Talk:Yangju highway incident

Korea Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Korean military history task force.

Page title

looking for a more relevant page title; this was the best i could think of. Clown (talk) 06:30, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

discussion over at talk:Highway 56 Accident points to the corresponding :ko: article, where the title loosely translates to "us military armored vehicle girl-crushing incident" - this is a bit gory for my tastes. i like "incident" over "accident" and i think "yangju" needs to stay. also like "armored vehicle", but we can't fit the entire article in the title. i'll ask my korean g/f what koreans call it and get back. Clown (talk) 09:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

seoul us embassy has a q/a webpage about this incident, which is referred to as the "June 13th accident" Clown (talk) 14:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Korean page title is 미군 장갑차 여중생 압사 사건 (hanja: 美軍裝甲車女中生壓死事件). A cumbersome literal translation would be "American Army Armored Personnel Carrier Female Middle-School Student Crushing-to-Death Incident." The Japanese wiki calls it "議政府米軍装甲車女子中学生轢死事件," which is linguistically identical to the Korean except for adding Euijeongbu. A press release from the American Embassy in Seoul calls it the "Highway 56 Accident." A New York Times article mentions "Road accident" and "death." I think our current title "Yangju training accident" makes it sound like something happened during an actual traning exercise. How about "Euijeongbu Highway Incident"? Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 07:00, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good Call

I think this was a very good call, and you made the right decision in moving this info out of the Yongsan Garrison article. Kudos! Qb | ^{your 2 cents} 13:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Un necessarily vague labelling.

Why is this being referred to as an incident? Any other time a motorized vehicle hits something or someone and the driver had no intention of doing so it is referred to as an accident. "Incident" is most commonly used when something happens and all the details aren't availible; This event has been scrutinized to the nth degree and was clearly an accident. The current label of this as an incident is either a weasel word or PC kowtowing.

Changing the title back to "accident" is more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.193.171.201 (talk) 23:21, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Other things to think about. 1. Teach children to walk on the side of the road facing traffic. (The two girls who were killed were walking on the shoulder of the road with their backs to traffic in that lane.) 2. Teach children to keep their ears un covered so that they can be aware of what is going on around them. (The two girls had their hands over their ears to protect their hearing from the loud sounds made by the US military vehicles.)

Unfortunately Korean \schools do not teach these simple things to their children. Most Koreans insist on walking with their back to oncoming traffic.

If these two rules were practiced by these two girls they would probably have survived the encounter.

The accident happened when two US military convoys passed each other in opposite directions. The armored vehicle that ran over and crushed the girls was rigged so that the driver of the vehicle could not see the opposite front side of the vehicle. The vehicle NCOIC was on the opposite side of the driver and could see that the vehicle was about to run over the girls. He failed to climb over the boom of the vehicle and physically tell the driver to stop.

3. If you are a US Army officer and you see an accident about to happen get involved. If the officer in the vehicle that was in the opposite lane from the vehicle that ran the girls over had driven his vehicle into the oncoming lane and sounded his horn in front of the armored vehicle that ran over the girls the girls would have probably noticed. The driver of the vehicle that ran the girls over would have probably stopped before he ran over the girls and the vehicle at the head of the oncomming convoy (headed in the opposite direction of the girls).

4. The NCO in charge of the tracked vehicle that ran the girls over saw the girls and failed to crawl out and whack the vehicle drive in his helmet to get him to stop.

5. If this was an accident I would like to read the accident report. If one was ever written and submitted to the higher HQ.

6. If no report was sent up someone should be held accountable.

7. In my opinion this was both and accident (in that the innocent girls were doing what they were taught). And an incident (not an accident) on the part of the US Army as several things were done wrong by the US Army and the "investigation" and discussion of the incident failed to fix blame where it was due. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5B0:2DFF:1EF0:0:0:0:38 (talk) 19:48, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Image?

What exactly has an AVLB in Kuwait in the image to do with this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.244.131.103 (talk) 22:08, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]