Some stretch of roads have more accidents than others. Bad highway designs can and do lead to accidents.2. Accidents on highways can be caused by factors ranging from speeding, drink-driving, falling asleep at the wheel, lose control over vehicle, etc. Railways are designed to prevent/minimise these.
Superficial? See the 2 points above.
By that standard, tracks with no trains running would have perfect safety record and being the best HSR system, which is very silly.The level of technology and length of tracks isn't going to be the key measure from now onwards. It will be measured by safety record.
The line on which the accident occurred is not a dedicated high speed rail, but an upgrade of regular tracks, and running an old HSR train. Obviously, those who do not distinguish the difference between the two (high speed and regular rail) do not concern themselves with facts in the first place. They only speak in sourness over the fact that China is now leading the world in HSR technologies.
Just look at the above AP article:
- How are rail accident and the Fukushima fiasco even comparable? Is the author trying to exaggerate a rail accident or down play a Chernobyl scale nuclear disaster?
- Residents being unhappy with noise from the rail line? Nice try by the author but this doesn't say anything about the technologies that matter in HSR.
- HSR losing confidence from officials? This is purely the opinion of the author, masqueraded as reporting by state media through clever writing. (Hint: everything after the phrase "a sign" is the author's opinion.)