The Escalator Etiquette Dilemma: A Tale of Two South Koreas

For decades, South Korea has been divided over the proper etiquette for using escalators. Commuters are evenly split between those who prefer standing on one side and leaving the other open for walkers, and those who advocate for two-line standing.

The country’s complex history of escalator etiquette guidelines may contribute to the ongoing debate. In 1998, authorities began promoting one-side standing to accommodate passengers in a hurry, particularly during the 2002 World Cup when crowds were at an all-time high. However, as concerns grew over accidents and equipment maintenance, the government reversed course in 2009, recommending two-line standing for several years before abandoning any specific guidelines altogether.

Proponents of one-side standing argue that it allows for faster travel times for those in a hurry. Opponents counter that it increases physical stress on escalators and potentially affects maintenance costs. Advocates of two-line standing claim that it promotes efficiency by moving more people at once.

However, safety is also a concern. Statistics show that 72.3% of escalator accidents between 1993 and 2025 were attributed to user behavior, with those aged 60 and older accounting for a staggering 53.3% of incidents. These numbers suggest that the current guidelines are not only ineffective but also potentially hazardous.

A recent government-hosted forum in Seoul highlighted the need for a more nuanced approach. Experts pointed out that efficiency is often prioritized over safety, and that the question of one-line or two-line standing may be too simplistic to begin with. Jang Gye-ryeon, a public administration researcher at the Korea Institute of Industrial Relations, noted that the issue requires consideration of whose efficiency is being prioritized, as well as the specific context of each situation.

The fact that 38.1% of forum participants favored applying different rules depending on location and crowd levels underscores the complexity of this issue. The debate is not just about individual convenience but also about public safety. It’s a question of balancing efficiency with caution in an environment where user behavior plays such a significant role in accidents.

Ultimately, this controversy serves as a reminder that even seemingly mundane issues can have far-reaching consequences. By engaging with the complexities of escalator etiquette and acknowledging the competing interests at play, South Korea may be able to find a more effective solution – one that prioritizes safety without sacrificing convenience.

The question remains: will the authorities finally settle on a clear policy, or will this issue continue to escalate into an endless cycle of debate?