richard_smith237

Indeed.... the last time I went for a swim I had the urge to rewrite the ending of Wuthering heights ! ... Damn lucky I had a tactical pen with me...

You go swimming with 'tactical pens' just in case ????

I'm a natural born weapon.... I don't even have to flush my own toilet, I just scare the s#!£ out of it.... ... they named a street after me in my home town... but they had to revert back to the original name because no one crosses me and lives !!...

Valid point, as theory has it we (humans) have a build up of static electricity and when we get out of the car, theoretically we are supposed to touch the car to allow that to disperse before handling the fuel nozzle - this is of course infinitesimal, though, higher for some tightly wound posters in their nylon & corduroy, so they may want to take caution, though I wonder how scared they get when they 'turn their car back on after refuelling. Decades ago owners used to have 'strips' dragging at the back to disperse the static build up from the car itself. IF any of these were genuine issues, I think petrol stations would have something in place to deal with it. As for Air-craft fuel, its higher octane, far more easy to ignite than regular gasoline etc and as you pointed out in an industry with the highest levels of safety - they can refuel with the APU running etc, but we must keep our seatbelts unfastened while refuelling just incase we need to make a hasty exit.. which always struck me as odd. I had fuel leaking all over my engine the other day... engine was hot (usually running temp) and fuel pump developed a leak... I rode straight to the dealership and was naturally concerned about ignition of all the vapour from the fuel evaporating off the engine - nothing happened.

I’m waiting for one of these hardon’s to claim they are Chuck Norris !!! Ralf used to beat up his shadow because it was following too close. It now stands 15 feet behind him….

Oh don't be disgusting I have no issue with cutting someone. & no issue getting spaffed on either, it would seem… or is this you ??

It's quite probable the rules were evolved in a time when there was more risk. For example, cars had generators, not alternators. It's a given attendants sometimes overfill vehicles. Most of the time, the vapor dissipates harmlessly. The culture here seems to be one of not following some rules. Which makes the sight of Thais dutifully wearing masks, on scooters without helmets, quite comical. It took me three months of nagging to persuade my GF to wear a helmet. Now she does it automatically. I am probably much more risk averse than you. That comes from working in a profession for many years, with chemicals that were so dangerous a single moment of carelessness could result in serious injury or death. I'm still here, i know several who are not. Thanks for keeping the discussion intelligent... I agree - the rules are a legacy of when cars were less intrinsically safe. I also agree, there is an element of risk with keeping the engine running, but on the balance of risks there is greater risk of another car driving into me while I'm parked at the pump. I also agree, the culture here is not following rules - the mask rule highlighted what an enigma Thailand is - can't get folk to wear helmets, they face mask wearing was nearly at 100%... My profession too has a load of safety legislation and policy - much of it is based around he lowest common denominator... the 1 in a million chance and is driven my insurance and management ensuring anything that happens cannot come back on them. I took have worked in environments where the risks are high (H2S) and carelessness can cause death - in situations where IF I take of a BA set, I'm dead within minutes... So, I'm well versed in risk analysis and aware of necessary precautions etc - I don't see the 'leaving the engine running' a risk (not even a slight risk) and thats because I understand what is and can happen.

Whatever happened to... - I'm going to tell the teacher ? - My Dads harder than your Dad' ? - Kick em in the nuts and run ? (I'm just trying to fit in the mental age of the thread)

Oh don't be disgusting For some reason walf thinks this thread is about bukkakae !!!!

Reckon we should take our pick... I'm going with #3 !!!!! 1. Liverpool, England (The original) Home of the world's most overrated boy band, scallies and an overrated football team. 2. Liverpool, New South Wales, Australia The place that thinks it's Sydney, but nobody told Sydney! 3. Liverpool, Nova Scotia, Canada Where even the moose are bored and anally retentive! 4. Liverpool, Texas, USA It’s not even the most famous Liverpool, let alone the most famous Texas! 5. Liverpool, New York, USA The part of New York that no one cares to visit! 6. Liverpool, Illinois, USA Where the biggest attraction is… leaving! 7. Liverpool, Uruguay The only Liverpool that’s as forgettable as a Uruguay football club! 8. Liverpool, West Virginia, USA Insult: West Virginia’s best-kept secret... because no one cares enough to look! 9. Liverpool, Ohio, USA Famous for… well, absolutely nothing! 10. Liverpool, Pennsylvania, USA Where the most exciting thing is the town sign!

It’s just the way so many ride here… it’s so moronic… Just this morning I was turning left (on my motorcycle), car in front turning left. Both of us indicating I was on blind it the left rear wheel of the car & protecting my position on the inside. Whooosh… a bike speeds past on the left through an impossibly small gap & surprises the shyte out of me… felt his body brush past & the wind off him as he squeezed through… … made me so angry that he could have knocked me off…. Felt like chasing him down but Thad be silly & I’m not one of the hard men posting on the ‘can you defend yourself’ thread…

Are those your GTA (Grand Theft Auto) scores, or your fave Tekken fighter ?

The keyboard Warrior in me says yes. The realist in me says no… I was sucker punched at Uni… after that I was completely defenseless- so no, I can’t defend myself. The only defense is to avoid all conflict where possible, never allow or engage in escalation…. I realize one punch or one stab could kill us. To add to this : I’ve played Rigby at uni am physical & fit, still relatively athletic & plays lots of football - in my late 40’s I’ve slowed down loads - noticeable when playing against guys… they’d be quicker in a fight too…

@nice15 which model is it ? Age etc ?

I sold mine a couple of years ago. Went ti resellers here - they offered ridiculously low prices which left me giving up on trying ti sell in Thailand’s Put it on eBay - nothing but scam attempts. I ended up selling it in the Uk on Watchfinder (similar to Chrono24). They gave me a price range I was comfortable with. i send the watch the them, on evaluation they hit the ‘mid point’ of the price range & I was satisfied with the sale. (Explorer II). There are some Rolex watch groups on Facebook - plenty of ppl selling, but obviously you need to be careful weeding out the scammers - only ever sell privately in person.

I've brought loads of stuff into Thailand in rather conspicuous packages... - Bike (ridden, then re-packages in original bike box with labels on it) - Ski's (3x times) - Pushchairs (large pushchair / iso-fix / car seat combo systems) - Bulky motorcycle clothing etc. As long as everything is 'de-labelled' and clearly not for re-sale then I think you are covered. It would have to be an extremely difficult customs officer to even bother stopping you let alone charging you anything for customs.... Customs at the Airports here seem to concentrate on: a) People bringing in Cigarettes (or they used to) b) women brining in a suitcase load of handbags (in original boxes etc) for resale. Since Suvarnabumi Airport was opened - I've been back in about 6-10x per year (except Covid) and was only once asked to put one of my bags through the x-ray by customs and even then they were disinterested. Thus: I would suggest, go ahead... its very unlikely you will face issues - people come here all the time for Traithlons etc.... (you could add a little 'mud to your bike' just to make sure you can show its 'used'...

Note - Most hospitals will not carry the Yellow Fever Vaccine, because there is no need for it in Thailand. Additionally - most hospitals will not have the Yellow Fever Vaccination Booklet... ... otherwise known as the 'International Certificate of Vaccination' (WHO approved format). You will need a copy of this Certificate (*Yellow Booklet) at border control when travelling from an Country where Yellow Fever is a risk.

And... I want to deal with this point separately. Firstly, the people of Thailand are not stupid - thats an insult to the many highly intelligent folk here. But, I would agree that it a 'national habit' not to turn off the vehicles while refuelling. There are approximately 44 million vehicles on Thailands roads, 11.8 million of which are family cars. Assuming a family refills their car every week - thats 613,600,000 refuelling events each year. 1.68 Million refuelling events each day... the vast majority of drivers are not turning off their vehicle - then why are there no daily 'vehicle triggered ignitions events' if the risk is as high as you are implying ??? Could it be that the risk is so infinitesimally insignificant - its virtually non existent ??? Driving the roads themselves present significantly greater risk to well being that leaving the engine running while filling the car and thus... when placed in balance with other factors of far greater risk, the thought of one getting their knickers in a twist about turning off an engine while refuelling is as earlier mentioned, really over egging it....

I wanted to deal with this point separately: Do these heavier than air gasoline vapours miraculously miraculously disperse the moment refuelling is complete and we re-start the car / turn the ignition ? Or would you suggest that all petrol station forecourts have massive fan (bug blower) to disperse any 'heavier than air' gasoline fumes that have pooled around the vehicle ? IF the risk of ignition exists during the process of refuelling itself, surely the same risk exists seconds after refuelling is complete and the car is re-started ??.... I want to approach this debate from a scientific aspect rather than an emotional perspective - If parking attendants ask me to turn off the car, I'm happy to do so... The reason I don't usually bother is because I dont consider keeping the engine running to present any additional risk. Also consider - If there were additional risk.. then the methods we use to refuel our vehicles are quite flawed... of course, they are not, otherwise we'd see fires all the time.

I don't disagree with any of information you are providing - but consider the 'reaction' somewhat over cooked and sanctimonious... ... Do you really consider the act of filling your car with Petrol to be so risky that a running engine will be the difference between a fire starting and not ??? IF the risks were so high, we'd have massive fans dispersing the fumes... The greatest risk is actually re-starting the car - which generates energy / electrical surges / spikes it is at this point there is a greater risk of 'ignition' but only in an environment where the LEL has been exceeded. The real reason we are asked to turn of our engines - On some much older cars the fuel input could be close to the engine, the risk exists when fuel can leak onto a hot engine and ignite - the reality in this situation is that the engine is already hot, so whether the car is running is somewhat moot. The realty is - these measures / regulations are in place for insurance purposes.... Thus: If you want to 'consider stupidity' consider the realities and real reasons... We are at far greater risk of an 'incident' on the actual road itself - the risk you are claiming at petrol stations nationwide is significantly over-egged. I understand your points - but would again direct you to my earlier comments that if the risks were so high - Gas station fires would be an hourly event nationwide and refuelling practices would be significantly different than those we currently utilise.

Meanwhile The Soldier and his Thai wife are enjoying their spoils !!!!...

Thats somewhat 'stalky'... but again, its not really is it, the info is public and just requires a few 'smarts' to learn what you are getting into... a very common sense approach IMO... A mate on a footie team was once dating a girl to me looked like a harsh bit of brass... He introduced her as some sort of 'assistant at a school'... up to him I thought. He posted a photo on FB, linked to her... and sure enough - given her friends, the photos etc she wasn't a school assistant... 'somewhat stalky'... yup - curiosity got the better of me - I just wanted to know if my instincts were still 'up to date' !!... Another mate on the footie team had a missus who looked like a ho... but he never said anything about that... my wife spoke to the girl and within minutes the girl had offered her life story, she did not try and hide her previous in the bar - a nice girl, seemed friendly enough etc...

There is a video, yes cannot see that he kicked her as the video moves around a lot as he goes down the steps, he did say at the time he stumbled. Only he and the Thai lady will know the truth and they both have their own versions, I belive her version. As for not supplying you the video link, you are a big boy you can find it yourself. Looking at the video itself... (and ignoring all other comments). 1 - the Swiss-man is extremely hostle. 2 - the video does not show a kick 3 - Its more than possible there was a kick (but that cannot be seen). 4 - If there was a kick, sufficient to cause injury, would the lady on the receiving end of said kick, not be holding the area she was kicked or at least 'scream out' in response to being kicked ? I'm not siding with the Swiss-man by any means, his actions were that of an animal, no matter his nationality, the victims nationality or whether they were in or outside of Thailand - the behavior is still that of an utterly despicable character... ... But, there is no clear indication a kick... or even a 'slip' for that matter.

Really - you guys are hilarious... If refuelling of vehicles was so dangerous there would be numerous petrol station fires across the nation on an hourly basis... If refuelling of vehicles was so dangerous, we'd all have to exit the vehicle while it was being refulled by a 'trained professional' and have fire fighters on standby. If refuelling of vehicles was so dangerous due to a cars operational circuit, we'd have to push it into place (with the ignition off). If refuelling of vehicles was so dangerous due to a cars operational circuit, we'd have to push it away from the pump (with the ignition off). You are really over egging the pudding with this 'putting family and others at risk' statements - If the dangers were as extreme as you suggest, things would be done very differently. Think instead of buying into all the myths. And yes, one of you will now post an example of a petrol station fire - but once digging, it will be found that there was another failure beyond the norm of simply filling up a car...

Yes... you are wonderful and virtuous for strictly adhering to suggested safety measures while no one else (mostly no one else) does because its so hot... If the risk of vehicles exploding while being refuelled was so great, the 'act of refulling itself' would be very different to that which we see today.... If the risk of vehicles exploding while being refuelled was so great, the same risk exists when the car is 'restarted' - in fact the risk is perhaps greater due to the electrical surge of the ignition being turned back on, starter motor turning etc... ... But go ahead miss daisy... keep telling us about the dangers and what a virtuous rule follower you are !!!