressure on the city’s main roads as well as congestion.
On the other hand, better public transport systems are beneficial for the environment and people who do not have a private vehicle. In fact, some modes of public transport like subways produce less pollutants than cars and other private vehicles. Therefore, spending money providing people with access to public transport will improve air quality and reduce pollution. Furthermore, for those who do not have a private vehicle, such as a motorbike or car, buses and subways are a great choice if they have to commute daily.
In conclusion, for the reasons above, I believe money would be well-spent on not only roads but also public transport systems.
Movies tend to have a very large influence on young people who are influenced both by what they see and hear. Because this is the case, it is true that car chases in action movies tend to lead to an increase in the number of car accidents among young drivers because they try to copy what they have seen in the films. They drive too fast and take unnecessary risks and the difficulty is that most young people lack the skills and experience to do this.
There are a variety of ways in which young people can be encouraged to practise safer driving habits. Firstly, the Government should launch a safe driving campaign to convey the fact that driving safely is not uncool. In effect, it should be cool to stay alive and healthy! Secondly, every movie should make it clear that dangerous car chases are undertaken only in strict safety conditions with experienced drivers, and often special movie-making tricks are used to enhance the action. Thirdly, young people should be forced to take safe driving courses every year for the first five years that they have their driver’s licence. In this way, they are forced to perfect their driving skills or their licence will be taken away.
Finally, as part of this course, young drivers should go to hospitals and witness the effects of poor or dangerous driving on other people. When they see hospitalised people whose lives have been destroyed due to stupid risk-taking, they will surely change their minds about whether it is cool to copy action heroes and drive fast.
Most people would agree that car ownership has increased in recent years and is causing a range of problems, particularly in built-up areas. I think there are a number of ways that governments can aim to deal with this.
Many big cities in the world have traffic problems but these problems vary. For example, it is reasonably easy to drive around my city after 10 am and before 5 pm. However, outside these hours, you have to allow double the usual lime to reach your destination. In some other cities, traffic is congested at all times, and there is the continual sound of car horns as people try to get wherever they want to go.
One of the best approaches governments can take in busy cities is to encourage the use of public transport. This means the transport facilities have to be well run and people must be able to afford them. Buses, trams and trains are good ways of getting around., and it they are cheap and reliable, people will use them.
Another approach is to discourage people from actually entering the city by building car parks and shopping centres on the outskirts. Many cities around the world do this quite successfully and offer passengers bus transport into the city centre, if they need it.
At peak travel periods, governments can also run campaigns to encourage people to be less dependent on their cars. Apparently, a lot of car trips involve very short journeys to, say, the supermarket or local school. These are often unnecessary, but we automatically get in our cars without thinking.
Clearly we all have a responsibility to look after our cities. Governments can do a lot to improve the situation and part of what they do should involve encouraging individuals to consider alternatives to driving.
The more people that there are in the world, the more cars there are on the road. People are richer too and often families have more than one car. It has been proved that building more roads does not work; it just encourages more traffic.
So, what can we do? People like their cars and the freedom and independence that cars give them. One possibility would be to raise car taxes and fuel taxes so that people do not want to spend the extra money. Taxes on new car sales as well could be increased in order to discourage people from buying. Perhaps a used car sales tax could be introduced too. In the same way motorways could have tolls charged for using them although this may just increase congestion on smaller roads as people try and avoid the motorways. The government that introduces such ideas will not be popular though and would probably lose power. Governments would therefore be unlikely to set up such new measures.
I think it would be better to try and change people‛s attitudes and offer them alternatives. Educate them more about the pollution and waste that they are causing. Persuade them to car share, use public transport or even cycle if the distances are not too long. Countries such as Holland and Denmark are well known for how their citizens are passionate about green issues and how they use bicycles when they can.
Reducing traffic is a difficult task. I don‛t think it is possible realistically to reduce car numbers but I do think that we can change people‛s attitudes and get them to use different ways of travelling.