richard_smith237

Op, under your admission you were not paying attention when realizing that instead of remaining in the right hand lane you needed to switch across to the left lane. 

Thus, it's a fair assumption that you had not noticed the unbroken line and crossed it. 

This is a common money maker for the Police.

Thus: No one is going to be able to prove you right or wrong on whether or not there was an unbroken line or not and as you mentioned there are lots of junctions along On-Nut road so we'd be guessing which one. 

Therefore, to place your mind at rest can you go on to Google Maps and take a look at the specific junction and you will see whether or not you made a mistake (perhaps post the junction as I have below). 

I post two examples below, not of where I suspect your junction is, but examples of the solid white line which you may not have noticed and crossed by mistake.

16 hours ago, Maybole said:

Some years ago, I had a discussion with a neighbour who was an Inspector in the traffic section of Strathclyde Police. He was of the opinion that you should stop on an amber light unless it was unsafe to do so. You would then have to prove in court why it was unsafe. He admitted that very few cases were contested by police.

Secondly, in Chiangmai, about 18 months ago, I was tailgated by a Seelaw after I stopped on amber. There was plenty of time, I did not have to brake hard). Police decided that I had caused the collision because if I had not stopped, the seelaw would not have hit me.

I would prefer to be hit from behind at low speed rather than side-on by a vehicle accelerating away on a crossing track.

Why would you have ever accepted that decision?

The Police's decision in these cases is not final and the process can be pushed up the chain. 

You were rear ended - Automatically the fault of the Seelaw - that you stopped at lights is irrelevant to the issue, you could have stopped for an old lady crossing the road. 

This appears one of those clear cases where the Police make up their own minds based on who can afford to pay for damages and in doing so attempt to take the path of least resistance. Had you resisted you may not have faced the blame. Did you loose any no claims bonus or have to pay any damages for the Seelaw? Accepting blame can also lead you open to compensation claims (of injury, medical bills, loss of earnings etc). 

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

Yes, in that case he could not have stopped. Looking at the distance from the light in this case he could and therefor should have stopped.

Agreed - it looks like the car was 20-25m from the junction and the Amber light is illuminated. 

Stopping distance at 50kmh is 23m (in the dry) - its touch and go, but it looks like the Op could have stopped if he braked hard and was traveling at 50kmh or less. 

Also nothing behind him so he could have stopped safely.

That said - I still think this falls within the grey area where it could be argued that there was not sufficient stopping distance - it really depends how long the Amber light was illuminated before the photo was taken

i.e. a split second or 2 seconds?... If a split second then I don't think the Op could have stopped. If 2 seconds the Op is clearly in the wrong - BUT, from the photo's alone there is no way of proving this, unless the cameras are on a specific timing sequence to take photos after a certain period of Amber light (i.e. 2 seconds). 

What could be concerning is if the Rule is being enforced that we have to stop on Amber - which in some cases is clearly impossible. 

1 hour ago, Huckenfell said:

So easy to have an up to date stand by card. Some people just do not think.  duhh!

 

Its so easy to plan for every eventually in hindsight... 

Ok - so this guy could have done a better job of covering his options...  but it is astonishing how much strife one person can get into over simple 'date issue'... 

A lesson for us all perhaps... even those of us who never have issues because we plan for every eventuality... 

2 minutes ago, Vacuum said:

9 hours ago, bendejo said:

Is he advertising sexual services?

 

Don't think so. The middle finger suggests 'self service'.

I always thought it meant 'up yours' not 'up mine'.......

13 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

The more you post, the less I care about what you say.

I'll just add you to ignore.

Fair enough, thats your call if you are not up to debate. 

Before you punch ignore button - I wish you a full recovery (you mentioned you were unwell in another thread). 

24 minutes ago, Poppadom said:

I was indeed lucky that it wasn't one of those makeshift steel barrel structures.

????

I was working up near Phitsanulok a while back and regularly drove highway 12 which was undergoing road works to widen the road from a two lane highway (single lane in each direction) to a dual carriage way (two lanes in each direction). 

Each new section of road would come to an abrupt halt with a 1 meter drop to foundations (or below foundations) - thus there would be 5 km of dual carriage way, then back to single lane and the cars would have to switch across to the 'other side of the road' following the markings of a handful of haphazardly placed cones. 

The end of the road was marked with 2 cones and a couple of branches. 

Every morning on the local news there were reports of cars which had 'gone over the edge' of the road in the night. This continued for months, nothing was ever done to light up the hazard or improve the safety of the road works to even the most basic of levels. Quite criminal, I don't know if anyone was ever hurt. 

I refuse to drive outside of a city at night for this very reason. 

10 minutes ago, mickyr55 said:

3 hours ago, Just Weird said:

"...or keep going if you can clear the junction before the red light".

What?  Which country, anywhere, states that?

 

"I have always thought amber means get ready to stop..."

You got that part right.

Amber in the UK means STOP only green is go 

There's more to it than that, otherwise we'd only need 'Green and Red' traffic lights. 

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Kids wouldn't even notice the sign.

Just like they don't see hookers or ladyboys in Pattaya.

 

Being offended on behalf of your children is just a western excuse for people looking to cause trouble.

All flawed arguments... 

My 5 year old would read it out loud, then go into School and repeat it to his teacher and / or his friends. 

It's not something I want to happen and I can't teach a kid to 'unsee' something. 

The sign is unnecessary regardless of how you draw comparisons with hookers or ladyboys in Pattaya. The Op is not living in Walking Street and ladyboys and hookers are not walking the streets pickup up customers in front of his house. 

You may not be one to make choices for your children and let a 5 year old make up his own mind of what is right and wrong. In the Ops case he's making the balanced and intelligent choice that this imagery and wording is inappropriate - you may consider this a Western Excuse for people to be offended and look for trouble, many others call it responsible parenting. Additionally, the person putting up the sign is the one looking for the trouble - he's obviously looking to offend people and looking for a reaction. 

Just now, BritManToo said:

More like the OP must be scum for trying to harm others.

No need for it, you don't like a sign/flag/t-shirt, look away.

Where has the Op tried to harm anyone else? He's handle the issue with patience when many others would have handled it differently and perhaps escalated the issue.

"If you don't like it look away" is as dumb as the "if you don't like it go home" argument used in other threads by people lacking the tools to debate intelligently. In this case 'looking away' doesn't work if you have kids and don't want them to see such offense. 

The sign is offensive and not in a 'snowflake politically incorrect' way, but in a way which directs insults directly at anyone in the neighborhood and crosses a line and goes beyond someones 'rights' to voice their opinion. 

There's no need to harm others, but anyone would be well within their rights to take non-violent measures to ensure removal of the sign. Why anyone wants to deliberately insult everyone around them in this manner is beyond me. 

The T-shirt is different, equally as dumb, but different. 

15 minutes ago, pikao said:

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The seller doesn't need affirmation of address, the buyer does

Not true, at least not where I live

OK - I'll clarify that - Having sold a Car 15 months ago and Motorcycle 2 month ago and numerous cars over the past 15 years or so (all in Bangkok)

The seller does not need to present an Affirmation of Address in Bangkok (DLT Area 3).

I've been asked for it, by the person buying the car, but when they double checked it was not necessary. 

I've also been asked for the document by the staff at the DLT, but also informed them it was only necessary for the buyer not the seller - after double checking with a supervisor the Affirmation of Address of the Seller was not necessary.

That said: Rules here are interpreted differently by different staff and by provinces. 

Personally - I've never needed the Affirmation of Residence when selling a car or motorcycle in Bangkok. 

8 hours ago, Tomahawk21 said:

says a lot about where you are living and the sort of people who live there 

???? Why ????

Because all the people in the area do not like the sign?

Or, were you implying something else, i.e. that the Op must be scum if he is living in the same soi as the dregs of society who hang up signs like this?

.... If you are going to try and be an intelligent smart arse, try and include some smart arsed intelligence !!!... 

7 minutes ago, Poppadom said:

Needless to say no signs or warning whatsoever before the corner.

There never are...  Idiotic attitudes towards road safety continue. 

A balance between West and East would be nice - i.e. there's no need for kilometers of cones, but give a considerate distance of warning... 

Fortunately you didn't drop the bike... fortunately the spares are inexpensive. 

2 hours ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

He didn't "take" the phone... He found the phone unattended, and didn't turn it in...

Not quite - He picked it up and took it with him and made no attempt to return it which is considered theft.

Quote

I go back to the 1000 baht note found on the street example I mentioned above... Say a CCTV camera on my soi ends up recording me picking up the bill off the street and going home with it?  What difference does that make?

The difference is you've been recorded by CCTV steeling 1000 baht. 

It's still considered theft even if you have found the item on public property.

Quote

Yes, I found it and picked it up off the street.... I would have no idea how it got there or who to return it to... So is that criminal theft... I don't think so....  

You think wrong. Imagine you found 1 Million baht in a bag and took it home - is that theft? 

You know you should turn the bag of 1 Million baht in to the Police. Theft is still theft, the difference in this case is Petty Theft vs Grand Theft... 

Quote

But as I noted above, a mobile phone presumably is a bit different in that it contains info inside that would likely allow the identification of the owner, and its return to that owner...  Still, it's not the same as if he directly stole or took the phone from its owner.

In the case of the stolen phone, depending on its value the charge could have been 'Grand Theft' (or the Thai equivalent). IF he stole the item directly (using violence, or threats of violence) from the owner then its Robbery

Most phones are locked. Although many have the Emergency function *(with ICE) but a lot of / most people don't use this or know to use it. 

The only way the 'Finder' could return a lost phone is if the person who has lost the phone dials it and the 'Finder' answers said phone (i.e. to arrange its return). 

Quote

To me at least, criminal theft is actually stealing something from someone -- as opposed to finding something unattended and failing to turn it in... I'm not defending what he did or saying it was right. Just saying, he didn't deserve 10 days in jail for it.

Thats either Robbery or theft (steeling from someone). 

Finding something unattended and failing to turn it in is not a crime if you ignore it and walk on, or turn it in to a Police Station or nearby shop. 

Finding something and taking it home is theft - it may not appear as 'morally' extreme, but it's still theft. 

And no, he definitely did not deserve any time in jail for a clumsy opportunistic crime.

Quote

Whatever happened to "finders keepers, losers weepers..."?

We're no longer 6 years old !

51 minutes ago, peterb17 said:

I’m intrigued- why is everyone comparing what goes on in the Wild West ( Thailand ) concerning traffic regulations in those in the  UK ( the epitome of civilization on the roads)  

The majority of comments are not comparing what happens, but comparing the laws.

It is widely assumed that the Thai LTA is based on the UK's highway code, the highway codes of many other nations compare very closely, especially when it comes to traffic lights.

Thus when the question arrises of What exactly is the law for Amber lights in Thailand, the answer is in the Thai Land Traffic Act, which, unfortunately, is more than likely to be poorly translated from English into Thai, then we are reading a translation from Thai in to English - thus there is likely to be some error or simplification.

In this case it would appear that there is an error in the Thai LTA, because, if it is illegal go to pass the stop line on Amber, vehicles would in fact be forced to stop on Green and predict the amber light, which would be quite a daft law.

The function of the Amber light covers the 'stopping grey area' where you should stop if you can, but if unsafe to do so then continue through the junction - It would appear that the laws in other countries (as quoted by contributors to this thread) conform with the British Highway code on this.

7 hours ago, stevenl said:

"I don't think its illegal to go through an Amber light in the UK."

It is, just as in Thailand. If not passed the stop line yet, one has to stop at amber.

 

" Personally, I think you have grounds to object to this if you can be bothered - there is no evidence you went through the junction on a red light.  "

Which is not the reason he was fined. He was fined for driving through amber when he could have and therefor should have stopped.

Stevenl - If you are driving towards a Junction at 50kmh (~30mph) as you are approaching the junction (10m away) the light turns Amber - there is no way you can stop (stopping distance is quoted as being 23m in the highway code).... 

You will have entered the junction on Amber - it would have been impossible not to, you can't stop in the middle of the junction. 

(UK highway code) AMBER means ‘Stop’ at the stop line. You may go on only if the AMBER appears after you have crossed the stop line or are so close to it that to pull up might cause an accident.

Thus: It is not illegal to enter or pass the junction on Amber but you should attempt to stop. 

3 minutes ago, transam said:

 

Are loud speakers that enhance a blokes vocals written somewhere in Muslim stuff as a must have.....?

Do they not in our modern age have alarm clocks or an iPhone....?

Unfortunately - Live near a church and the bells wake you up on the morning on a Weekend (especially wedding days). Live near a Buddist Temple and it has loud speakers waking you at daft o'lock in the morning and generally disturbances throughout the day. Live near a mosque you are disturbed by the call to prayer 5 times a day... 

Religion is noisy !!! and what for?....  Can we not just tell religion to shut up? !!! if people wish to pray, visit a church or temple... then go - whats the need for incessant repetitive noise ????

The 'Negative' news doesn't impact my decision to remain here.

As the second post by CharlieH eloquently puts it "people have sufficient intelligence in most cases to sift out the good from the bad"... or they should have sufficient intelligent to apply and intelligent level of balance to what they read. 

That said: I would be wrong to think that some of the negative posts here don't impact the way I behave here. 

- The many negative posts on road safety are a constant reminder to take extra caution when out on the roads. 

- One of the big things I have learned from ThaiVisa.com is that not everyone carries the same degree of intelligent balance. Some can completely miss context or are completely irrational in their arguments / thoughts. While many replies are sane and balanced, the negative posts highlight how different people are.

- Reading many of the negative posts also shows me how many people can bring problems upon themselves and then blame others. 

- Reading many of the negative posts also shows how easy is to get caught out here and thus highlights how we should be protecting ourselves (with insurance and financially). 

In conclusion, sifting through the bumf of negative topics there is some valuable insight to be gained in how Thailand works and the spectrum of people it attracts. I'm sure some could be put off by the negatives posts, but these same people would be the ones who get themselves into trouble, are ill prepared and find themselves unable to remain in Thailand anyway. But, for the most part people will always prefer find out for themselves 'the hard way' than to pay attention to anyone on an anonymous web-forum.

Thus No... with a few minor exceptions I don't think any negative post would impact someones decision to come to Thailand in General. 

Caveat: This depends what sort of 'negative' post we are discussion - whinging expats or damning news. I suspect there are People who avoid Koh Tao and some of the Islands because of the negative news and lawlessness portrayed on those Islands. 

If I had young friends visiting Thailand, I would tell them to avoid Koh Tao completely and be very careful in Koh Pagnan and Samui. 

As the Seller you don't need to go to the DLT.  You just need signed copies of: 

- Passports (ID & Visa page)

- Vehicle Transfer form

- Power of Attorney 

- Signed Copies of Blue Book (green if motorcycle)

(The seller doesn't need affirmation of address, the buyer does).

(In Bangkok I've sold 1 car (last year) and 1 motorcycle (3 months ago) - the process and documents for the 'seller' are the same selling to a Thai or Foreigner).

You can sign the documents on transfer of cash - the new owner is the only person who needs to visit the DLT (if the vehicle is younger than 7 years)

This thread is quite useful and has the documents required. 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/985591-transfer-of-ownership-farang-to-farang/

Regarding insurance - IF the policy is not Named Driver - the insurance policy can simply be transferred with the vehicle - The new Owner can inform the insurance company of the transfer (but most generally don't bother - its not a big issue. If I were a new owner, I'd inform them and double check any limitations on the policy, but thats purely down to the new owner).

45 minutes ago, jspill said:

Will the police be taking 800,000 baht from the Thai lady's family as they did with the British guy? 

 

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1096874-theft-charge-against-briton-‘justified’%C2%A0but-dropped-to-let-him-fly-home/

I was going to make exactly the same point... Will the Police threaten the Thai with 5 years in Jail and force her to pay an extortionate fine... Is she being held in Jail until she can pay her fine or go to Court - i.e. is she facing the same treatment as the Brit caught thieving the phone?