richard_smith237

I think for the sake of argument this boat would have extremely limited fire-safety equipment. At a guess - it would have a handful of 'Fire hoses'.... (reliant on sea water) - given its age I wonder if the valves are corroded and how often its tested. I doubt it has a full deluge system in the car-bay, and again, given its age I wonder if the valves are corroded and how often its tested. I wouldn't hold much faith in the ability of either the staff (which aren't many) or the equipments to handle a regular ICE car fire very well before is spreads out of control in such tightly packed confines of a car bay. I hold no faith whatsoever that the ability of either the staff or the equipments to handle an EV car fire at all. I think the ICE vs EV car fire on such a vessle becomes moot - because if either occurs - IMO the event is likely to be catastrophic and unmanageable.... .... and this is why I believe probability comes into it - and realistically the probability of a Hybrid, ICE or EV fire on board this boat for the short duration of crossing is incredibly small and sufficiently low not to warrant concern at all.

Meaning ??... you think they may be insured only over the New Year period, and that prevents them from taking EV's ??? .... that one's bit wobbly I think Trans... unless you meant something else ?

I think thats a valid point - its certainly involves less stupidity than the company making an emotional knee-jerk reaction without valid facts. There is already precedence regarding insurance differences when it comes to EV's and ICE's - as EV's now have to have named drivers only rather than 'any driver' with First Class insurance. That said - there comes another facet when dealing with this company - are we even sure its insured in the first place ???? It certainly wouldn't be the first time vessels in Thailand have ignored all regulations and laws in the interests of proffits..... But... if your comment [Trans] were correct, I would expect that to be mentioned in the OP. But.... to finally shut down your point - The article states this policy is only over New Year - which shuts down the Insurance angle.

I suspect those 'Westerners' who need an education on this are not those who are capable of being 'educated on this' from they are clearly too stupid as they are already aware of the significantly elevated risks of not wearing a helmet, yet ignore it. Meanwhile - it would great to see systems in place where Thai's are better educated about the risks and and everyone on the roads also more strictly policed about helmet wear.

Happily you do not dictate what other posters write, though you do express a certain disdain for any that do not conform to your desired dictats. Au contraire - I enjoy challenges to my ideas, provided they are rooted in fact, intelligence, or knowledge beyond my own. However, my patience for foolishness is limited, and this often comes through in my remarks. I like Thais as much as you, but unlike you I like them the way they are, not as some version of western sheeple. You should stick to telling your Thai family and friends how to live their lives. I prefer see them alive rather than lost needlessly to circumstances that could have been entirely avoided. This is why in these threads I advocate for improved safety measures in these areas rather that throw away flippant remarks such as 'its just the way it is' or 'can't change things'... or 'TiT (this is Thailand)... I firmly believe that such efforts would not diminish the depth, colour, or vibrancy of Thai culture in any way. On the contrary, they could enhance the resilience and well-being of communities. In particular, I would like to see road safety, water safety, and electrical awareness integrated into school curriculums. These areas often account for the highest number of child fatalities, leaving families and communities unnecessarily devastated and fractured. You've simplified and dichotomised your ideology down to a binary pro-Thailand vs ant-Western stance. Thailand’s societal dynamics are far more complex than your comment suggests. The country is not free from state control, as evidenced by strict laws (we cannot discuss), defamation laws, and regulations on public behaviour, which highlight significant government oversight. While Thai people take pride in their cultural identity, it’s inaccurate to claim they universally reject Western influence. In reality, aspects of Western culture are deeply woven into urban life, from fashion and technology to consumer habits. Rather than outright rejection, Thailand demonstrates a nuanced balance, preserving its traditions while selectively embracing global trends - improvement in safety culture will not impact 'Thai culture' as you see it.

Agreed - but it doesn't come down to personal preference. For example: When flying with Emirates: UK-DXB-BKK - we have a 32 hour stop over (i.e. land close to midnight, have the full next day, then fly out the following morning) - but as the stop over is more than 24 hours we have no choice but to collect our baggage, which is of course inconvenient. We would rather just stick with our carry on and have the baggage sent straight through to destination... thus: for Emirates the 'cut off' is 24 hours..... For other Airlines the cut off is different.

Agree with that... I'm not anti-cash or particularly pro-digital.... I find both have their flaws and advantages. But, I am 'anti-stupid-arguments' - where people shoehorn in a ridiculous argument to suit their bias and agenda. I believe it is important that we always have cash as an option. Even though I am 99% non-cash payments purely for the sake of convenience, I still carry cash around with me - just incase I face a situation where the cashless system is not working.

The Mrs doesn't know how to ride a bike... has never ridden one - so thats a relief from my side. My Son will never get given a bike, never go on the back of mine, and is not allowed to go on the back of any one else's bikes (he's not close to that age yet anyway - and also his mates are not the sort to be getting bikes either, their parents wouldn't allow them either)....

Correct. Manners is something many farangs seem to lack. Yes... its suddenly impolite to be riding down and having people ride into you !!! - another golden droplet of grade A1 idiocy from the forum halfwit. I get 'Safety First's' point - but, 'allowing space' for the merging motorcyclist is not always possible on narrow soi's or when traffic is busy and motorcyclists are already doubled up... .... Its also not very good defensive riding, especially if the bike next to you wants to swerve one way or another, this is a another common cause of accidents....

I see that happen too.... but there wasn't space for that... we were in busy, slow moving traffic on a soi (one narrow lane of traffic in each direction)... Cars in front moving slowly, two bikes in front of me, one bike to my left... nowhere else to be. The lad just pulled out without looking - I've no idea why... it happens. .... sometimes the other guy is just at fault, no matter how you want to spin it based on forum prejudices. I see accidents here all the time - someone has done something ridiculously stupid and the other person simply could not avoid it no matter how defensive they were. ---------- While driving a few years ago on Rama IV road, we were following a motorcycle, then we saw another motorcyclist suddenly swerve across the road from the left straight into him knocking him flying - the the other lad (who caused the accident picked up his bike and sped off). We stopped and a few people helped the hurt lad to the he side of the road, we gave the dash-cam footage to the police when they arrived. I'm sure - if the hurt lad were a 'Westerner' I'm sure there would be comments from some knobs suggesting that it was his fault for not 'adapting'... when all he was doing was riding in a straight line down the road in moving traffic.

Had I fallen off - it might have helped. A guy died the other day when he slipped down steps and banged his head.... Before you jump on that with your moronic gas lighting and suggest I am implying we were helemets when at a hotel - thats not my point. My point is, when riding, there is a greater risk of falling off even at slow speeds - thus wearing a helmet is sensible. Though I understand you may not consider you have much to protect.

Correct - I didn't fall off, neither did the Boy - helmet didn't help - you still seem to fail at the concept of taking precautions though... something passed down to you through generations I suspect... Rubbish, many foreigners have been driving and riding here for decades - there's a learning curve but its not hard. You just hate all foreigners so want to blame everyone else but the Thai's when a mistake occurs. The motorcyclist that clipped me was turning right, from my right, from a smaller sub-soi into the main soi I was riding on - he didn't look or he just pulled out and timed his 'merge' very badly.... thought I'm you'll still find reason to blame a foreigner... The irony of a dunk driver making this statement cannot be understated. I do agree with you - when driving here, there is a possibility that I am involved in an accident where someone is injured or killed - thats the risk we take when driving anywhere. We do our best to avoid that, nevertheless, it remains a possibility. Thats why I am fully licensed, have dash-cams, don't drink drive and follow the traffic laws - it avoids liability, but also I don't want to hurt anyone, so as you pointed out - its important to also adapt and see that other riders and drivers can do anything at any time.... Still, its not always possible to avoid things. In the car I've been hit twice while stationary - nothing I could about that.... just careless drivers not looking. What did I learn ? there's always more to learn - There was reenforcement that wearing a helmet remains sensible as any idiot can still ride into you at any time regardless of how we anticipate or ride defensively. I have also learned from your post that there are extremely dumb people out there, so extra caution is still as important as ever. Why wouldn't they ? you don't think the police are capable of being fair and seeing what happend ? I've been here long enough to already know that in these situations the Police have been fair. I also have dash-cams on the bike and car (FWD and Rear facing). Had that Thai boy been injured, it would have been because he pulled out of a side road into my bike - 100% his fault, without any doubt, it could easily be proven. Had he been 2 seconds earlier, he would have pulled out into the bike in front of me - I've seen that happen too. I've seen motorcyclists pull out and drive straight into the sides of cars. On an almost daily basis my Wife or I (whoever is driving) will have to brake hard to allow space for a bike to cut in (when they are cutting us off, pulling out in front of us or overtaking us and nipping in through the tineists of gaps with oncoming traffic on a single lane soi).

Same experience here I get held up by people who haven't got round to taking their money out of their wallet then have to wait for them to receive their change, the messing about can take minutes. I also get help up by people who haven't got round to taking out their phone and turning on their app ready do scan, the fumbling takes minutes. Then I often witness the person in front paying quickly with the right change, getting a receipt and leaving, payment made instantly. I also mostly witness the person in front with their App ready to scan, payment made in seconds. In Europe I witness people tapping a button on their phone and scanning in seconds (apple & google pay) I also witness people just tapping a card which is almost instant. ------------ @ both Lorry and Jas007 - you have isolated a single facet of society, the slow people, who slow you down and you have used them as a generalised argument to dislike a whole system - when in reality the slow person with the phone, is the same person who is slow to get their out wallet, its the same time of person who is slow to get on an escalator, is slow to get in and out of an elevator, never has their keys ready when they get to their house and instead fumbles for minutes etc etc... In summary - you are drawing on flawed anecdote to make a generalisation that itself is also flawed.

Agreed.... IF there was an EV fire, the outcome would be a lot worse as it would be far more difficult to extinguish. But, is that the only facet of this debate that should be discussed ??... On another thread one poster was arguing that his Raptor was safer than a BYD Seal because in a head on collision its heaver... However, head on collisions are only 5% accidents in Thailand, where as skid & roll over events account for 56% of accidents.... The bigger picture has to be evaluated instead of going down a rabbit hole and focusing on one aspect. The reality here is that the risk of a fire on a boat is tiny. It would be the same as an obese or old person, or someone with a broken leg places all other passengers at risk because the can't escape a plane as quickly in the event it ditches in the sea !!!... the likelihoods are tiny and there are far more other factors involved. The important part of this debate for me is the elephant in the room no one wants to discuss as focus is driven by a talking point I would consider superficial. The article showcases the lack of critical thinking within the Ferry company in question. The real issue here is the knee-jerk decision-making within the company that casts doubt on its overall competence. More telling is the inconsistency: If the alleged risk were genuine, why impose a ban on EVs only during the New Year period instead of all year round ??? This policy is an emotional decision by the company and for me this raises broader concerns about other decisions that may be made with similarly flawed reasoning.

Lets compare apples to apples.. The Max Gross vehicle weight of the last 5 cars I owned. - Large SUV (ICE) - 3200 kgs - Mid Sedan (ICE) - 2200 kgs - Large SUV (ICE) - 2800 kgs - Mid SUV (ICE) - 2200 kgs - Mid SUV EV (ICE) - 2500 kgs Anyone attempting to argue that weight is important in this debate is barking down the wrong rabbit hole (and yes, that mixed metaphor was deliberately placed to emphasise the stupidity of the weight aspect of the debate)

Just understand that Hybrids are 140x more likely to catch fire than an EV, and an ICE 20 to 60x more likely. How hard is that ??? When was the last vehicle you saw on the side of the road on fire (that had no been in a crash) - not social media hype and click-baiting... but the last time you saw in person a car on the side of the road ??... Have you ever seen that ? was it an EV ?? Its the same as SuperCars - the media would have us believe supercars are more likely catch fire because when one does catch fire it goes viral... but Fred's mini-down the road is of no interest to anyone. We should be approaching these topics with intelligence, not dumb paranoia or poorly focused pre-loaded agenda.

Hence, they could never deal with an EV fire, buckets of water will not cut it...................🤗 Neither will buckets of water and hose 'cut it' for a petrol or LPG fire, particularly when cars are packed in so tightly. Any fire, no matter the vehicle would be devastating without enclosed bays that have heat-sensors, deluge systems and can be flooded with foam and CO2 - which is rather impractical for any ferry company. Thus: the statistical likelihood of a fire takes greater precedence... and when a hybrid car is 140x more likely to catch fire than an EV (data links provided in an earlier comment) why not ban hybrids ??? when an ICE is 20 to 60x more likely to catch fire - perhaps an EV should be the favoured vehicle instead ?... If we're going to approach such subjects with intelligence, lets also use intelligent balance. The reality is that any fire at all, no matter the type of power used is so very rare its not a major concern. The reality also is that batteries are getting safer and safer. Another reality is - any vessel should have life boats and life rafts and any fire in a tightly pocked cargo bay should be handed with one set of responses: - Vessel Fire Team dispatched. - All Passengers mustering to lifeboats ready for evacuation - Evacuation the moment it is suspected the fire cannot be controlled It doesn't matter what source the fire is then - with cars so highly packed and such a high density of high energy fuel, any fire in the cargo bay (parking bay) can turn to catastrophic in a very short time frame. IF there is an ICE Fire / LPG fire on a ship - all passengers should be mustering and prepare for abandonment immediately. An EV doesn't change that.

If you are going down that road, you are sorely mistaken if you believe you have managed to avoid 'supporting' the Chinese economy and their government because you purchased a Honda Scoopy instead !!!!... ... Consider everything else you've used and owned in your life and you'll then scratch the surface on the flawed hypocricy with which you present your argument. As much as I'd like to agree with you and avoid supporting the economy of The government of the People's Republic of China and thus the Chinese Communist Party - the reality of living a normal live and achieving this quite different....

That depends what the vehicle is carrying.... When we have LPG vehicles, busses, Trucks, along with regular Gasoline vehicles.... and then consider what is being carried by the trucks and lorries etc.. we have to wonder if targeting soley on EV's is based on any intelligent decision at all. Then we should consider the statistics themselves and the likelihood of a fire onboard being negligible. While EV fires are of course more difficult to deal with, I think this singular facet is being amplified by the bias of those who are anti-ev.... Placing this into reality - when was the last time any of us saw a 'car on fire' in person - I'm sure some of us have, but was it an ICE or an EV ? Now... The media doesn't count, as the contagion effect means that there will always be a report on an EV fire, where as an ICE fire will often go unreported as it simply does not attract the same level of attention. Thus - when evaluating the risk, we should consider the 'risk to us' and when we look at that we realist this article is based on a rather unintelligent decision by a company that is already known for shoddy safety.

It is highly unlikely that the Raja Ferry Company has equipped its aging fleet with modern fire-fighting technologies. In fact, I strongly doubt that their vessels adhere to up-to-date fire safety standards or undergo regular seafaring and fire safety inspections as standard. Considering that internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are 20 to 60 times more likely to catch fire than electric vehicles (EVs), any fire incident on such a ferry would be a significant concern. Ultimately, when examining the core issue, the greater risk may lie in using this ferry company at all - regardless of the type of vehicle transported - rather than debating the relative fire risks associated with ICEs versus EVs. IMO - this is theatre - designed to announce to stupid people that "we are safe, use us" - when in reality their announcement highlights the opposite. An intelligently ran company would be announcing they'd upgraded their 'Fire Fighting Equipment and Technology' ahead of the New Year travels instead of highlighting their inadequacies.

Regarding the weight concerns / comments: these are, frankly, unfounded. Ferries are specifically engineered to accommodate a wide range of vehicle weights, with safety hinging on proper weight distribution and strict adherence to load capacity limits, standards that ferry operators are expected to enforce diligently (theoretically). Drawing comparisons to the iPhone vs Android or Mac vs PC debates, this argument about EV weight stems more from bias than factual reasoning. Individuals often cherry-pick information to suit their preconceptions, rather than engaging with evidence and forming balanced conclusions. Unfortunately, this article achieves little more than showcasing the lack of critical thinking within the company in question. It inadvertently arms the anti-EV faction with superficial talking points, which they will eagerly exploit to perpetuate their bias agenda. A factual analysis would reveal that the risks associated with EVs and internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles on ferries are virtually indistinguishable. The real issue here as I see it is the apparent knee-jerk decision-making within the company, which casts doubt on its overall operational competence. The inconsistency is telling: if the alleged risk were genuine, why impose a ban on EVs only during the New Year period? Such a policy seems purely emotional, driven by someone in a position of authority within the company who lacks the requisite technical knowledge. This raises broader concerns about other decisions that may be made with similarly flawed reasoning, particularly where safety is concerned. I would avoid this company with an ICE or an EV due to the outright stupidity of this announcement - IMO they've shot themselves in the foot, though I fear many are not smart enough to recognise this.

So what? Isn't it a private company that can impose its own rules and procedures? Of course, the company is free to make its own rules and procedures... its their right, as you imply - but they have also outed a certain degree of stupidity within the company with their announcement. In making this announcement, the company has inadvertently exposed a concerning lack of understanding and critical thinking, casting doubt on how thoughtfully other aspects of their safety ethos are evaluated. This decision is, quite frankly, an egregious misstep, one that seems entirely devoid of empirical evidence. Contrary to popular misconceptions, internal combustion engine (ICE) vehicles are statistically at a significantly higher risk of vehicle fires compared to electric vehicles (EVs). The data speaks for itself: - In the United States, fire rates are: EV's - 25 fires per 100,000 vehicles sold, compared to ICE's - 1,530 fires and Hybrids - 3,475 fires (Source: Reuters) - In the United Kingdom, petrol and diesel vehicles are nearly 20 times more likely to catch fire than EVs. (Source: House Grail) These facts underscore a troubling lapse in intellectual rigour and an apparent failure to base decisions on sound, evidence-backed reasoning. Such oversights are not only disappointing but also raise serious questions about the organisation's commitment to informed and responsible decision-making.

Now, if you going to adjust the figures to suit your bias, adjust them both - GMV of MG ZS EV is 2070 kg. Also, you are 'cherry picking' a singular event to suit your bias and ignoring all other possibilities in which an accident can occur. Now, in this imaginary head-on collision - in your ranger, If you try and swerve out of the way... you are lot more unsafe because of the instability of a higher pickup, suspension etc, more unresponsive because of the excessive weight, you're ready starting to roll with a strong swerve (think moose test). If a lighter more stable car tries to swerve out of the way, there is better road holding less chance of a loss of control. You're trying to polish the turd and roll it in glitter - and, while I like the Raptor significantly more than any MG - its not a safer car... Unless of course, as you pointed out you are in one of the 5% of head on collisions and not 56% of incidents involving overturning and skidding... Common Accident Types (Figures from The Nation) - Overturning or Skidding on Straight Roads: 43% - Overturning or Skidding on Curved Roads: 13% - Rear-End Collisions: 31% - Head-On Collisions: 5% - Collisions with Traffic Barriers: 4% - Intersection Crashes: 2% - Pedestrian Accidents: 2% Types of vehicles in accidents: - Pickups (37%) - Private and public vehicles (27%) - Motorcycles (20%) - Trucks with at least 10 wheels (8%) - Six-wheel trucks (6%) - Vans (2%)

It’s remarkable how much can be inferred just from our internet activity, ATM use, travel patterns etc... From a broader perspective, there are alternative solutions like cryptocurrencies and crypto-cards, though these introduce an entirely separate debate - one centred on the degree to which governments might permit such decentralised systems (a separate discussion for another time). As the saying goes, when one door closes, another opens. Yet, transitions like these inevitably bring about a great deal of uncertainty - a challenge in itself, more so for some older folk perhaps (and once again a separate discussion for another time). Change, by its nature, is rarely welcomed. I fully understand the unease it brings, particularly when it raises legitimate concerns about privacy and surveillance. Your point about tracking is valid - it's a pressing issue, though, in many respects, facial recognition technology has already set a precedent for how little control we truly have in the near future. Payment systems, then, are but a small piece of this much larger issue. Thus, with that said, I’ve observed a significant amount of opposition to cashless payment systems in various discussions on this forum. Many of the arguments are poorly reasoned, often bordering on paranoid delusion. At times, they appear to mask deeper frustrations, perhaps resentment towards younger generations who are quick to embrace technologies like mobile payments, or even a broader distaste for the younger demographic itself.