MaxYakov

I'm an eight-year veteran of cycling on Bangkok and Pattaya roads under all conditions, any/all times of day. My opinion, based on years of observation and survival (knock on wood) is this:

Cyclists should not be sharing the roads with motor vehicles and when they must, it must be done very carefully and with the correct equipment and level of situational awareness.

Motorcycles, as some posters have noted, are the primary threat to the cyclist. They will often pass at close proximity and are much more maneuverable and unpredictable than four-wheeled motor vehicles. Three-wheeled vehicles (Tuk Tuks) are in this category.

However, it is often the "cavalier attitude" of the cyclists on the road that can lead to their injury or death.

1) It is the cyclists responsibility to be aware of all vehicles that are approaching from the rear and to have at least one rear-view mirror and use it or them religiously. Observe the rear-approaching vehicles movements and try to determine if it is safe to have the vehicle pass. If it is deemed not a safe situation, immediately exit the road or take other evasive action. I am amazed with how few bicycles have mirrors and the excuses given as to why. In my view, the bicycle should be equipped with the same safety equipment that is required on a motor vehicle, since often they both must operate in the same environment.

2) It is largely the cyclists responsibility that they be seen by other users of the road. Bicycles in daytime usually do not show lights and often neither do they at night. Motorbike taxi operators wear high-visibility vests which increase their level of safety as well as lights that automatically are on (if they've been maintained). The cyclists should also wear high-visibility vests and it would be much safer for them if they ran with front and rear high-intensity lights both day and night.

3) In Thailand, especially Bangkok, one should not avoid or feel guilty about  riding on the sidewalks (pavements for speakers of UK English) if pedestrian traffic is not high. However, it must be done very carefully and at a much lower speed and recognizing that pedestrians have the right-of-way. There should be absolutely no hesitation to use the sidewalks (even if it means walking the bicycle) as often they are officially marked shared cyclist/pedestrian paths and implicitly it is encouraged by the Bangkok Metropolitan Administration (BMA), no doubt to encourage cyclists to avoid the roads as much as possible - knowing how dangerous they are.

Employment of only any one of the above strategies and tactics might have allowed the deceased to save is life. Perhaps this post will save someone in the future.

R.I.P. our departed cyclist Stephen B Mark.

The big mistake the deceased "man" (boy?) on the motorbike made (besides his speeding) was attempting to pass the pickup on the right (the pickup's left side) rather than pass behind it. Maybe it was poor judgment, maybe his bike could not make the maneuver at such a high speed. At high-speed, perhaps the decision was made at some distance from the pickup (while it was still blocking his side of the road, but moving) and could not be withdrawn or corrected due to the high-speed inertia of the bike. Who knows?

It's one of the basic decisions to be made out there when sharing the road with other vehicles. Do you get in front of another vehicle or behind it to pass it at ninety degrees. I'll almost always choose "behind" even if the other vehicle is not moving. Had a motorbike taxi run head-on into me one morning because he violated this rule (or had never even contemplated it).

6 minutes ago, Rob13 said:

 

Comey would probably disagree with that. 

You could be correct, but only Comey knows at this juncture, yes?

In my world, "probably" is a problematic argument.

9 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

That certainly works out well, being as impressing you was the farthest thing from my mind.

 

You can count! Good for you! However, that leads me to the somewhat depressing conclusion that your retirement years must be sadly devoid of interesting things with which to occupy your time if you're left having to amuse yourself with counting the words in my post. And yes, I do "demonize" Trump. However, to compare him to demons is to be grossly unfair to demons. He is far worse. Demons have no choice as to whether or not to do good. He does, yet chooses not to.

 

...aaaaand there you demonstrate a dazzling ability to grasp the obvious. I do believe that there is an ongoing investigation to determine just that very thing...whether there was collusion or not. And fear not dear Trump fan...the investigation is young. However, if you will avail yourself of a closer examination, at no point did I assert that there was collusion. In fact, I specifically stated that the evidence to date is circumstantial... "the continuing accumulation of as yet circumstantial evidence clearly leads any thinking person to the not unreasonable conclusion that something may well be amiss..."

 

And yes, we will have to wait to hear from both Mr. Comey and Mr. Coates to get confirmation. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

Firstly, I used the UNIX/Linux "wc" utility [Wiki link] with the -w option to count the words in your rambling 170-word sentence. You think I counted them myself? You have no idea about me and, obviously, many things.

You are supporting a Trump witch-hunt and hate campaign which has been thoroughly debunked today in testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee.

The only reason you supported the unsubstantiated  MSN/WaPo article  and witch hunts is that you don't like Trump and/or the fact that he is President.

I am not a Trump fan or supporter. I just don't like to see dirty tactics occurring in the US, or any, government and the supposedly unbiased US media, regardless of who the targeted person is.

Coats and Rogers deny that Trump "pressured" them (in direct opposition to the MSN/WaPo article that you provided that cited several unsubstantiated and/or anonymous/unnamed sources):

7 hours ago, Traveler19491 said:

Look for the committee to soon ask to speak with the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coates. Apparently, the orange one also asked Coates to intervene with the FBI to get them to shut down the investigation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-intelligence-official-told-associates-trump-asked-him-if-he-could-intervene-with-comey-on-fbi-russia-probe/ar-BBCc5lj

 

But, Trump is innocent. Right.

6 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Was that a statement or a question?

 

If a statement: Right, until found guilty.

 

If a question, innocent of what?

29 minutes ago, Traveler19491 said:

Given your aversion to sarcasm (or possible inability to identify such), allow me to clarify:

 

But, Trump is innocent (say his legions of gullible sycophants who are unwilling to entertain even the possibility that the continuing accumulation of as yet circumstantial evidence clearly leads any thinking person to the not unreasonable conclusion that something may well be amiss and to demand a thorough investigation to answer questions that require answering, and that even the fact that his former supporters on the "all Trump all the time" network, FOX, are now abandoning him will not break through their blind adherence to his "holiness", or the fact that his staff are starting to look into hiring lawyers and are taking extreme steps to ensure that they don't destroy anything that may later be subpoenaed will lead them to question so much as his inexplicable unwillingness to cooperate by coming completely clean with everything he has in order to finally put to rest any and all questions about what actually happened, but continues demanding a halt to the investigation without lifting a finger to prove his own innocence). Sorry, but that is willful blindness to the extreme, so don't expect those of us capable of rational inquiry and thoughtful examination of the facts to go along with a blatant and unreasonable unwillingness to hold power to account.

 

The trumpettes didn't have any problems with the eighth investigation into Benghazi, even after the first seven produced bupkus, so they shouldn't get their panties in a wad when we demand one investigation into what happened during the campaign that Russians hacked into and which several on Trump's staff have, to date, been unwilling or unable to explain their odd meetings with Russian officials, government and private, who were in positions to influence the handling of the information gleaned in said hacking.

 

Is that better?

Not really.

I simply wanted you to explain your position by providing clear, coherent, English sentences, since your first effort had neither. Calling Trump "the orange one", BTW, doesn't impress me either.

Instead we get the predictable flood of Trump-demonizing verbiage (second paragraph, first sentence - 170 words) combined with the usual (so-far) unsubstantiated* claims that Trump's staff colluded with Russia and so on.

* = In the original MSN/WaPo article which you provided a link to, we have "said officials familiar with the account Coats gave to associates" and "according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity" and "according to officials familiar with the discussions". Nothing from Coats directly. I guess we'll have to wait until he testifies before the Senate Intelligence Committee to get substantiation from Mr Coats.

1 hour ago, Traveler19491 said:

Look for the committee to soon ask to speak with the Director of National Intelligence, Dan Coates. Apparently, the orange one also asked Coates to intervene with the FBI to get them to shut down the investigation.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/top-intelligence-official-told-associates-trump-asked-him-if-he-could-intervene-with-comey-on-fbi-russia-probe/ar-BBCc5lj

 

But, Trump is innocent. Right.

Was that a statement or a question?

If a statement: Right, until found guilty.

If a question, innocent of what?

Has anyone ever seen a B-52 roar over on a 200 ft altitude fly by?

I have at a spectacular Moffett Field, CA air show a long time ago. I bet they don't do that anymore, anywhere.

1 hour ago, Grouse said:

These polemicists have some valid points about Islam but can't resist wrapping it up in Neo Con nonsense.

Can you be a little more specific about your opposition to their positions? I don't believe "nonsense" is an argument. If I want really over-the-top, predominantly left-wing  "nonsense", I can always pull up CNN, NBC, MSNBC, etc.

American Neoconservatism (Wiki) [link]

British Neoconservatism (Wiki) [link]

I find it interesting and ironic that you of all people would accuse them of engaging in "polemics" (the art or practice of disputation or controversy) in a negative sense. How would you identify your ideology?

SM's Views on the London Bridge Attack and the Aftermath [link]

PJW's Views [link]

38 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

 

As you say, perhaps it was your track record.  Normally, they will ask questions, eg, ask about your health policy and perhaps liaise with the claims department, or take a credit card and make an initial charge.

 

If you were brought in unconscious, then every hospital is obliged to treat any life threatening condition, regardless of financial situation.

That's good to hear (if it's is enforced -  ). I've heard stories to the contrary years ago. It was recommended that a credit card and passport be carried at all times because an accident victim without a credit card had been refused treatment at a particular hospital.

FWIW: 

72-hour emergency treatment for free at any hospital Thai Visa forum - April 1, 2017 [link]

From the Thai Visa forum The Nation  OP article:

"She [Thai Medical Error Network director Preeyanan Lorsermvattana] added that Thailand still did not have enough emergency physicians and it was important that everyone should take good care of their health so they will not become an emergency patient."

So...take good care of your health while perched on that motorbike or ensconced in that Tuk Tuk at 60+ km/h or visa run van at 120+ km/h, ya'all hear?

PS: What is a "Thai Medical Error Network", anyway? Based on the April 1 publish date and the fact that the OP is from The Nation, I'm starting to wonder. Anyway, a confusing discussion on the above, linked thread.

11 hours ago, CLW said:

And show me that hospital that treats foreigners without paying or credit card deposit.
Anyway most travel insurance you have to pay first by yourself and claim afterwards

I can show you two: Bumrungrad Intl and St. Louis (both Bangkok) both treated me without pre-payment or CC deposit. Bumrundgrad's hernia operation was more than 100,000 THB and they trusted me for it until I checked out. It could be because I had a good credit history with them. I don't know why.

18 minutes ago, baboon said:

Here's a crazy thought for you - Instead of countless bored policemen standing round in Tube stations, how about having them, ooh I don't know, perhaps patrolling the streets and keeping an eye out for other forms of crime, providing a visual deterrence and that kind of thing? You never know, they just might bag a few muggers, burglars and car thieves while they are at it...

You heard it, folks! From whom, by their avatar, is either an expert or a fan of Police Statism. Fitting TV ID, though, I must say.

18 minutes ago, Siamesecarper said:

Armed police response team shot the three bastards dead within 8 minutes of receiving the first emergency call according to the Police Commissioner.  Amazing response which saved many lives so a massive thank you to them for their professionalism and bravery.  Although I don't support the way it is done for in Thailand for political dissidents maybe it's time for a bit of Thai Junta style "attitude adjustment" sessions for the 3000 known Jihadists?

"Although I don't support the way it is done for in Thailand for political dissidents maybe it's time for a bit of Thai Junta style "attitude adjustment" sessions for the 3000 known Jihadists?"

More likely that the future Muslim-controlled English government will be giving "attitude adjustment sessions" to the remaining, helpless infidels, the way things will probably go. Do you think the sessions will be 1-week, with hands-off? Are some letters to London Mayor Sadiq Kahn [link] in order?

7 minutes ago, Mosha said:

Oh dear, I shouldn't laugh, but BBC talking to a woman who's trying her best not slur her words.

Sent from my iris 505 using Tapatalk
 

Yes, best to be falling down drunk when one of these attacks occurs. Short of that, surround oneself with self-defense chairs and bottles while ensconced amongst friends (the Telly turned to a football match is optional?).

5 minutes ago, Assurancetourix said:

We must use a proxy or Opera  because :

 

" this content is not available in your location " ( I'm living in Thailand )

I'll try with Opera

Thanks Transam

Worked for me with Chrome in Bangkok. Just a little slow coming up.

http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-40147014

The Black Hole (1979) IMDb [link]

On 5/24/2017 at 4:55 PM, smedly said:

agree with most of your post but the speed is very much in the control of the rider who also needs to consider the road conditions - from what I can see this bike was going far too fast for that road and surroundings - from what I can see I would be doing no more than 50kph if even that and I ride a bike that can do 300kph classed as a "superbike", you can end up super dead if you fail to follow a few simple rules for self preservation, this guy broke the fundamental one, riding at a lunatic speed on that road 

Sorry, there's even a more fundamental rule: K=MV**2.

Meaning, riding and type of vehicle over...say...30kph with such a collision could easily be fatal without seat belts, vehicle crumple zones and air bags.

Have you seen any of those three on a two-wheeled vehicle? Yeah, he was probably speeding. I see motorbikes doing it all the time on my very dangerous, narrow soi and especially while passing slower (mainly four-wheeled) vehicles. This collision may have been survivable had he been in a well-equipped, modern automobile. At least, he probably would not have been going quite so fast (probably).

But, in my view, the real killer is the almost total lack of protection from an easily fatal, relatively low speed collision while on a motorbike / cycle / scooter. Starting in the 1930s, the Ford Motor Co started to address automobile safety issues [link] by installing safety glass into its vehicles. They and others have since introduced numerous innovations that save lives.

I see it all the time with muscle bikes on Sukhumvit Road in central Bangkok. At least they open it up on a stretch that its unlikely they're going to get collected by an errant vehicle, as apparently what happened here. If Thailand wants to lower its road death rate, get people off these relatively dangerous vehicles, especially the young ones (and older crazies as well) who crave acceleration and speed and treat Thailand roads as raceways.

Yeah, I know, it's not going to happen anytime soon...or, probably, ever.

</rant>

"A collision with a black hole can spoil your entire day." - Albert Einstein

Warning: Watching this could result in mild to severe Cognitive Dissonance [link]:

It looks like Elon Musk won't be showing up at the White House.

However, Trump says he's going to attempt to re-negotiate "the deal". He said "The Paris Accord is very unfair at the highest level to the United States." He cites how China and India would be given advantages. "Under this agreement we'd be putting great wealth under lock and key ... it would be a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries." "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." "Our withdrawal represents a re-assertion of American sovereignty."

6 hours ago, Jingthing said:

If Kathy's career is actually permanently damaged, maybe she really should move to Mexico and own the trump bloody head thing, and open a trump bloody head PINATA factory! 

 

You finally came through with a great idea! Also, as a bonus, she might be able to get her supply a lot cheaper.

But if I were her, I wouldn't be holding up any fake (or real) severed heads of drug cartel associates (or any other Mexican citizens, for that matter). 

43 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

In taking away people's money (or TV sets) the Taliban would make themselves universally unpopular. Win-win for the allies.

Lose-lose-lose-lose - Money wasted, Taliban not exterminated, money not laundered through US defense contractors, allied troops don't get on-the-job training.

With your fiscal expertise, maybe you should be advising the US Congress on budgetary matters. I know you weren't being serious about the spending, but neither are they!

10 minutes ago, ddavidovsky said:

Back in 2000, America should have just given everyone in Afghanistan $1000. Would have boosted the economy, which is the main thing, and given the US a cargo-cult following.

Cost of that: $32 billion. Actual cost of Afghan war to American taxpayer: $2.4 trillion.

 

 

Well then...the actual cost was only $2.368 trillion because we saved the 32 billion we didn't give them. The Taliban would have confiscated the money anyway and spent it on armaments, truck bombs, prayer rugs, porn, and whatever else Taliban spend money on (not necessarily in that order).