MaxYakov

Note: Not all motorbikes on sidewalks should be reported such as Thai Postal and other delivery/messenger services. Also, motorbike taxi stands have to use the sidewalks out of infrastructure limitations (understatement) in Bangkok.

A bit of judgment has to be applied.

Cars parked or using sidewalks should be given less latitude than motorbike taxis and delivery/messenger use.

Above all, be careful when getting images. I have a 30X optical camera so I can get images at a great distance.

Noodle vendor claims they urinated in into the broth "to cure customers' muscle aches"

I'm sure the vendor wasn't sitting or standing in the broth to cure his or her "muscle aches". On the other hand...

9 hours ago, sherwood said:

They are named sidewalks for a reason. They are for walking on.

Yeah, except when the BMA (Bangkok Metro Admin) and most others including the RTP support bicycles on the sidewalks (i.e. pavements in UK where doing so is illegal and getting a lot of bicylists killed on the roads). I've done the same as she's done a couple of times but am careful who I block. I'm sure there are motorcyclists out there who would run you down in a heartbeat.

There was a big, graphic advert posted a few days ago concerning how to get paid by turning in photographic evidence of motorcyclists and cars misusing and abusing the sidewalks. PM me for a copy of it. I had planned on making copies and placing them on cars that are illegally parked on sidewalks and to hand out to the motorcyclists also abusing. I wonder how successful the people  assigned to collect the fines is going to be tracking down the suspects and making them pay.

Mercenary vigilantes!

If one is going to assault someone with a sword, the least they should do is put on a shirt for reasons of decency.

Hey, Hon - Let's do vaca in Thailand this year because there we can drink ourselves until we're totally sh*tfaced in a club until 4 AM. Then we can catch a taxi back to the hotel and have some real fun talking to the driver on the way!

Or we could walk back totally wasted! What do you think?

I never smoked indoors because I didn't like the smell.

Also, always used a glass bottle as an ash tray so I never had to snub one out with my fingers at home or in the car.

Awful habit, but not so bad if managed. Then I got cancer in 2016 so I stopped. Everything was distasteful because of the chemo-radiation therapy I was getting at the time.

Food for thought.

3 hours ago, Yeahbutwhytho said:

 

Not really half, more a 1%..

Not a good idea to edit someone's comment in a reply (and edited down to a partial sentence at that!) without !indicating such edit has occurred. Why did you feel compelled to edit it in the first place and while supplying an unintelligible comment as well?

A "driver watch" should be assigned and sitting in the front passenger seat. His or her only responsibility is to closely monitor the driver and even take control of the vehicle if necessary.

I ditched a visa run van north of KK hitch-hiked because I didn't like how the driver was driving - speeding, tailgating, not driving defensively. Took a Nakhon Chai Air bus from KK the rest of the way into Bangkok - it was heavenly, except they kept A/C too cold for me.

I agree with the Thais. I'd bet the only reason the West (especially the US) doesn't have them is because it was too inconvenient to run a water pipe out to the outhouses and the habit of no-bum-guns just stuck.

They're a little slow, but they're learning how to do it.

Amusement, huh?

The bike should have been confiscated for our amusement.

They would have confiscated it on the spot or any motor vehicle in the UK simply for not having the proper driver licenses, insurance, taxes etc. Confiscation is the only way the RTP is going to get law compliance from Thais and other scoff-laws.

Problem are: Where would they put the millions of motor vehicles and where are the Thai people going to get the money to pay for the storage fees and et al.

Tear down history and put up a shopping center.

8 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think "trump" is the only president in U.S. history where we really do need to worry about that happening. That's why it's important to beat him SOUNDLY. A thin win would be very risky as we already know based on his past behavior that he will make up stories about millions of illegal votes. Rigged! We also know for a fact if he isn't reelected he is open to indictment, conviction, and prison. So to say he is very motivated to win no matter what is an understatement. 

Well then, "trump" (as you so nicely put it) will simply have to collude with the Russians again, won't he? And this time insist on a "thick win" from Putin! 

14 hours ago, BritManToo said:

The whole point in the right to bear arms, is to defend yourself from a tyrannical government.

So you need high capacity rifles to defend yourself from the government military forces.

 

Might as well just remove the second amendment.

Good luck collecting the guns you don't want people to have, it would be 'Wako' every day for a year or more.

Better start recruiting more agents in the ATF, they will need plenty of replacements.

Sorry, defense from a tyrannical government could not have been the "whole point". There was still the possibility of attack by Britain or some other foreign power as occurred in the war of 1812 and with the Mexican-American war and the lead up to it in (what was to be) Texas in the early 1800s. But even more importantly, as even the framers of the Constitution must have understood, that firearms were required to be owned by individuals for personal defense from hostile indians and for hunting for food - important, practical uses.

I'm not an expert on the history and formulation of US Constitution, but it appears as though the wording was purposely kept succinct so reference to a "militia" was made even though, in my thinking, they must have known how important firearms were to pioneers and settlers (and to the farsighted those that were going to be to settling the Appalachians and beyond). This was borne out in the Indian Wars of the 1860s and 1870s in the West when personal firearms necessary for survival.

Those pesky "Anglo-Saxons" are continually de-interring themselves and attacking the French. ????

5 hours ago, petedk said:

Why didn't he just get the license number of the bike and then pick the kid up later? Any violation must have been recorded on his cam.

Do we know why the bike was being chased? If it had been stolen by the rider, then your plan would not work would it?

I have to hand it to the rider and pillion rider making the video and waving at oncoming traffic - especially the "safety first" gloves he was wearing. ????

Ref: Chase video submitted by Denim HERE.

20 minutes ago, kingdong said:

perhaps walmart dosen,t want guns being left unattended in cars parked outside unattended.

I've had time to consider turning Texas Walmart/Target stores into gun-free zones and what we know is more likely is to happen in those types of zones. And armed guard at these stores would be the first target to go down and/or the shooter would find a way into the store via an unguarded entrance.

Firearms locked up in car trunks ... what about vehicles without trunks? I installed a relatively large fire-resistant safe in my minivan for storing my Glock and other valuables. Maybe people should leave their firearms at home and locked up in gun safes. On the other hand, what about self defense when out and about? I was very comfortable with the safe installed in my vehicle as a viable tradeoff that definitely was smash-and-grab resistant.

3 hours ago, mtls2005 said:

Open carry in Texas (walMart and Target)...

 

Yee-haw.

 

Yeah, bad ideas, especially image #3 - she should at least buy a holster. And bad tats as well in one case.

IMHO, Walmart/Target should disallow this behavior and station an armed guard at each entrance with metal detectors. Of course, the down want to lose customers and incur more costs, do they?

A link to the shooter's manifesto had been made by the Drudge Report at www.drudgereport.com.

I, in no way, support the shooter's actions, but I do believe his manifesto should be read, at least. Many people died and were injured because of this young man's beliefs and actions - RIP

2 minutes ago, DualSportBiker said:

It's best to think before writing...

 

Thailand has always had a massively larger riding population than driving. The ratio of car to bike is changing as affluence increases, but it will be be a bike-riding society for years to come. Though I doubt much thought went into designing roads and junctions before the year 2000, bikes were not ignored or excluded.

 

Restricting big bikes to racetracks is a ridiculous idea. The accidents are not bike or engine-size driven, they are a result of scant skills, lax attitudes, poor policing, a general lack of a moral framework around road-use. Actually look at the stats. 88% of the accidents are small bikes. Should they be restricted to inside a gated community with speed bumps?

 

Bikes are as safe as the rider and the other users nearby. You can have a highly trained biker community and still have too many accidents from drivers who are reckless. Both rider and driver quality need improvement. Blaming or banning, a type of vehicle will only scratch the surface of the problem.

 

Oh yeah? Ridiculous idea, huh? I really don't care as long as innocent people aren't collateral damage and we don't have to listen to their noise pollution. The only way that this is going to happen is to take their toys away/restrict their use. BTW, this isn't just Thais operating in an uncivilized manner that belongs only on the racetrack.

For child safety, dangerous and obnoxious toys are taken away or used only with adult supervision. The behavior of a lot of the high-performance bike riders is childish. This childishness is a deeper issue which is too complicated for this particular thread.

Go to Rachada Phisek down a bit from the Asok intersection and listen to and watch the high-performance bike riders use it as a straightaway speedway 24/7 and I and others have to listen to their winding up their engines to the head bolts day and night.

Same thing on Sukhumvit from the Asok intersection to the west down to Soi 11 when they can get a clear shot in the fast lane.

To answer the question in the title. No, to me the "big bikes" (also, other high-performance motorbikes) in Thailand aren't worth the re-cycle value of the metal and plastic that go into them. It's unfortunate that the Thai economy and transportation system is deeply reliant on motorcycles in general, IMHO. Poor people have poor ways.

5 minutes ago, Dene16 said:

When we all started riding bikes,for most of us anyway, we started off on smaller bikes on good roads and where the majority of people had good road sense. Over time we to gained the experience to ride bigger bikes.

No amount of track days will give you that expierience

Unfortunately that is not the option here and many will die before that happens

Riding a 'honda gold wing' (bath tub) will never be an option for me and many others, who i would call, true bikers. (sorry harley riders just my opinion)

I've had a few scares but only due to cars not seeing me, the stopping power of big bikes are amazing these days

If you've never ridden a big bike your opinion accounts for nothing because you haven't lived (i don't mean that in a derogatory manner)

We all know that whether you are driving/riding we have to be 5x more aware of whats happening around us and the biggest danger is the soi dogs imo

 

"If you've never ridden a big bike your opinion accounts for nothing because you haven't lived (i don't mean that in a derogatory manner)"

Nominated by me for the Quote of the Month (if not the Year/Decade/Century) Award 

I guess I have an "unaccountable opinion" then (I don't mean that in a derogatory manner, of course)

2 minutes ago, milesinnz said:

clearly you have never toured on a big bike, or probably not even a smaller one. but maybe you just feel you have a right to try and enforce your values as to the way people should feel and behave. I wonder what else you would be advising people not to do ? Not to go sky diving, scuba diving, or even go to a Thai bar ????

I'm not trying to enforce my values on anyone. If I were I'd be out confiscating bikes of operators who were not wearing helmets as I believe the RTP should be but cannot for various reasons. Do you not value road "safety"? The Thais do not seem to.

BTW, isn't it ridiculous to compare sky and scuba diving (not to mention Thai bars) to riding a big bike or any bike on Thai roads. The death statistics with the percentage of deaths where motorbikes are involved pretty much tells the story doesn't it? What I ride or do not ride is not relevant to the carnage occurring on Thai roads, IMHO.

Am I not entitled to an opinion in this PC world?

Cannot you not read and understand the chart given in the OP? I am referring to Thailand as is the OP. 

28 minutes ago, chrissables said:

A Gold Wing for touring the mountains and hill tribe villages? I suggest you have not travelled or ridden a motorbike touring.

 

A bus, that would work if you could persuade the driver to slow down and turn up the side road/track to the view points for a photo opportunity. Give it a go and report back ????

 

I took this photo from an imaginary bus stop!

So, you are handicapped in a way that you cannot drive a car or use a pickup that can carry a dirt bike? 

I think I know what your basic handicap is.

I have a good friend who raced motorbikes (both track and dirt). I watched him many times load his bike (race or dirt) into a small Toyota van and take them to the dirt or race track.

Visiting a hill tribe? Good one! I wouldn't visit a hill tribe even if I had a 6 X 6 with a quad fifty mounted on it.