MaxYakov

9 minutes ago, cat handler said:

As I've said Tailgating is not a set distance it's traveling so close that your not able to brake safely, pretty obvious he couldn't brake safely because he didn't. 

So your saying too that as the bike was falling one person fell to the left and the other to the right? Only way that could happen is if at the point he lost control she was leaning right and he was leaning left and one of them fell off the bike before it started tipping, very odd.

 

anyway you look at it he's responsible for riding without due care.

I can see how, at a minimum, a pillion passenger could get ejected from a motorbike in the direction the bike was traveling if the passenger is only loosely attached to the bike and the bike made a sharp leftward, angular movement - Newton's First Law of motion [link]. Pillion passenger would continue in the same direction and speed he/she was traveling in before the sharp leftward deviation of the motorbike. It seem to me it would be even worse if the bike had started to the right and then angled sharply to the left, potentially placing the pillion passenger's trajectory pointing more into oncoming traffic when ejected.

This is only one of the reasons I avoid motorbikes like the Black Death. I don't like hugging the MB taxi operatorsto stay aboard in case of an erratic movement of the motorbike. Also, the rear grip pillion seat is not sufficient (nor my grip sufficient) to keep one on the bike under high-G loads either (unless one has the grip of a Terminator), IMHO.

25 minutes ago, vogie said:

"Some Muslim leaders have condemned the attack in Manchester as contrary to the teachings of Islam "

 

Just watching the BBC News right now, and some Muslims are justifying the attrocities?

The <deleted> you say!? Watching <deleted> when you should be at the <deleted> and enjoying time with your <deleted>?!

15 minutes ago, gr8fldanielle said:

How many people have died from someone parking a bike under the steps of a footbridge compared to vehicles illegally parking on the right of way? Seems to me that parking under the stairs of the footbridges should be encouraged. Oh wait, it already has, selectively.

these pics are kind of ironic aren't they as they show motorcycle parking under the steps of footbridges.

It seems to me that the sign is identifying bicycles, not motorbikes. Also bicycles are parked there not motorbikes. Even if they were motorbikes they would have had to traveled on the sidewalk (pavements - UK) to get there, yes?

Have you noticed the motorbike barriers located on the diagonal corners of the Asok intersection? The one by the Exchange Tower was placed there after months of threats to motorbike operators (images, written warnings, etc).

Sometimes force is the only thing understood. Personally, I'd go with the motorbike crusher/recycler I referred to earlier.

PS: Yes, an illegally and stupidly parked car led to my having a serious confrontation with a bus whose driver was also doing illegal and equally stupid driving.

Motorbike use is totally out of control in Thailand. Is there a patent pending for a "motorbike crusher/recycler"? They are not even environmentally-friendly. Where are the Green facsists when they are really needed? Out selling solar panels or counting CO2 molecules, I suspect.

2 hours ago, Wake Up said:

Some TV information is very useful and some is complete BS. Driving is Thailand is not a big deal. I do it all the time and the histrionics about driving in Thailand are laughable. Have you guys ever driven in any other countries?  Most (not all) Thailand driving critics probably don't drive at all. But don't drive I don't care but I hate to see so much driving misinformation spewed over and over and over like a badge of honor. Drive Khon Kaen or Krabi and tell me it is dangerous. If you do then clearly you cannot drive. Drive Bangkok and you get traffic but you go too slow to be dangerous unless you are on a motorbike. Don't let the tv fanatics keep you from driving a car.  They are wa

2 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

Very nice! Now can you plausibly or reasonably explain why the Thailand road death/rate is the second highest in the world? Maybe it's only our imaginations. Something like that? Or is it just that you haven't been one of the victims yet?

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

He makes a fairly valid point.... The roads death statistics are primarily counting motorcycles. 

Then there are busses, Mini-Vans, pickups (with people in the back). 

 

If you are one of the those who drive a modern car, wear a seatbelt and drive cautiously then you are at far lower risk than the statistics may suggest.

 

Of course, you are still at greater risk than driving in the UK and this still comes down to driver education and road design, however, the extreme stats identifying Thailand as one of the most deadly countries to drive in is slightly misleading for city dwelling car drivers - Driving a Car in Thailand is safer than the statistics would suggest. 

 

I would like to see statistics which specifically identify Private Cars and see this comparison with other countries so we can apply a balanced perspective. 

 

 

 

Yes, he does and perhaps his point is "fairly valid". However, when my life and well being on the line, I prefer to err to the more conservative. We all have to be reminded that this thread is about motorcycles and not other types of motor vehicles. I've driven cars of all types for over 50 years in the USA and Mexico so I have limited experience (except the years upon years of early morning, 80 mph commutes on USA freeways).

So anyway, that having been said, I did an absolute minimum of research and came up with this (HERE [link]):

This seems plausible to me, but it's slightly dated and of unknown reliability. I'll let you do the math on how many cold bodies the 13% 4-wheel cars represents in the pie chart in relation to other countries. With me it's academic because I'm going to be in a rail car or an NCA bus if I'm doing any serious inter-city traveling on Thailand's roads. I'm just no fun at all these days.

I decided long ago not to drive any sort of motor vehicle in Thailand. I've seen some pretty deadly infrastructure from inside a van or a bus that did not meet my personal safety standards. Of course, as a USA driver, I've been spoiled.

One day, on a van visa run, coming down from Cambodia I was noticing how there was absolutely nothing separating the northbound an southbound lanes except a shallow ditch. No steel guardrails or wide expanse of median between the NB and SB. Nothing but that deadly ditch that could get one launched into oncoming high-speed vehicles. Then there are the exposed power poles and other roadside hazards that do not have deflectors, etc. My van driver was attempting to maintain 120 kph (as usual). I ditched the driver and the van at the next rest stop and hitchhiked the rest of the way into KK.

Long story short, even if the 4-wheel vehicle fatality statistics are relatively comparable to other countries, Thailand's road/highway infrastructure is severely lacking in safety features that I've been used to.

18 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

Some TV information is very useful and some is complete BS. Driving is Thailand is not a big deal. I do it all the time and the histrionics about driving in Thailand are laughable. Have you guys ever driven in any other countries?  Most (not all) Thailand driving critics probably don't drive at all. But don't drive I don't care but I hate to see so much driving misinformation spewed over and over and over like a badge of honor. Drive Khon Kaen or Krabi and tell me it is dangerous. If you do then clearly you cannot drive. Drive Bangkok and you get traffic but you go too slow to be dangerous unless you are on a motorbike. Don't let the tv fanatics keep you from driving a car.  They are way overstating the reality of driving in Thailand which is not bad compared to China, Rome, Chicago etc..... 

Very nice! Now can you plausibly or reasonably explain why the Thailand road death/rate is the second highest in the world? Maybe it's only our imaginations. Something like that? Or is it just that you haven't been one of the victims yet?

6 minutes ago, Khon Kaen Dave said:

This is a joke, right?

If you're referring to my comment, technically it's called sarcasm and, apparently, I should have flagged it as such with a /sarc.

If you're referring to the video, I don't know what to say.

8 minutes ago, stephenterry said:

Probably not. Hopefully the authorities are on the trail of others involved.

 

BTW - one meaning of Zealot does not relate to Judaism  - a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals. 

You just don't get it!  May I suggest mass murderer, <removed>

1 hour ago, stephenterry said:

We should take a step back from this atrocity. A lone bomber was responsible for the deaths of 22 people and 50+ injured (more people are killed and injured on the roads in a week, but that isn't headlines across every newspaper). The concert's capacity was 21,000. The UK contains 65 million citizens.

Yes, it was a barbaric act, yes there should be action taken by the UK, yes there should be mourning by the relatives, but put this into perspective and not engage in gung-ho suggestions to wipe all muslims off the face of the earth or bring back capital punishment - these are extreme measure to resolve the actions of one zealot. 

 

 

 

One zealot! That's a good one!  

And, of course, he acted totally alone, obtained the materials himself, constructed the bomb by himself, etc., yes?

I'm not even going to address your euphemistic misuse of the descriptive word "zealot".

R.I.P. to the victims and condolences to their families and friends.

On 5/21/2017 at 7:45 PM, Goldieinkathu said:

If you watch the video it didn't look to me like he was tailgating. Yes, he said he had to brake suddenly but maybe he just over reacted to seeing the pick  up brake causing him to loose control of the bike.The fact that he fell to the left is the reason he is alive to tell his tale, unfortunately for Ms Anderson she fell to the right and didn't stand a chance .

If it is correct that he has not been charged then I doubt the police think he was tailgating either.

Why all reports say he has been charged and yet he says he has not is a mystery.

 

 

I had a couple of your lads lay their motorbike down its side at speed just to my left because the operator panic-braked - he was going too fast anyway for Sukhumvit Soi 7. They slid for several meters and just avoided sliding into/under a parked pickup truck. Sukhumvit Soi 7 is one-way, but had they been on a two-lane road they could easily have slid into oncoming traffic and gotten a lot more than just road-rash.

On 5/20/2017 at 9:29 AM, ELVIS123456 said:

I agree that riding a bike while pregnant in a foreign country is stupid, and that riding (in same situation) without a helmet is stupid.

 

I also agree that in Thailand a bike is not 'legally' obliged to keep left, however most Thais think bikes are required to travel on the left to allow other faster vehicles to pass. Most bikes travel slower than cars/trucks, and many drivers will push bikes left if they get in front of them.  They believe bikes must travel on left side of road, and that includes the BiB who cannot be argued with as those who have 'encountered' them will testify (bribed yes, but not argued with). 

 

As anyone who has driven in Thailand for a while knows, what is legal is irrelevant. And that is always the issue when tourists ride bikes in Thailand - they dont know the real rules. Was the guy at fault for not being on the left side and therefore she would have fallen towards the gutter and not under the truck?  Was the guy going quickly and overtaking cars and made a mistake?  Who knows. I hope the truth will come out quickly.

 

But as someone has already said - anyone driving/riding in Thailand without camera/s is taking a bigger risk than is already being taken by driving/riding in the first place.  

"Most bikes travel slower than cars/trucks, and many drivers will push bikes left if they get in front of them." 

I don't know where you live in Thailand, but in Bangkok this is certainly not the case. Most motorcyclists, especially motorbike-taxis, are eager to prove that they are faster than cars and if they're on the left of the car it is probably to pass it. I'm in constant head-on collision situations on my narrow, yet speeder-infested soi, due to the motorbikes that are constantly passing the cars or even other, slower motorbikes.

The muscle bikes are continuously winding to full tilt on Sukhumvit Road and Rachadaphisek when they get a open piece of road and only nitro-fueled dragsters could keep up with them. You can bet your last baht that these folks aren't letting cars pass them.

14 minutes ago, longtom said:

In my experience motorbike-taxis are the safest Thai drivers on 2 wheels, that is if they are not high on something of course.

Yes, they may be the safest, but that's not saying much in Thailand, is it? Especially when your fate may be determined by someone else on the road who is not safe.

I watched an ongoing beer (and who knows what else) party of MB taxi operators one night across the street from a popular FoodLand in Bangkok.

I rarely rode motorbikes as even a passenger. Nowadays I refuse to ride them. I am, however, a cyclist and at least my fate is, for the most part, in my hands.

3 hours ago, gr8fldanielle said:

I don't think it comes down to enforcement, it should be less enforcement.

The problem here is the law. Motorcycles are required to ride on the left side of the road.

We motorcycle riders must stay in the other vehicle's, buses', van's, truck'[s, car's, songteaw's blind spot. They can't see us. No one seems to do anything about illegal parking. People park right under the no parking signs. People park illegally where a car pulling into a road cannot see oncoming traffic. Businesses work on cars in the streets, change tires, brakes etc right under no parking signs. Motorcycles are forced to navigate through intersections with all the other cars slowing down traffic at the same time rather than safely use the overpass that has no traffic. Not to mention cars stopping in the middle of the roads to buy food, let passengers get in or out of their cars, taxis buying moo yang etc.

Change the laws, let us ride where it's safe rather than risking our lives in order to avoid a ticket which is merely extortion because we get ticketed for trying to be safe.

Why don't the police target what makes the roads dangerous rather than target the poorer people that have no choice but to ride a motorcycle because they can't afford a car or have the time to sit in traffic.

These stupid laws are a money maker for the police.

They don't have to show you any ID, They don't have to tell you their name, they don't even have to tell you which law you broke. They just say "left side". Give them the book, they can't find the law. We give them our licenses because they have guns, we have to. It's mafia style extortion and motorcyclists pay with money and their lives. How about taking away the commission police get every time they write a ticket. The most absurd thing I ever heard. Writing tickets for profit.

Change the laws that are killing us and see what happens. What do they have to lose, certainly less than we do.

"We motorcycle riders must stay in the other vehicle's, buses', van's, truck'[s, car's, songteaw's blind spot."

If that's the law, it's certainly not observed by motorcyclists in Bangkok nor enforced by the police. At just about every intersection the motorbikes are in the lead even if it means perching in the pedestrian crosswalk or even beyond (especially if they're thinking about circumventing a red light). Major intersections such as Asok have a reserved space marked on the pavement, nearest the pedestrian crosswalk, specifically for motorbikes.

Motorcyclists in Bangkok, by my observations are generally a very impatient lot  and will pass a car on either side at first opportunity because many of them are motorbike-taxis and time = money with them. In any event, it's the motorcyclist's responsibility to be seen by the operator of another motor vehicle. However, there's no guarantee that the other operator will even condescend to use their rear-view mirror (if they even have one - cyclists/bicyclists take note).

“If you take motorcycles out of the equation, Thailand’s roads will be as safe as (those in) Switzerland, the United States and Britain,” Dr Liviu Vedrasco, health cluster chief at the World Health Organisation (WHO) in Bangkok, told The Sunday Times."

Simple solution. Toys are taken away from kids, aren't they?

But, Hey! It wouldn't be Thailand anymore, would it?

OK. Keep the motorcycles and eliminate the motorcyclists. Problem solved!

20 hours ago, Happyman58 said:

I refuse to ride my bike on the roads here  The cars come so close and i dont want to be hit by one Sad part is  they would not even stop if they did hit you Its the Thai culture again Me Me me and i want to be first there

Avoiding the roads is a good idea, but very constraining. I have come "borrow" the roads by using them when traffic is slow or minimal. At all times on the road, I watch religiously what is approaching from behind and will bail off the road if I don't like what I see coming. This requires at least one rear-view mirror on the bike - something that most cyclists, especially the Thai, eschew (I guess) for reasons for style over safety.

I'm a Bangkok cyclist of eight years. My contention at this juncture is that the Thai roads are not to be shared by cyclists and motor vehicles. What do you want to bet that the victim in this case did not have a rear-view mirror on her bicycle, as is the case with most cyclists? Situational awareness, especially from behind and evasive action is better than being fatally surprised by a motor vehicle. R.I.P. to the victim and my condolences.

30 minutes ago, heybruce said:

You focused on the one of the points made by Wallace and took it completely out of context.   Chris Wallace's point is that the firing with not consistent explanation of why is a legitimate news story, not an example of media hysteria. 

 

However, to answer your question, firing Comey and replacing him with a more compliant FBI director would probably offer Trump some protection from the investigation, assuming he feels the need for protection.  Fortunately, because the media is doing its job and asking questions, replacing Comey with a lapdog director will be difficult.

This is why I don't watch the MSM. There was plenty of justification from Deputy AG Rosenstein and AG Sessions even if Wallace's own eyes and good sense couldn't figure it out from Comey's press conference. The fact that Trump fired Comey is a news story. Speculation about whether or not it was to stop an ongoing investigation is speculation and not news as far as I can tell because it was "un-named" FBI insiders who reported it.

I don't know about whether or not Trump would want a "lapdog". Possibly so. But all of this is speculation. I'm sure he or anyone else in their right mind would want a disloyal FBI Director to participate in a Roman Senate assassination reenactment as Brutus.

My best speculation (I didn't come up with it in any real depth) is that Comey was actually a "lap dog" for dear, departed President Obama given the Obama administration scandals that were not pursued (including the non-prosecution of Hillary for her email nonsense).

I don't have the link to an article that points this out, but can get it later. The question is where was your MSM while Obama, Comey, Lynch and Hillary were pulling their stunts? It's a wonder the Lynch / BJ Clinton airport meeting was reported. I guess suppression of that would have been difficult if they had desired to do so.

19 minutes ago, sandrabbit said:

lol, gonna wait 20 mins for your point .......

 

http://www.fdrliberated.com/the-day-joe-rogan-discovered-the-real-stefan-molyneux/

Use YouTube much?  (because you wouldn't have to wait 20 minutes if you knew how to use it)

I have problems with many of Molyneux's quirks but the video I submitted had a lot of believable textual quotes that I don't think that Stefan would risk faking. I've seen enough Trump smears with my own eyes, especially during the campaign.

PS: Thanks for the QuestEon article link but I would need more to digest it and access the Molyneux / Rogan dialog and eval it.

30 minutes ago, heybruce said:

Right.  And here's a link to Chris Wallace, one of the real journalists on Fox News, tutoring the twits on "Fox and Friends" about their carefully assembled montage.    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-p4-KyXt63s

Thanks. Chris Wallace is taking the stand that there has never been a FBI Director fired where "the Director was investigating him [the President] and his associates". So what? Does anyone think that such an investigation was under way and that firing Comey would actually stop it. Isn't that why there's a Deputy Director of the FBI - to continue ongoing operations?

Suppose Comey had become deceased? Would that have ended the so-called "investigation" the same as his being fired (it is surmised) did?  <<<<----- I WANT AN ANSWER TO THIS, PLEASE

Hint: I've never heard a montage from "Fox and Friends" because I don't watch them or Fox because I don't have cable. I, a good friend from the UK and my eldest son consider cable to be unwatchable so they don't even have cable installed in their homes. I  rarely watch Sean Hannity on YouTube. I might catch Sean's opening radio show monologue but that's about it.

22 minutes ago, heybruce said:

 

Assuming my claims are true?  You should spend more time with mainstream media, all of my claims were reported on, the administration went nuts on trying to explain them, and then finally had another communication crisis, usually triggered by a tweet or statement from Trump, to make people forget the last issue.

 

"He goes on tweet storms because of things he sees on television."  http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/trump-tweets-hillary-clinton-fox-news-236825 

 

"He won't fire Sean Spicer because he gets good ratings."  http://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-sean-spicer-588496 

 

"He brings up the ratings of "The Apprentice" during a national prayer breakfast."http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/02/politics/donald-trump-national-prayer-breakfast/index.html

 

" He accused the UK of illegally spying on his campaign because of something he heard on Fox." https://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2017-03-17/white-house-apologizes-to-uk-after-spicer-cites-claim-gchq-spied-on-trump-for-obama  

 

 

I'm not a Trump supporter and I'm not surprised with what he comes up with after watching the debates and his campaign rallies. I spend as little time as possible on the MSM and it has to be a video of the person at issue, not some second-hand version of what Trump had allegedly said. and I, hopefully, don't have to resort to the MSM for what I want.

You seem to have this weird idea that because a claim is "reported on" that it is not reported in a way that influences the reader (spin) or any number of any characteristics in this list (courtesy wiki "fake news"):

Alternative facts, Big lie, Circular sourcing, Deception, Doublespeak ,Echo chamber, Euphemistic misspeaking, Euromyth, False flag ,Factoid, Fallacy, Fake news by country, online ,Filter bubble, Gaslighting, Half-truth Hoax, Ideological framing, Internet manipulation, Media manipulation, Post-truth ,Propaganda, Quote mining, Scientific fabrication, Social bot, Spin, Yellow journalism

Here's the ridiculous misstatements of Trump's campaign statements by both individuals and the MSM (starting at at around 20:00) by Stefan Molyneux:

Here's more from Stefan Molyneux:

Maybe you should spend less time on the MSM and more with alternative media. I think the MSM has fallen on their sword, especially CNN.

17 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

 

That's one un-named pundit between the two of them.

Yes. And mine will remain so (un-named) because this thread is already crazy enough. In any event, I was discussing the lock-step MSM montages and the MSM-controlling-the narrative hypothesis with riclag and he probably knows who the source is.

PS: I just heard at least a 10-voice MSM montage using (the firing of Comey is) "obstruction of justice" as the key phrase in the narrative. The claim from the source of this montage was that they were MSM and occurred yesterday (Sunday) and early this morning and none of the voices were elected Democrat officials (FWIW).

23 minutes ago, riclag said:

 I agree  with what you said except the lock step thing .The  main stream media controls the narrative through media bites and then the liberals run with that.It's so obvious what their intentions are .To destroy the administration .I think its a great that Comey got fired, Screw the Russian thing.,their is no evidence  of a crime.  Comey made no effort according to sources to find the treasonous party that committed a felony by unmasking American people during a Fisa surveillance .  Now Trump has to close down the Washington Press briefings next. Rudy Giuliani would be a great choice for the FBI boss.

Agreed w/r whose calling the narrative. The latest hypothesis by one pundit is that it's the MSM controlling the narrative.

Have you heard the MSM soundbite montages some talk show hosts assemble that have the newsreaders, reporters, et al using exactly the same phrases to describe some particular scenario or political point? Scary stuff. The lock-step is within the MSM, that's for sure.

I just heard a maybe 10-voice media montage where "obstruction of justice" was voiced by people, none of which were elected Democrats according to the source of the montage.

15 minutes ago, Andaman Al said:

It is not required since the upgrading of the forum and the amendment in forum rules. So what you would like to see is of no relevance really. Write to a Mod.

Thanks, but I don't see how the upgrade affected this issue just because retrieval of the original post is easier.

In any event, I've already stated that it was my opinion that he had altered the context of my post  (by radically shortening it the way he had) (forum term #16).  One would think the author could have such an opinion, yes?

Ref. HERE [link].

24 minutes ago, iReason said:

First, to get you up to speed:

 

https://www.thaivisa.com/forum/terms/

16) You will not make changes to quoted material from other members posts, except for purposes of shortening the quoted post. This cannot be done in such a manner that it alters the context of the original post.

 

In case you are unaware, it's very easy to access your original post.

That's why they put the arrow in the top right corner.

 

So, how about addressing my post?

Thanks for the update, but in my opinion you did alter the context of my original post. This is always the risk when one edits another contributor's post unless it is done fairly and intelligently.

Nevertheless, as I stated, I want to see a "<------ snipped ----->" indicator when you edit my posts. 

If you edit both above and below I want to see two of the indicators - one above and one below to indicate text had been edited both above and below the portion you had not edited-out. Would that be too difficult?

Alternatively, you could have embedded a  selection of text from a contributor's post/reply  in your reply and quote it to indicate that it came from the contributor's original post and still leave the contributor's original post intact.

I did address your post to the degree I desire to.