What systemic problems are you referring to? Seoul has some of the best public transport in the world and the vehicle was a sedan. The driver either was drunk/high or had a stroke.
The systemic problems are a stroad which seems designed for high speeds, yet with many dangerous points of interactions with pedestrians and other drivers. There seems to be no infrastructure to protect pedestrians and no design features to limit speeds. As you point out, this wasn’t caused by a tank of a vehicle but a standard sedan.
This is in stark contrast to Vision Zero, a strategy where it’s nearly impossible for vehicle collisions to cause fatalities. It doesn’t matter if a driver is impaired, we have the technology to engineer away these deaths. From the images in article, the road seems to follow almost none of the tenants of Vision Zero.
9 dead people don’t speak for themselves in your mind, I guess. Why are you on this community?
I’d love to go through it with you, step by step, using crayons and simple wording if I must, but alas! Not one of the 19 articles I looked at provided an exact location or pictures clear enough to figure that out.
My logic here is very simple: If a car can hit pedestrians, then the infrastructure is bad. 9 people died to prove this point and you’re acting as if this is a freak accident that happens once in a decade. It doesn’t, people die all the time because of inattentive drivers or faulty vehicles. Bollards save lives.
Looking at the second photo in the article it looks like it bent the bollards over, which I would guess mightve launched the car into the air…
I think the bigger systemic problem would be the 8 lane roads in the area which enabled enough space for the car to get up enough speed to do that sort of damage to a bollard: https://maps.app.goo.gl/aHDmVJMPt3LKvAeL9?g_st=ac
Another systematic problem is the enbiggening of vehicles in the name of occupants saftey(larger pillars for better rollover protection, and extra passenger cabin rigidity, which also harms visibility for the driver due to wider pillars)
What systemic problems are you referring to? Seoul has some of the best public transport in the world and the vehicle was a sedan. The driver either was drunk/high or had a stroke.
The systemic problems are a stroad which seems designed for high speeds, yet with many dangerous points of interactions with pedestrians and other drivers. There seems to be no infrastructure to protect pedestrians and no design features to limit speeds. As you point out, this wasn’t caused by a tank of a vehicle but a standard sedan.
This is in stark contrast to Vision Zero, a strategy where it’s nearly impossible for vehicle collisions to cause fatalities. It doesn’t matter if a driver is impaired, we have the technology to engineer away these deaths. From the images in article, the road seems to follow almost none of the tenants of Vision Zero.
Tell that to the 9 dead
You could start with the systemic problems you mentioned. Go ahead
9 dead people don’t speak for themselves in your mind, I guess. Why are you on this community?
I’d love to go through it with you, step by step, using crayons and simple wording if I must, but alas! Not one of the 19 articles I looked at provided an exact location or pictures clear enough to figure that out.
My logic here is very simple: If a car can hit pedestrians, then the infrastructure is bad. 9 people died to prove this point and you’re acting as if this is a freak accident that happens once in a decade. It doesn’t, people die all the time because of inattentive drivers or faulty vehicles. Bollards save lives.
Looking at the second photo in the article it looks like it bent the bollards over, which I would guess mightve launched the car into the air…
I think the bigger systemic problem would be the 8 lane roads in the area which enabled enough space for the car to get up enough speed to do that sort of damage to a bollard: https://maps.app.goo.gl/aHDmVJMPt3LKvAeL9?g_st=ac
Another systematic problem is the enbiggening of vehicles in the name of occupants saftey(larger pillars for better rollover protection, and extra passenger cabin rigidity, which also harms visibility for the driver due to wider pillars)
So they weren’t bollards, they were decoration.
Ah yeah true, they were railings not bollards, but they look like they were solid steel, so I don’t think it’s fair to just call them “decoration”.
As someone working in the field of bollards: If they arent rated to stop a hostile vehicle, they are just decoration.
https://youtu.be/jlwQ2Y4By0U?t=1680