richard_smith237

Yawn... Someone mansplained something to you in the last day or two, and now its painfully obvious you’ve plagiarised that line (more than once in this thread already) - you’re just not sharp enough to come up with it yourself..... Given your posting history - it doesn't matter to you, but you know it might be enough to provoke someone. There are two of us here who see right through your pathetic facade. Plenty more, actually - I’m just entertained enough by your endless patheticness to keep sparring with you.

..... about as much to do with an Israeli woman “kicking off” in Thailand... and as much as any of your other deliberately crafted comments designed purely to provoke. That’s the pattern. And that’s precisely why I’ve used specific examples - to highlight the kind of weasel you are, and the depths of depraved manipulation you’ll stoop to. You twist, contort, and warp other people’s words with such transparent desperation, all in a sad little attempt to “trigger and provoke.” Your so-called “methods to generate discourse” are clumsy, predictable, and frankly pathetic.... And now they have become so repetitive - others are seeing beyond the 'veneer' you try and hide behind.

It’s exactly what he does - it’s his entire game. Pure Malcy: manipulative, needling, calculated to provoke a reaction. Anyone who sees through the act and dares to call him out becomes a target. He’ll trawl through old posts, cherry-pick out-of-context remarks, and twist them into ammunition. That’s the pattern (quite entertaining at times and its easy to catch him out at his own game). He’ll even go as far as fabricating stories outright - claiming “other members have PM’d him to complain about you,” and similar nonsense, all in a bid to create the illusion of consensus. Classic gaslighting tactics, pathetically dressed up as concern. It’s laughably childish and reeks of bottom-feeding desperation. I'm surprised most just ignore his obvious manipulative cockroachey trolling behaviour and see it for what it is. But... its also entertaining - the delusion that he thinks he's popular and keeps winning poster / thread of the day awards etc... its the icing on the cake highlighting his delusions.

i just wondering how do get the 26.04 g? thanks ... (most thai beer have 5% alcohol ...) Its a mistake... it should be 39.06g (for 3x 330ml beers) Its the calculation o the Alcohol (Aethanol) content in a 330ml of 5% beer.. Ethanol in a 330 ml, 5% Beer We want to know how many grams of pure alcohol (ethanol) are in the beer. Step 1: Volume of ethanol (in ml) ABV (Alcohol By Volume) tells us the percentage of the drink that is pure ethanol by volume. So, for a 330 ml beer at 5% ABV: Ethanol volume = 330 × 0.05 = 16.5 ml \text{ml}Ethanol volume=330×0.05=16.5ml Ethanol isn’t water - it’s less dense. The density of ethanol is approximately: 0.789 g/ml So... Ethanol mass (g) = 16.5 × 0.789 = 13.02 g per 330 ml beer at 5% ABV

Frankly, I wouldn’t waste my time... - An underage rider - darted out of a side soi without looking and clipped back of my bike, I mentioned it on this forum... A a different thread later un, Malcy used it to 'paint me as causing trouble with and disrespecting locals' !!! - I asked for a 2nd beer on a 6 hours. The flight attendant told me to get it myself, quite rude, so I raised it with the purser... Ever since, Malcy trots this one out as “evidence” that I'm a trouble making alco on flights. - I once mentioned in a thread - that two friends of mine had been hassled by the BiB at a DUI check-point after couple of beers (doubtful they were over the limit)... unwilling to play along with the shakedown, they called a mutual friend of mine who had a word with the officer at the checkpoint, and they were waved on. Ever since, Malcy has tried to twist that into some sordid tale of corruption - desperately framing me as worse than the drink-drivers themselves... or sometimes of just making up the story (he can't make his mind up)... It’s classic Malcy: He seizes the thinnest thread of information, mangles it beyond recognition, and with the gutless cunning of a true bottom-feeding cockroach, tries to weaponise it. Pathetic doesn't even begin to cover it.

You are the only poster here worse than Malcy... you're actually on ignore for your pathetic lack of anything interesting - not even Malcy has that honor !

Haha - its hilarious when you keep making these pathetic claims of being so popular !!! Heroic stuff... 'you award winner you' !!!

Makes a lot of sense actually. Have a good time but do it responsibly and safely. A recent poll show most members will have a couple and drive home. So it’s best they do it safely so they don’t cause any accidents with the locals. You mean the utterly idiotic 3 option poll you created and crafted deliberately to troll as there were insufficient 'options which were loaded' to deliberately give the result you were aiming for... all very transparent:... Instead of: 1) I have never consumed an alcoholic drink and driven in my life 2) I have never driven over the legal drink driving limit in my life 3) I have driven over the legal drink driving limit previously 4) I habitually drive over the legal drink driving limit

3x 330ml beers for an 85kg male 1 hour after drinking Where: Aethanol = 26.04 g W = 85 kgW = 85 \, \text{kg}W=85kg r = 0.68 β = 0.015%/h H = 1.0 hours 1 hour after 3 beers, the estimated BAC is ~0.0526% *over the Thai limit. Obviously, it starts to get more complex, as the driving over time: 1 beer finished at 15mins, another at 30mins, another at 45 mins, another at 60mins. Time since each beer at the 60 min mark - Beer 1 finished at 15 mins → 45 mins ago (0.75 hrs) - Beer 2 finished at 30 mins → 30 mins ago (0.5 hrs) - Beer 3 finished at 45 mins → 15 mins ago (0.25 hrs) - Beer 4 finished at 60 mins → just finished (0 hrs) Using Widmark formula and subtracting metabolism Subtract metabolism: - Beer 1: 0.0225−0.015×0.75=0.0225−0.01125=0.01125 - Beer 2: 0.0225−0.015×0.5=0.0225−0.0075=0.015 - Beer 3: 0.0225−0.015×0.25=0.0225−0.00375=0.01875 - Beer 4: 0.0225−0.015×0=0.0225 BACtotal=0.01125+0.015+0.01875+0.0225 = BAC is ~0.0675% *over the Thai limit.

This one is better: The Widmark Formula estimates alcohol metabolism and Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) over time is based, adjusted to account for metabolic rate. Where: Aethanol = amount of ethanol in grams W = body weight in kg r = 0.68 (men) or 0.55 (women) β = average metabolism rate, typically 0.015–0.020% per hour 1 standard drink = 14g ethanol (in the US; in UK, 1 unit = 8g)

That’s a breathtaking detachment from reality. Enforcing drink-driving laws simply means that, like in any civilised country, most people will plan accordingly - designated drivers, taxis, public transport - just as they do across the West. The notion that “if someone can’t drink and drive, they won’t buy a car” is not only absurd, it’s logically bankrupt. I genuinely struggle to comprehend how anyone could dream up such a spectacular failure of reason. And then there’s this gem: the idea that foreigners are some critical pillar of the Thai car economy, and that they’ll suddenly stop purchasing vehicles over drink-driving laws. Another, daft, rather baseless fallacy - its delusional.

Says he modestly with no knowledge of the person he is referring to. What a plonker. The mental handicap on display is astounding.... Any scraps of intellect or wit he may have once had have long rotted away, now a hollow, repulsive caricature of a human.....

It’s not a legitimate street sign - it’s a poster slapped up by some half-witted local official, saying “drunk drivers slow” as if it’s a kindly reminder for drunk drivers to ease off the accelerator.... It was probably thrown up after a drunk driver killed someone in that area - and, true to form, some dimwit official with the intellect of either you or a particularly slow 5-year-old decided a cutesy sign reminding drunk drivers to be careful was a solid solution. Not tackling the actual problem of drunk driving, mind you – just a rather idiotic poster and a prayer ignoring the true issue. The sheer stupidity of that sign is only rivalled by your willingness to treat it as some kind of official safety notice. It perfectly mirrors your own brain-dead logic and your desperate attempts to justify your reckless drink driving - all while provoking anyone who dares point out how vile your behaviour is. And now, you’ve crossed into thinly-veiled threats against other posters - a move so low, it reeks of cockroach-level degeneracy. All in your pathetic crusade to normalise your bigoted trolling and wind up anyone within reach. You’re not edgy. You’re just despicable – a festering little specimen of human nature that’s consistently shown not a shred of anything redeemable. The only faint silver lining is that most of us can see right through you – for the pathetic, attention-starved, morally bankrupt creature you truly are.

You are sounding a bit threatening? If it did come to that there would only be three hits in it Fred. Me hitting you, you hitting the ground and the ambulance hitting 120. Awwww.... Malcy... its so hilarious seeing such a pathetic cockroach think he's such a hard-man...

Once again... the provocation couldn’t be more blatant if he lit it on fire and waved it in our faces. Yet another feeble routine to stir the pot, thinly disguised as ‘informative posts’. It’s laughable, really, if there weren't so many others who can't see through this facade. Whether it’s an anti-Farang jab, a snide swipe at the Brits, or a deliberately needling remark about Israelis, it’s never about genuine discussion. It’s calculated. It’s transparent. And it’s tedious. Nothing he posts comes from a place of real concern or interest - just the same old weaselly tactics, engineered to spark outrage among anyone gullible enough to take the bait. This is another thread that is only about provocation, against the Brits... he didn't get an early enough bit so he 'threw' Israeli's out there too.... I'm surprised he gets away with it.

The concept is great, but there is too much legal framework to make this apply, plus the logistical nightmare of confiscating so many cars. Best Option has always been: Unwavering commitment to enforcing existing laws: - Drunk Drivers are processed and charged - no 'flexibility' - placed in holding until bail can be paid. - Drunk Drivers cars are impounded until they can 'pay' to have them recovered. - Court date set and 'real' fines and license penalty points applied according to severity. - Repeat offenders lose their license. - Driving without a lincense (current penalty of 1000 baht is too low new proposal 50,000 baht fine) As far as vehicle confiscation - the legalities are too complex: - Who owns the car ? - Is it a dual use car (i.e parter also uses the car) - Is it on finance etc - Impounding / storing the car until bail is paid and a 'sober driver' can collect is the way to go here I think. And.. NO !!... drivers cannot pay the DUI fine and then drive on, thats just outrageous... The on the spot graft has to be stopped.

Flawed comment... have a drink motorcyclist smash in your car and enjoy the inconvenience while its of the road getting repaired. And possible, extra cost of a hire car while yours is being fixed. Or worse, a drunk motorcyclist suicides themself while your wife is driving, hits her car... she she's it all, blood, brains, splatter - why should she have to live with that because some ayhole wanted to drink drive ? Its just like the 'helmet' argument - just because someone might be on a motorcycle - it des not make this this victimless.

Kidnap, yes it does happen. There's about 1 toddler / small child disappears and never found every day in Thailand. Wow... thats frightening.... any verifiable? link ? - thats a massive concern for any parent.

The assumption there is that the parents can afford a car... they most likely couldn't. But.... strict and professional driver education and licensing as we are more familiar with in the West may have gone a long way towards ensuring these girls rode with knowledge of the risks and not undertook a slowing vehicle.

There has been a great deal of debate on this issue on this forum alone.... I am of the opinion that the 'shoulder' is just that - its not a riding or driving lane, and riding in it is more hazardous than commanding your position in the road and travelling at the same speed as the traffic... Of course, thats not so easily done on 'faster roads' with smaller scooter style motorcycles. Others are of the opinion that the 'shoulder' is actually a motorcycle lane - the confusion arrises because in 'some areas' it is - and what I have called the 'shoulder' is actually marked (with road paint & / or a Sign) as a 'motorcycle lane (in some areas). This inconstancy has led to much conflicted debate... Nevertheless, the girls were undertaking a slowing turning vehicle, with greater awareness they too would have slowed and saved themselves.... A tragic loss and a horrific way to die.

Yep... I've noticed that too... Indeed, and they typically have several mirrors to see all angles. They do, but there are also blind spots... undertaking a slowing truck as it approaches an entrance way to a petrol station does show an exception lack of foresight on the motorcycle riders behalf... Its why 'rider / driver training' is so important - and why so many here place themselves in positions of grave risks that seem madness to many outside observers... Its doubtful the rider had any training at all - but training and education of the risks when undertaking may well have saved her life.

Thats horrific... I can't tell - was the truck indicating ? Wife driving yesterday had to slam the brakes on as we turned left and a bike tried to squeeze up the inside... ... but in this case, the girls were travelling along the 'shoulder' which some people call a motorcycle lane - its another reason why travelling up such lanes are so risky. Whenever making a left turn a lot of vehicles often 'veer to the right' to swing in, which encourages motorcyclists to pass up the inside without thinking... I always move across to the left as far as possible to deliberately block any motorcyclists from undertaking as I commit to the turn. This looks like it could be a tragic mistake on behalf of the girls - but the key issue here for me is if the driver indicated or not - thats the only thing which 'could' protect him, although there is also the rule that riders / drivers cannot pass on the left (although this is never followed anyway).

100% agree.... While this tragic incident is the result of the car driver’s actions in turning across their path, it’s difficult. As harsh as it may seem, the parents of the poor deceased child are surely complicit for at least not protecting her with a helmet. I fully recognise the financial pressures that compel many families, unable to afford a car, to rely on motorcycles. I also recognise that riding as a family of four on a motorcycle is deeply ingrained in the local culture. However, what continues to astonish me is the reckless indifference shown by the sheer number of children I see on motorcycles without helmets. It’s a risk no parent should take.

.... this comment doesn't seem to make any sense... Cars are no longer locked / unlocked with a key, but with a remote keyfob... Any older cars that use a key pre-date any auto-locking tech.

.....because they were stupid and careless enough to also leave the keys inside the car with a 1 year old child....