richard_smith237

The initial report came from Social Media, so its somewhat of an 'opinion' rather than a series of verifiable facts. Nevertheless, that information could well be true, but without doubt a lot of the 'back-story' is missing... Even with an obnoxious back-story, IF what is reported is factual, and 'one' of the two men, did slap a woman in the bar, then I'd agree, he received his comeuppance - Or, are we to believe both men slapped the woman in the bar ? so they both deserved the kicking. You could have been out when a Western idiot (lets call him Malc) was the victim of correct identification and a girl spat on him, he reacted with a slap, and by accociation simply because you were sat next to him you were both dragged out of the bar and beaten... Served you right, self inflicted ?? Of course, a lot of whatiffery in that... but without 'leadup information' served them right and 100% self inflicted may not be accurate - we just don't know... We have a video of two guys getting a kicking, an "he said" report and a bunch of blood thirsty boomers wetting themselves. Everyone loves to see a bit of Karma - but that a bit more than Karma. 'brave' ??... That's not only over-egging the pudding, that's tossing in the whole bloody chicken coop and calling it a soufflé. Agreed... by law.... not a 10 on 2 beating that could potentially cost a life (and similar responses in the past have).

Helmet laws are not enforced. Do you think attempting to belittle me furthers your argument? It only makes you seem weak. I'm not belittling you Yellowtail - you are doing a perfectly good job that yourself. The whole point of this thread... is that 'Pattaya Motorbike Drivers are Protesting Strict Helmet Law Fines'... .. they are protesting stricter enforcement.

Please don't count yourself 'as a demographic'... its was just person was being deliberately obtuse or pedantic, not a 'demographic' of society or any other grouping...

You don't think its common sense that helmet laws are enforced ??? You're certainly not presenting your best side at the moment - you're struggling to bring any sense to the discussion...

Yes there is, that is the square piece of paper with the year printed in large numbers that you are supposed to display in a prominent place on your vehicle I think he's being deliberately obtuse and pedantic.... ..... Vehicle Tax... But we all knew exactly what you meant...

Thank-you Max Verstappen - but thats just a half witted rhetorical dodge, not an argument. It dismisses real-world discussions under the guise of cynicism... Yes, many laws could save lives if they were perfectly enforced - but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enforce the ones that are realistic, targeted, and effective. Helmet laws (the subject of this discussion), for instance, are simple to implement, cost-effective, and have been proven to save lives. They're not theoretical. They're not “if only.” They are practical measures with measurable outcomes. As for banning alcohol and drugs - we’ve tried that. Prohibition created more problems than it solved. It's a false equivalence to compare public health legislation like helmet laws to sweeping moral crusades that ignore human behaviour and societal context. Your comparison to murder laws is fundamentally misplaced. Murder laws are reactive by nature - they don’t prevent someone from committing the act; they simply define the punishment after the fact. You can’t legislate away intent. No one seriously believes that having a law against murder will stop every violent impulse. What murder laws do is set a societal boundary - they don't physically protect a person from being killed in the moment. Helmet laws, by contrast, are preventative. They reduce the severity of injury before a crash happens. Wearing a helmet doesn't stop accidents, but it does significantly increase a rider's chance of surviving one. That’s the key distinction: helmet laws protect the person from harm, while murder laws punish the perpetrator after the harm has already been done. It's the difference between locking your door to deter burglars, and calling the police after you’ve been robbed. One is a preventive measure; the other is a reactive consequence. So to suggest that helmet laws are on the same level as murder laws is to confuse behaviour regulation with harm mitigation. We can’t enforce what someone might do in the context of violent crime - but we can certainly enforce what someone chooses to wear on their head before getting on a bike. That’s not just enforceable - it’s common sense, and more a rather glaring absence of common sense on your part if that is your argument.

I think you are trying to argue square is round... and not making a much sense.... Yes - perfectly good Laws exist - they are not being adequately enforced - this thread is about increasing the penalty and enforcement for breaking helmet laws. IF this is carried out effectively, lives will be saved. IF you don't think so, then we are so far apart on this topic that there really is no middle ground on which to find basis for intelligent interaction.

Dying on a road is 'overkill'... How many of those Burmese labourers will now get a helmet - that may save lives. How man people would be alive today, how many families would not have been devastated - had strict enforcement taken place 10 years ago etc ??? the numbers of people who might not have been impacts (i.e. friends, families, spouses, loved ones etc) would have been not just in the 10's of thousands, but 100's of thousands. But, I also agree with the underlying sentiment that labourers maybe considered low hanging fruit and easier targets - IF the BiB are to enforce this rule fairly - then it most be done with a broad-brush, sweeping, nationwide without bias or favour....

Thats the whole point of the fine... to make the fine so prohibitive it forces their behavior. Now we obviously should expect to see the BiB follow their own laws. Riding on the pavement too.... (as you mentioned). What you suggests: Would be similar to suggesting that Taxi drivers in the UK should not be charged: Driving ban: Minimum 12-month disqualification, increased to 3 years if it’s a second offence within 10 years. Fine: Up to £5,000, though usually capped at the statutory maximum (often less, depending on income). Imprisonment: Up to 6 months in serious cases or where there are aggravating factors (e.g. high BAC, driving passengers, causing an accident). Community Order: Such as unpaid work, rehabilitation courses, or curfews. The idea of the law is preventative... not someting to turn a blind eye to because someone can't afford the law. The very reasons so many break the law here in the first place is because they feel they can get away with it so easily or the fines are insignificant.

Apologies the simplistic nuance needed greater explanation and you thought numbers were made up. Nope... those numbers are factual: WHO Estimate: ~25,000 road fatalities a year on Thailands roads. 80% of Thailands road fatalities are motorcyclists. Western Nations: 37-42% reduced fatality impact by wearing helmets. Vietnam: Estimated up to 50% reduced fatality impact by wearing helmets. Thus: A fair assumption based on these facts: 40-50% reduced fatality impact by wearing helmets for Thailand. i.e. approximately anywhere between 8,000 and 10,000 lives in Thailand each year could be saved by wearing a decent helmet alone.

There's clearly a line in the sand, one of them is practicality, the other is common sense - you seem intent on crossing both in this discussion. It avoids going down a rabbit-hole of daft 'whatifery'... (which we are starting to do) Sure... speed of someone else too... IF you are not wearing a helmet - yes, thats where we are at.... Approximately 20,000 MC road deaths... Est. 40-50% would be saved if wearing a proper helmet. Driver training too... "shagging a**" with a helmet is less deadly than without.

I firmly believe that laws mandating the use of proper safety equipment - such as helmets - are of critical importance, and not merely for the protection of the individual who chooses to ride. Consider the following scenarios: Scenario A: A motorcyclist recklessly pulls out of an alley without looking. My wife, driving her car, is unable to stop in time and hits him. He isn't wearing a helmet. His head strikes the ground with fatal consequences. Though entirely blameless, my wife is left emotionally traumatised by an incident that could have been survivable. Scenario B: Same situation, but this time the motorcyclist is wearing a certified, protective helmet. He hits the ground, sustains minor injuries - perhaps a few bruises - but walks away. No lasting harm, no trauma for my wife. Now let’s imagine a more complicated scenario: Scenario C: My wife changes lanes, unaware of a motorcyclist speeding up the inside. She clips him. He loses control, is not wearing a helmet, and suffers fatal or life-altering head injuries. My wife is devastated, but now also legally liable for compensation, despite the fact that the extent of his injuries was entirely avoidable by wearing a helmet. Scenario D: Identical circumstances, but this time the rider is wearing a proper helmet. He comes off the bike, but the injuries are minor. There may be medical costs, but they’re manageable and typically covered by insurance. The key point here is this: the rider’s decision not to wear a helmet doesn’t just affect him - it potentially affects everyone around him. We all make mistakes from time to time while driving. It’s part of being human. But should we really be forced to bear the emotional and legal consequences of someone else’s negligence in not taking basic precautions for their own safety? Therefore, in the event of an accident where fault lies with the driver, but the severity of the motorcyclist’s injuries is clearly exacerbated by their decision to wear a substandard or no helmet at all - surely, there should be legal grounds to limit liability. The consequences of someone refusing to take responsibility for their own safety should not be unfairly shifted onto others who do - thats why laws exist... to protect others from people who simply do not see the big picture....

No where near as convenient - thats why motorcycles are so popular here. You changed the topic ?... There should be a law on helmets for obvious reasons. There is not need for a law on licensed legal motorcycle riders for obvious reasons. Busses - already covered - silly counter point really. Which implies the only or most motorcycle accidents are a result of speed - thats not quite true. They do if they don't have a helmet - thats kind of the whole point !!! Agreed... And a helmet law makes perfect sense - I think one has to be rather stupid to object to such a law. I agree... in fact when I ride - or rather whenever hitting a main road I'll wear: - Riding boots (sneaker style that are reinforced) - Full face helmet - Riding glove - Mesh MC protective Riding Jacket (shoulder, elbow and back protector) But - the kid is expensive... First start with common sense stuff - Helmets... Be sensible and enforce existing laws rather than suggesting new regulations that are well out or reach for most of society anyway - that lacks awareness of reality. Agree - it could be quite a lot. Why not have all traffic travel at 30kmh everywhere... Where is your line ? One of the most dangerous things to do as a motorcyclist is to ride amongst traffic at a far slower speed - you 'become the hazard' that everyone else can hit - its far safer to ride at the speed of the flowing traffic... thus your 'speed limiter' idea is fundamentally flawed.

Correct, both passports are British (which ever one I show at check-in: I think they just want name, nationality (for visa purposes if necessary) and DOB). Its not uncommon here for 'some' to have a vague understanding of some rule that isn't valid. Some countries mandate two empty pages, many do not - Its similar to the 6 month validity rule, not all countries have the same requirements - but they could be blanketly 'enforced' by check-in staff if the lack this nuanced comprehension. I arrived in Singapore once to be told by the Immigration officer that my passport isn't mine !!!... My photo didn't look like me apparently.

Yep.. In-laws have the same... I hate getting in taxi's that don't have a seatbelt - and refuse to use them if I'm going to be on an expressway and expect to travel at a reasonable speed. I was in a Grab the other day... and I hadn't 'yet' secured my seatbelt before the 'pinging' went off... The driver handed me a 'seatbelt' blank that stops the noise !!!... I've seen them online, and now realise people are stupid enough to go to such efforts not to wear a seatbelt !!! Luckly my Wife is very much on board, no kids etc in the car without a belt. We did have the discussion when my son was born - I see our son in a car once, without a car seat, and thats it, we move to UK... fortunately, she was and always has been 100% on board with that. We're not completely neurotic - there are times its not always possible, but usually a good alternative can be found. There are other sensible practicalities... its sometimes safer to travel 1km down the road in a taxi without a seatbelt than it is to try and walk with 4 year old down the road that has no sidewalk / pavement etc... So... common sense is key - and not wearing a seatbelt when one is available, or not wearing a helmet at all contravenes that common sense.

I agree... lead by example... but I would also argue that it is law enforcement that leads and enforces that example without tolerance.

Exactly — you could extend the same logic to countless other behaviours: how someone rides, whether they ride at night or in the rain, if they’ve been drinking, their diet, how they cross the road… it’s all part of the broader risk spectrum. But here’s the distinction: for many, riding a motorcycle isn’t a choice of luxury, it’s a necessity. Choosing not to wear a helmet, however, crosses a line — it’s no longer a calculated risk, it’s negligence. So while the arguments may seem to overlap at a glance, when you break them down through a balanced and practical lens, they’re not quite the same. Agreed... OR just have the police enforce existing laws... Or would you have parents enforce all other laws too ? YOU could.. but it wouldn't be a very good argument, as discussed above: [while the arguments may seem to overlap at a glance, when you break them down through a balanced and practical lens, they’re not quite the same.] Again... not when viewed through a balanced and practical lens. Because thats they way a national health care system works. Should you be prevented from having children because your 'Genetic testing' shows a sociability to alcoholism or cancer ? - we have to be very careful where we draw these lines... Perhaps omit from health care anyone driving without a solid reason.. i.e. just going for a drive (in a car)... There is still an additional strain from not helmet wearing - that can't be ignored. Not really - not if that 'same rider' would have just fallen over and got back up again. You are arguing absolutes in a world where a sliding scale of injures can occur. Its a perfect reason to enforce the law that many don't follow - which is what this discussion is about. Sure, you could make that argument - but as already outlined, it wouldn’t hold much weight. If we go down that road, we’d be lumping helmet laws in with a whole mêlée of risky behaviours: drinking, poor diet, lack of exercise… what next? Ban pies? Fine people for not jogging? The difference is, those risks are typically long-term and personal. Riding without a helmet is an immediate, high-impact decision that can devastate not only the individual, but everyone around them — from emergency services to their own family, whereas riding a motorcycle is a necessity for many, not wearing a helmet is simply an option they chose. So yes, we all live with risk, but some choices push far beyond reasonable tolerance - and riding without a helmet is one of them - its beyond the line in the sand from a 'moral perspective' but more importantly, from a legal perspective..... and thats why enforcement should be unwavering... The arguments I’ve laid out simply underline a key truth: not wearing a helmet isn’t something that impacts only the rider, as some conveniently like to believe. When someone suffers a preventable head injury or worse, the consequences ripple far beyond the individual - families, bystanders, emergency services, and even the wider community often bear the fallout. And no, pointing to other risky behaviours - like riding itself doesn’t negate the issue. That line of reasoning is a distraction, a way of dodging the real point: some risks, like choosing not to wear a helmet, are reckless, immediate, and entirely avoidable.

What’s the mentality behind this?..... Why should expats be fined double for committing exactly the same offence as Thai citizens? Why are you assuming Thai people don’t know better? That’s not only wrong, it’s insulting. Thais are well aware that helmets and seatbelts save lives. It’s not ignorance at play, but rather habit, emotion, or sheer complacency overriding logic.

Not doing so (helmet wearing) doesn't only impact themselves if a rider comes off and get seriously injured or die, needs long term medical care etc... there is a long line of people it can impact.... Family loss of a breadwinner – A father dies in a crash without a helmet, leaving his family struggling to cope financially and emotionally. Becoming a long-term burden if disabled – A young man suffers a brain injury and requires lifelong care from his elderly parents. Psychological trauma to others involved in the accident – A driver is haunted by guilt after hitting a cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered fatal injuries. Increased pressure on emergency services – Paramedics spend extra time and resources stabilising an unhelmeted rider with preventable head trauma. Higher healthcare costs shared by society – An unhelmeted crash victim racks up hundreds of thousands in medical bills covered by taxpayers. Reduced productivity and economic contribution – A previously employed person is left unable to work after a preventable head injury. Strain on healthcare infrastructure – ICU beds are occupied for longer by patients with severe brain trauma that a helmet could’ve prevented. Emotional toll on witnesses – A passer-by watches a motorcyclist suffer fatal head injuries, resulting in lasting emotional distress. Encouraging unsafe behaviour in others – A teenager mimics his older brother by riding without a helmet and ends up in intensive care. Loss of life that could otherwise contribute to community and society – A young volunteer dies in a bike crash, leaving local projects without their lead organiser (yeah, I know questionable).

I have two passports.. One with my Thai Visa... Another with some overseas Visas. Invariably I'll use my overseas Passport at the check-in desk and its a different one that I'd registered with the airline.... ... This is not something I'd ever considered before, and certainly something which as never raised any issue whatsoever.... Airlines are only serious about the accuracy of your names (the order doesn't even matter)... I once travelled to the UK as Mr & Mr Smith with the Wife... without any issue !!! - The airline somehow screwed up (issuing the awards ticket) but wanted $200 to re-gender my wife correctly !!... Nope !!! not a chance....

erm... ok sailor 🌈🌈🌈

This is so tragic, yet another series of wholly avoidable deaths. Drowning is the leading cause of death of children Thailand. Water Safety 'could' so easily be taught in schools... even without swimming lessons, just teaching kids awareness of the the risks of these ponds... As you pointed out, a lot of these ponds have steep slick sides and can't be climbed out of - Its not hard to put a rope across the diagonal of a pond and a ladder laying up the side... if a kid falls / slips in, at least they can hold on to something...

This has surely been one of Thailand’s most baffling contradictions: the widespread aversion to wearing helmets on motorcycles - yet, in a flash, over-night, face-masks became a national obsession, proudly worn even while zipping through the open air at 60 kph.... A true enigma, if ever there was one....

What are you crying about now ? I've not cut any pasted anything of yours.... You are now arguing for the sake of it - the 'fatality impact of helmets' (i.e. reduction of fatalities due to wide-spread helmet use) in Thailand is not know, there are no available stats for Thailand. I provided a lot of reasons why the Stats from Western Nations (such as those in the EU) may not be transferable or may not accurately project across to a nation such as Thailand. One day - I will copy and paste an exact statement you have made - I believe you would still argue against it !!!

Indeed.. If people are 'so sensitive' about using a shared helmet they can carry their own hair-cap thingy...