richard_smith237

Thats not an accident.... Its negligence. As with the busses being inspected for their CNG tanks.... All large vehicles should be inspected properly... ... For Brakes, wheel fittings, tyre wear / quality, pressurised tanks... ... then of course there is the 'gas delivery trucks' - need extra inspection.... .... of course, only by inspectors who are not corrupt and not those will pass anything for some extra money because they are never held accountable for graft - difficult in Thailand.

The 'cops' hang out at specific area's of poor road design so they can catch people out on such technicalities.. It seems the Police in Pratunam have their preferred spots to make their cash, Over the past 25 years or so of driving and riding a motorcycle in Bangkok I can point out that getting pulled over by the BiB is by far the exception and certainly not a common occurrence. That said - the Police are now relying on camera's a lot more. We are getting a plenty of fines for crossing a white line. At one junction we often use, we want to exit the expressway and use a flyover... there is a narrow window of 'dashed white lines' via which to get to the central lanes and use the fly over. But, this also means drivers can't just 'flow and merge' they have to stop and lane change only at the dashed-white-lines (green arrow), or face a 500 baht fine if they merge in a manner that would be safer (yellow arrow).... (we get caught by the camera quite regularly here). As for the Op: The only solution is to 'switch lanes' across to the right most lanes immediately when exiting central world parking - everyone else does this & makes traffic worse... but the BiB don't care - they instead create a worse situation by preventing lane changes on a bridge.

Same cops 12 years later? 555 Probably earlier than that around 2005 I'd guess... At that very corner (turning right onto Petchaburi from Central World) the BiB pulled me over accusing me and my passenger of not wearing our seatbelts (we were wearing our seatbelts) They wanted 2000 baht - I just outright refused, & kept refusing - they waved me on. A few years later, coming from the other direction, turning left from the wrong lane (second lane) Fine negotiated down to 200 baht. The amusing part about that one, was that there was a bin lorry parked in the left lane, so turning left from the left most lane was impossible. It seems the Police in that area know exactly what they are doing when making up these 'technical faults' which are impossible to avoid if wanting to drive here.

114kmh Typical troll...

Won't each individual vehicle have a 'wading height' ??? The wading height of the MG ZS EV is 450 mm. This means the vehicle can safely drive through water levels up to 450 mm without risking engine or electrical damage. This is the same wading heigh as the petrol variant.

How fast was he going ? - you still can’t answer that.

Oh, you'd hypocritically love the hypocrisy if it were your wife being cheated out of B50,000 and signing a loan paper to borrow another 20k you're going to be responsible for. Wife doesn't gamble, ever. Every Policeman I know does - I've even seen them turn hotels suites into casino's. And then there is the government pushing the 'Casino barges' etc.... then charging for women for a game of cards.. Yes... Hypocrisy indeed.

I have a good idea. We have a True internet-TV package with free mobile….…. The package is in my wife’s name. Everywhere else I registered my number it’s in my name (various apps etc.)….. … but I still get cold calls asking for my Wife - it’s obvious to me that True (or an employee acting illegally) has sold the information.

They could be fit over night. But, IMO the ‘greed’ is a factor here… get a many tourists as possible - no matter the risks to them. It’s that time of year when we’re due another boat capsize due untrained / unqualified / unregistered captains.

What was the age of the vehicle now ? You keep making stuff up. Find a photo of him [Tik] without glasses that night. If he ‘could’ see the Motorbike he would not have driven into it. How fast was he going ? - you still can’t answer that.

Trolling yet again with the anti-Farang / Thai apologist nonsense at the drop of a hat…. …a typical MalcomB post - worthy of nothing other than disdain for this numpty…. It’s astonishing how he misses making an intelligent comment by a country mile.

Its a valid point when considering bigger picture thinking... a) 1500 baht taxi ride vs b) Grab + Bus + Grab or BTS (+ hassle of baggage)... Are people who've flown half way around the world that hard up ??? The difference is 3 or 4 beers... You don't believe in the study of Sociology then ? The manner in which people behave and reasons for doing things is often of interest to many ? If being 100% honest with yourself have you never seen someone doing something and thought...'why' ???.... i.e. why do so many people get up while the plane is still taxiing etc... (rhetorical example). another example... .. why would someone post on a forum telling someone to get a life, thus concerning themselves with someone else's opinion, thus falling foul of their own 'get a life' comment... hmmm...

Yup... ban pedestrians from pavements (sidewalks) too... they are are a death trap for anyone who thinks there won't be motorcyclists riding on footpaths.... (Yes, that was sarcasm - instead of solving the problem, some posters are suggesting Thailand steps backwards into the dark ages to mask the problem).

I had something similar with HomePro - ordered something for home delivery, then realised we were going to be away.... So wanted to change delivery options from 'home delivery' to in-store pickup. I was unable to change delivery options so was forced to cancel the order, then re-order exactly the same item with in-store pickup. ... my point here, is sometimes we are 'digitally' locked in which counters common sense. Im your case of the Op (CallumWK), you have seen the item elsewhere and it makes sense that you should be able to cancel the order within a certain 'reasonable' time-frame... But, there is no digital recourse for that - thats not your fault. Also, others are suggesting its your own fault for ordering - but people should be able to cancel their order for any reason they want (within a reasonable time frame) - so those who are blaming you are doing so with a significant step away from a 'customer service perspective'.... The option below proposed by KannikaP is the obvious and most simple solution - accept delivery, then instigate a return.

Thats not my aim here - as with all these discussions, my interest is 'how' this incident happend... (You're a drink driver and you're calling me a d!ck ok - we can get over the personal stuff and continue the discussion).... ... what is the root cause ?... thats what I'm trying to discuss.... So far I see root cause as: - Tik (driver) DUI - 2x legal limit - Poor visibility (Tik was wearing dark glasses in every photo / window tint ? poor lighting) - Motorcycle sticking out 20cm into the driving lane So far you have highlighted, speed... - Do you see speed as a route cause ?... - Do you see that only speed was the root cause, or in your opinion do you see other factors too ? - Again, how fast was he going ?

That can happen at any speed... 30km or 60kmh... that someone was knocked off a bridge is not evidence of speeding... i OK - so what speed was he doing ? what speed did this enquiry calculate the van was travelling at ? Are you trying to make the point that the fewer or greater number of times 'someone' mentions something the lesser or more the likelihood of that being true ?... Do you really think that only one person mentioning that he was wearing glasses impact whether or not he was wearing them while driving ?

Where has he admited he was speeding ? He was asked by the victims mother why he was going so fast - Tik apologised, thats not an admission of breaking the speed limit. Which eye witness ? If you are referringto Jinnapa (one of the three on the bike) then its impossible that her 'estimation' is remotely accurate (added to which eye witness testimony is notoriously flawed). That is not evidence of speeding (exceeding the speed limit) - the CCTV footage is simply evidence of the van travelling - speed has not been determined from the CCTV footage. (the rest on the next post as were not permitted to split a 'quote up more than 3x for some reason)

If you can show me any video or photo of him driving the van without dark glasses I'll stand corrected. If you can show me any video or photo of him without dark glasses at any point that evening - then I'll buy into the possibility that he may not have been driving with dark glasses. What we know so far: - Tik (driver) DUI - 2x legal limit (blood test taken back at station, so his reading would have been higher at the time). - Dark glasses (in every photo) - Motorcycle sticking out 20cm into the driving lane Why do I keep bringing up his 'dark glasses' when no one else is ? (question asked earlier) - because, as part of this discussion and debate - I believe this to be a major factor along with DUI for the cause of the incident... I suspect poor visibility at night to be a major factor in many accidents at night in Thailand (of course, along with the obvious one - booze & DUI).

How fast was he going ?? The female presenters simply stated 'fast' - that's not evidence or even indication that he was speeding... its just her opinion that from the CCTV is looks like he's going 'fast'... The CCTV footage does now show Tic speeding - it just shows the van's travelling. It also shows the car travelling in the opposite direction taking a similar amount of time to cross the screen - thus travelling at a similar speed. Speed limit on that road is likely to be 80kmh... Does the footage show he was exceeding that ? IMO - its impossible to tell from that footage... Again - where is the proof that he was speeding ?? - there is none. BUT - there is proof that he was DUI... and he was wearing dark glasses in every photo. Speeding may 'also be involved'.... In fact - as he was likely to be wearing dark glasses, and was 2x the legal driving limit his reactions would have been slower to a) initially see the motorcycle, and b) to react to it - so if travelling faster than he 'could see' - i.e. outdriving his vision and reaction, then yes, speed is a factor - but there is no evidence of 'speeding'....

ok.. childish name calling aside... Where was it reported that Tik was speeding ? where is there any witness statement that he was speeding ? Who are these people at the scene you are talking off ???... .... his was on a bridge... do you think there were 'other people' standing around on the bridge and witnessed this incident ??? ... On the scene at the time of the event were 5 people (if I'm not mistaken) - 3 with the motorcycle (1 dead, 1 in hospital serious injured and another) - 2 in the car (Tik and a female who appears to be with him) Tik admitted to breaking the speed limit in the Thai media ? really - share that link, I have not seen any Thai media where he admits to breaking the speed limit on that road. Jinnapa was there... did she see the van approaching ? Did she make any statement as to the speed of the approaching van ? (if she did make a statement how the van's speed) How can she possibly guess the 'speed' and know the van was speeding ? You are doubling down on every possible way to argue that it was everything else other than the obvious - booze and poor visibility that cased this accident.

Oh gawd. Maybe you should start reading the facts before making up your own conspiracy theory ranting. You really make yourself look very stupid the way you carry on with all your nonsense. ‘Overcome with grief, the victims mother……’ … asked a question - and you call substance of that question a fact ??? AW gawd indeed…. Such is the utter stupidity of you level It’s embarrassing being associated with you in this discussion.

How fast was he going? & where has it been mentioned that he was speeding. He was over the limit & wearing dark glasses - they why he failed to react.

I think YOU are missing the point... DUI is illegal, even for fools who think using the world 'dick' to play on the name 'richard' is a clever thing to do... Do you think the bar should be set differently for you ??... because you metabolise alcohol differently than anyone else ?... I do get your point, if having one or two beers and remaining under the legal limit to drive, of course behaviour is more readily moderated. However, you champion the example of someone unable to moderate their behavior given the idiocy of some of your comments on this forum - a sensible limit for someone such as yourself who is so capable of pulling the wool over their own eyes really should be zero !!!.. You know what saves lives ??? Idiots who don't believe they are beyond the law and attempt to apply their own interpretation of DUI rules and how alcohol impacts them. Additionally, while I have no proof other than the reckless disregard you have shown in previous comments... I don't believe you stop at two cans of beers etc... you just drink whatever you want and think you can drive carefully because you decided to 'go slowly'.... Those halfwitted attitudes are what causes accidents.... I'm sure Tik Shiro thought... He's ok... He's only had a few beers, if he drives carefully it'll be ok - just like all the other drink drivers who end killing people - you all suffer from the same antisocial delusion.

You’re the only person in the world not impacted by booze…. Well there is also the flash…. His metabolism is so fast that he can’t get drunk - he lives within the same world of ‘make believe’ as you do !!! Through all know the flash is just film & stories… whereas you believe your own BS drunk driver…. (4x was a typo - it’s 2x, however that’s still driving while impaired & illegal - not for you of-course, you don’t get impaired by such low limits & the policemen let you go !! )

The photos show damage to the left of the van, and Tik Shiro 'prostrating' in grief on the left shoulder. This indicates the motorcycle was stopped on the left shoulder of the road (bridge). Other reports also highlight that the motorcycle was sticking out by 20cm into the left most driving lane. It shows an attempt to show remorse... however that may be interpreted to reduce a sentence or show genuine remorse... Yup... I agree with that - its a terrible state of affairs when someone who's recently killed someone in an accident is given credit for remaining at the scene... especially when 4x over the legal driving limit. Pics below - show van hit on the left and Tik on the left side of the shoulder / road (photo below is from the video).