[The Police File]Understanding May Be Possible, but Exemption Is Not

At Jonggak Station in Seoul, a taxi driven by a man in his late seventies suddenly accelerated, resulting in an accident that left 14 people, excluding the driver, either injured or dead. Morphine was detected in the taxi driver's system, and the police are investigating the possibility that it may have come from prescription drugs such as cold medicine.

This incident is not a simple traffic accident. Explanations such as drug use and elderly driving have been cited as causes. Responsibility is becoming blurred, and the incident risks being packaged as yet another "unavoidable accident." However, one fact must be made clear: the moment someone takes the wheel, their physical condition and circumstances are no longer just personal matters. They become issues of public safety and move into the realm of responsibility for the lives of others.

This accident is no exception. Physical abnormalities, drug use, and old age have been identified as causes. While these may serve as "reasons for understanding," they can never be "reasons for exemption." Neither impaired judgment due to medication nor slowed cognitive and reaction speeds due to age change the fact that the driver got behind the wheel while posing a threat to others' lives. Each time a sympathetic narrative of "it could have happened" is repeated, the pain endured by victims and the fear experienced by citizens on the streets that day are too easily erased.

The problem is that our society continues to dismiss this issue as a matter of individual circumstances, inevitability, or luck. Drug-impaired driving still does not carry as strong a social stigma as drunk driving. Warnings about side effects and cautionary statements are abundant, but the systems to actually manage and monitor these risks are insufficient. The issue of elderly drivers is similar. While terms like "driving for a living" or "long-time driver" are frequently used, the safety of citizens on the road has always been pushed to the background. In a society that tolerates risk for the sake of livelihood or dilutes responsibility out of sympathy, more victims are inevitably created.

Clear standards are now needed. First, awareness and regulations regarding drug-impaired driving must be raised to the level of drunk driving. If a particular drug can significantly impair concentration, reaction speed, or cognitive judgment, the response must go beyond simple warnings to include legal restrictions and management systems. There needs to be a system that links drug use to the management of transportation workers, enabling temporary suspension of driving, as well as administrative authority to supervise this process.

Second, the management of elderly drivers can no longer be left to goodwill and voluntary compliance. For professional drivers, not just license renewal but mandatory periodic assessments of cognitive and reaction abilities should be required. This is not to discriminate based on age, but to ensure that those entrusted with the lives of others in public transportation meet essential responsibility criteria. For those who do not pass, there must be practical support systems for suspending driving and transitioning to other jobs. A society that tolerates risk for the sake of livelihood will inevitably produce more victims.

Third, there must be a shift in the system to bring the "driver's personal condition" into the realm of public management. As long as drug use, health issues, and excessive fatigue are left solely to individual judgment, accidents will continue to occur. The system should be redesigned not as a mere formality of regular health checkups, but as a genuine assessment of fitness to drive.

This accident has raised a clear question in the heart of Seoul. There is no longer any reason to blur the answer. The response must be standards, not sympathy; principles, not understanding; systems, not declarations. If we answer this question ambiguously, it is only a matter of time before another accident occurs.