Opinion: Why Comparing BTS's Suga’s Scooter Incident to Driving a Car Is Absurd

The recent headlines surrounding BTS member Suga's legal troubles over a scooter incident have sparked a significant debate, particularly concerning the classification of the vehicle he was riding.

The bike Suga was riding: 

K-Media confirmed that the only reason the scooter is being considered a "vehicle" rather than a "personal mobility device" is that it exceeds the speed threshold by just 5 km/h—reaching 30 km/h instead of the 25 km/h limit. This technicality has led to Suga facing criminal charges similar to those for driving a car under the influence, a comparison that seems not only disproportionate but also illogical.

Let’s be clear: driving under the influence of alcohol is a serious offense, regardless of the vehicle type. However, the law must be applied with a sense of proportion and context. The idea that Suga’s scooter, which barely crosses the line between a personal mobility device and a motorized bicycle, should be treated the same as a car or motorbike is an extreme interpretation of the law. This is especially true given that many people would naturally perceive an electric scooter as a minor and relatively harmless mode of transportation compared to a car or motorcycle.

First, we must address the nature of the scooter in question. Unlike a car or motorbike, which are heavy and powerful machines capable of causing significant harm if mishandled, an electric scooter is lightweight, often used for short commutes, and generally poses less risk to others on the road. The fact that Suga’s scooter can travel at 30 km/h rather than 25 km/h is hardly a reason to escalate the consequences to those akin to DUI in a car. The speed difference is minimal, and the potential for harm is far less than that of traditional vehicles.

Moreover, the current uproar over Suga’s case brings to light a broader issue of how laws regarding new forms of transportation are lagging behind technological developments. With the rise of personal mobility devices like electric scooters, there needs to be a clear and rational legal framework that takes into account the differences in risk, rather than lumping all motorized vehicles together under outdated classifications. Treating a slight difference in speed as grounds for severe punishment is an indication that the legal system may need to reassess how it categorizes these vehicles.

Calling Suga a liar for his initial testimony—that he only had one glass of beer—also seems harsh and unnecessary. It’s entirely possible that Suga did not fully realize the implications of the scooter’s speed classification or that he did not anticipate the severity of the legal consequences. He likely viewed his actions as relatively harmless, given the vehicle he was operating. To compare his situation to someone recklessly driving a car under the influence is an overreaction that does not fit the facts.

While it is right to hold individuals accountable for their actions, the way this case has been handled raises serious questions about proportionality and common sense in the application of the law. It is important for the legal system to differentiate between various forms of transportation and to avoid overly harsh penalties that don’t align with the actual level of risk involved. Suga’s case should be a wake-up call to lawmakers to reassess how they regulate and punish the use of personal mobility devices, ensuring that justice is both fair and reasonable.