richard_smith237

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Making a u-turn in front of someone and because are not able to slam the brakes on quickly enough makes it their fault?

 

The Op points out that u-turn was complete, he was in lane and driving up to speed. 

The pickup could not avoid him, thus, the pickup may have been travelling too fast or just wasn't paying enough attention. 

It happens frequently here at U-Turns: drivers flash their lights and speed up to intimidate the u-turning car into waiting. I'm.not suggesting this happened here. 

What I am suggesting is that if the Op has completed his turn and was in his lane then there 'should' have been plenty of time for the following car to slow and take avoiding action if he was paying full attention or wasnt travelling too fast. 

That said, without video footage of the incident it's difficult to tell. 

If the Op was hit on his side, I suspect everyone would agree 100% the Ops fault. But in this case the speed of the vehicle which hit the Ops car and/or inattention may also have been a factor.  

The speedometer stuck at 180kmh, but it could have been the impact which swing the 'needle' round that far before it stuck. 

I'm not sure the dash-cam recorded the speed (sone do, some don't).

Nevertheless, more wasteful loss of life and the loss of an innocent passenger. 

Luckily, no other innocents were involved which tragically is sometimes the case.

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I read the whole story.

He made the U-turn, so he is to blame, as admitted as well. Did you miss that part of the story?

 

Alternative is the U-turn had nothing to do with the accident.

I imagine that had the roles been reversed some posters may suggest that it was the Ops fault as he was travelling too fast and couldn't slow down enough to avoid the U-Turnung car (after it had u turned and was travelling straight).

IMO: The driver of following car which rear ended the Op ia at fault.

While the Op may also be complicit in the root cause of the accident, the speed of the following car which rear ended the Op, or the drivers lack of attention is the main fault. 

Homepro? or some place like it?

Quick fix - Rubber bath mats.

Or, instead of installing 'grab bars' what about re-tiling and switching out to non-slip tiles ?

Seems incredibly bizarre...  perhaps the FA was new and had misunderstood ?

Clumsy ignorance or simplistic innocence... either way, this photo is a perfect example of why Thailand is so popular for many of us, yet at the same time so conflicting when aspects are so fundamentally flawed... 

That said, encouraging helmets for all is a step in the right direction...  

39 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes I know. But seriously, are you insured, and have checked all possible exclusions for every eventuality?

 

Great if you are but slightly anal retentive.

Being anal-retentive, as you put it, it took me nearly 2 months of back and forth emails for my Insurance company to clarify in writing what they considered 'dangerous' activities for which there was an exclusions clause. 

Eventually they provided me more specific terms (by e-mail).

The detailed exclusions etc are vague, even after purchase the 'fine print' often leave plenty of room to maneuver by the Insurance company. 

5 hours ago, Hummin said:

The interesting question is, who do thai girls like most? 

 

Western from Northe Europe 

Western from South Europe

Western from USA

Russia and former USSR

 

The countries that is likely to grow in volume is

India

Pakistan

China

 

I know for sure, thai really disslike India, Pakistanis and Chineese, and do not want to have anything with them to do. Or is my information wrong? 

The characters offering this information from may not represent a true cross-section of the Thai population...

The view certainly seems extremely bias towards Westerners... In reality, unless working in the tourist industry or in areas of high tourist footfall Thai's seem rather indifferent.

9 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

You have the right to an opinion like everyone.  But when your opinion is always negative about Thailand I do think you should take your miserable aS@ and mouth somewhere else and that is my opinion. Or if you are stuck here because you made stupid mistakes in life and cannot live in a better place then do us all a favor and keep the bitching and moaning to once a week for Christ’s sake. 

You'll have you outline where my opinion of Thailand is always negative... I think someone is clutching at straws :-(

The opinion on which you comment, is not of Thailand, its of those who post ridiculous drivel such as 'if you don't like it go home'...  the negative opinion was infact of your post... and of course, now your limited reading comprehension. 

Are you drawing on your own personal experiences when suggesting that I may be 'stuck here' or have made 'stupid mistakes in life'....  or 'cannot live in a better place ???... Now then, who has a negative opinion of Thailand ?....

Perhaps, by maintaining your balance and intellect you won't feel the need to use such unimaginative comments in your attempt at a revengeful post... 'miserable a$s and mouth'.. 'b!tching and moaning'... It looks like someone is having a keyboard meltdown...  chin up, you can do much better than this... 

7 minutes ago, mjnaus said:

 

The same thing can be said for your wild imagination...

..read this thread again when you are all big and grown up and more resilient to having the wool pulled over your eyes.... 

31 minutes ago, stevenl said:

That unfortunately is inherent to life. Sometimes you're not to blame for something, but will still be held responsible.

Agreed... unfortunately we have to be responsible for the actions of those who are unable to take responsibility themselves. Sometimes the law steps in, sometimes the law is infective, or more commonly in Thailand a more fatalistic approach is taken and those at a financial advantage may bear the brunt of the costs even when not at fault.... 

This thread is a good lesson for anyone considering medical and accident insurance.... 

2 minutes ago, DavisH said:

I can count on two hands the number of times I've used public transport in nearly 20 years. I'll take my chances behind the wheel myself, thanks. 

Which means you either don't drink, or you do and someone else drives you home, or you drink drive...  or you never leave your home... 

8 minutes ago, mjnaus said:

 

You honestly sound rather silly making such statements just after Thai authorities stated the Chinese gentlemen weren't doing anything wrong and there won't be any consequences. But by all means, do keep beating that drum!

Your naivety clearly shines through your comment. 

100's of guys were arrested for working illegally.... then all of a sudden there is an announcement that they had done nothing wrong...

.... of course, it couldn't be that a significant amount of changed hands to 'make the issue disappear' with a little face saving measure of smaller fines (TM30 forms not filled) thrown in to keep up appearances... 

The guys who got caught simply played the game correctly... 

11 minutes ago, torrzent said:

Vietnam is way more dangerous on a mini-hog...go there for the advanced crazy course carnage with no helmet up Highway 1, then come back and enjoy the peaceful thai style roads.

Why isn't the road fatality rate in Vietnam higher than Thailand then ?

7 minutes ago, WonderfulDay said:

wait wait wait... didn't the government said Uber is illegal because you may not be insured if you are in accident?

 

Well, here is the "insurance" in reality. While Uber covers you upto $1M

Agreed... this was my argument (here on TV) when the debate arose regarding UBER's legality in Thailand. 

The DLT suggested that UBER was illegal because the cars were private and fare paying passengers would not be covered by the drivers / car insurance in the event of an accident. My point at the time was, how many Taxis have insurance (A taxi without insurance hit my car before). 

Thus: IMO the DLT should be paying up, or the owner of the taxi company. 

That said: the injured party was naive in believing her insurance covered her. That said, its very difficult to get specifics out of insurance companies... It took me two months just to get in writing that it was ok to ride on the back of a motorcycle taxi or in a regular taxi without a seatbelt - these insurance companies are very slippery. 

2 hours ago, Wake Up said:

While I understand your frustration of appearance of a double standard, IMO the Thai people grow up riding bikes like USA kids grow up swimming and Europeans playing football. I know several thai kids who are better at driving a motorbike than  most expats.  The Thai bike drivers are not the main problem. The main problem is tourists that don’t drive a bike well and do not understand thai traffic customs are different here from other countries. So I applaud this rule change if it is enforced. Fewer young expat adults drinking and driving a bike in a foreign country and ending up dead is good move IMO. 

Thailand being the #1 in the world for Deaths on the road per capita with 75% of those on a motorbike suggests otherwise.

Those several Thai kids who you suggest ride better than most expats you know are unlikely to be safer or ‘better’ than those expats who have undergone training and passed the stringent tests for licensing in their home countries.

Thus: while enforcing retail regulation is applaudable, as is the enforcement of any ‘common sense regulation’ this sort of misses the point they so many Thais are also unlicensed... what’s good for the goose has to be good for the gander...

.... at least a refreshing new excuse !