richard_smith237

No, thats not what he's suggesting - that's you bringing in a logical fallacy - the comparison of those from a completely different socio-econimic demographic is flawed... ... If you were having a conversation with poorly educated lower class 'thug' in your own country, you'd take great care to moderate your tone due to the potential for them to 'take umbrage'... The same applies here... this does not justify a violent response in any form, however, we should still be applying common sense...

In that case... 'Unprovoked' attacks... I completely agree with you... Extremely rare... Perhaps just a couple in recent memory... (the tourist couple caught up in an unprovoked attacked in Hua Hin a few years back - but that wasn't moto-taxi guys).

So I don't understand your point. This is a tourist on Phuket, rather than "someone who has been there any length of time". Should he know that they are on a hair trigger? "should a tourist know that they [moto-taxi's guys] have a hair trigger' - Yes, they should know from the perspective of it would be better for them to know etc... Is it their fault if they don't know, it cetainly suggests a lack of common sense & street smarts... ... Should a tourist react to provocation ?... A sensible tourist would avoid such provocation and prevent a situation escalating into an argument... This would be true of any nation, particularly nations which have weaker legal systems. Before you nit-pick... I'm not condoning violence of the taxi-guys at all... But I am suggesting Tourists should know better than to 'react' with poor language or in a manner that leads to escalation. (I'm not suggesting in this case (reported Op) that the tourist used bad language etc- but, I would suggest that the tourists reaction / behavior led to an escalation).

No... It does not, not at all - there is no condoning of violence at all. But, there is an understanding amongst 'most' who've been here any length of time that there should be no reaction at all to these guys... ..... we seen it too many times - Foreigner attacked with machete over 50 baht... etc

I think its perhaps more often than we read in the news... certainly more than a couple of times over several years... I'd suggest the frequency of Moto-taxi riders (win riders) resorting to violence is a couple of times per-month, quite possibly more... we just don't get to hear about it in the media because its the norm... ... The difference with this 'event' is that it was caught on camera. Those of us who've been here a long time know not to react to anything these moto-guys do or say because we know how very easily they are triggered and quickly escalate to violence....

Moto-Taxi guys throughout Thailand, particularly in area's of high tourist footfall have a reputation for being mindless-thugs - they appear to have a very sensitive tigger point, as if they are just waiting for something to give the a 'trigger'... But... I don't think police tourists (or polite anyone) gets set upon by these guys without some form of 'trigger point' - they don't just look at a person an start beating them up, there is always 'something' which sets them off... ... In tourist area's usually its a drunk foreigner who's used some colourful language. So yes, bob... I would tell you are lying, or at the very least exaggerating.... People do not get beaten up out of the blue for no reason whatsoever (in all but the rarest of circumstances)... ... but your idea of 'no provocation' may be different to mine'.. i.e.... A tourist responds to a high fare quite with "F%$K you, I'm not paying that"... (gets a kick in the head) - I'm wondering if you think thats 'without' provocation....

As highlighted by OMF… [If people get beaten up, there is normally a reason for that]… Not condoning the pack violence or any violence at all - but the victim may be responsible for ‘triggering a conflict which the moto-thugs escalated. Very little happens when people keep their mouth shut & behave.

Yes you will. Then you will wai them and bend over for your cavity search. No... I won't (I've already been in that sitation)... you have no clue.

I argue with you because you are wrong... Your example above is also wrong. Singapore does not drug test whole communities or do random drug testing in the streets. The Singapore police only test those they suspect of taking drugs and on raids on night clubs (with a warrant). Its tests also do not involve people peeing into a cup in public - Saliva tests are ultized in Singapore. Again - you have failed to educate yourself. Being an idiot doesn't cut it on this forum !!!

That depends on your activities... We have a lot of 'stuff' in our house... Skiis, golf clubs, wakeboards, Mountain bikes, road bikes, various other sports items.. BBQ, washer, drier, ovens, microwaves, Espresso Machine, TV's (4 in the house) Sound systems, then the are shelves of decorations, 4x motorcycle helmets.. Tools, tool boxes etc etc the list goes on... All of it useful to me - the Op was presented in a manner that anything owned is junk we don't need because we can't take it with us.... which I disagree with - the things we own compliment the enjoyment of our life....

I think the term has been defined quite well - this is how I would define the term Woke. 'Excessive political correctness, virtue signalling and progressive activism that is overreaching and insincere'.. Present your alternative definition if you have one...

I think you are looking too hard for disagreement than looking into what people are actually writing... By 'nudging out' I mean pulling out of the space slowly while knowing there may be oncoming traffic which would usually either try and go around you, squeeze past, or be forced to slow, stop and give way... In this example - I'm suggesting the driver nudged out into the lane to pull out from his parallel parking spot and more than just the nose of the car was out of the space... (better explained below) - where most riders would see the car pulling out and go around (or slow and stop), if a rider is not paying attention, then can easily hit the side the car... I'm not saying this is 'what happened' - I'm saying this is what I think has happened after looking at the photos and seeing how cars have to 'push their way out into traffic' here... Either that, or the driver pulled out of the space so abruptly, the motorcyclist had no chance.

If a car were pulling out from a parking spot on the side of the road in front of me and I managed to hit it, there are a few things I have done wrong... - Failed to read the road / risk ahead. - Riding too close to parked traffic. - Riding too quickly to react. My failure to ride defensively mean my own actions would make me complicit in any injuries I suffer - I would want to look at what I could have done differently to avoid that accident. ------ That said - as the driver car was the one pulling out into traffic, then it is the driver who is clearly at fault. The point a handful of posters (myself included) is that a lot of motorcyclists are complicit in the accidents they encounter while at the same time may not be legally at fault.

Not so much as trying to blame the motorcyclist than simply discussing how and why these happen. For many of us who drive here... we know we need to adopt a degree of activeness in our driving manner to get anywhere. When pulling out from a junction in Bangkok, we can't wait for someone to stop for us, or for someone to slow a little to leave a space - no one gives way in Thailand. Instead we have to 'push out'... Thus, your comment "you [we / I] and supposed to check you [our / my] mirrors and to look before pulling out" misses out on some of the reality of driving here... ... On a busy road there is an endless flow of traffic... What usually happens is that a drive would have to nudge out and force their way into the flow of traffic, if they don't do this, it would take a very long time to be able to pull out... - The realisms of driving in Thailand is not quite the "Mirror, Signal, Manoeuvre" method we employ to pass our driving tests in our home countries... Its also possible that the driver rather abruptly pulled out of the parallel space in which he was parked and the motorcyclist never had a chance... But, with over 20 years experience of driving here my 'guess'... is on the driver having to be assertive and nudging out into traffic and a motorcyclist came screaming up and wasn't paying attention'... I'm not desperate to blame the motorcyclist or the car driver - I don't care either way... like everyone else, I'm having a guess at what happened which is perhaps influenced by the bias of what I have witnessed of over 20 years driving here.

You are carrying on as if they DONT already piss test people at road stops etc. Been going on for years. That is another issue, and also not legal - the Police were stopped from doing this in the Thonglor area a few years ago. They do still test in nightclubs, and that is legal because it is under warrant with cause. This is where you lack the bigger thinking picture... your 'small picture' thinking is unable to reconcile the greater issue at hand here because you can't comprehend it. Look at the countries neighbouring Thailand, compare their GDP (per-capita) and state of economic development to the state of their legal system - then see why Cambodia, Loas, Myanmar are so far behind and why Malaysia is ahead.

Try again. Look at the picture and how close they are from the 7-11. Perhaps less than 50 metres. The claim is that he pulled out from parking at the 7-11. So how many lanes do you think he can change in that distance? The evidence shows that he was at an angle on the way to pulling out. Your scenario does not fit with the evidence. You both seem to be saying similar things... ... Looking at location of the damage on the car - it looks as though 'changing lanes' actually means pulling out from the parking spot at on front of the 7-11. ... Looking at the extent of the damage to the car, the motorcyclist was travelling quickly ('gunning it' as lordgrinz mentioned). ----------- One of the issues here is the way motorcyclists ride - I see many examples of them not looking ahead up the road, they ignore indicators... In this case it seems we have a driver pulling out of a parking spot into a busy road... He'd be waiting there all day if waiting for someone to give way and let him out, or, he can be a little assertive and nudge out into traffic. The only way to drive in Thailand is to be assertive and 'nudge out' into traffic in such situations. Motorcyclists will 'usually' flow around you - In this case I doubt the motorcyclist was paying attention to the road ahead - but ultimately, it appears the car driver would be at fault for pulling out in the first place. ... and this is the issue with driving in Thailand - because of the manner in which people drive and ride, driving requires some assertiveness that compromises our position of blame when having no option but to 'nudge out' into traffic and getting hit by someone who hasn't paid attention.

Exactly as stated - I was also putting out an olive branch for JT to prove his interpretation of Woke and understand why he thinks so differently from the perspective of finding out if I have something to learn here.. This forum would be incredibly dull if we all thought alike. There is value in understanding different viewpoints and interpretations of the world around us. It's unfortunate that JT seems unable to separate emotion from discussion. One of the things that interests me is why people think the way they do. Can they support their viewpoints with sensible arguments, or are their thoughts clouded by bias and emotion? It's challenging to have a meaningful discussion when people cannot acknowledge their biases and react emotionally to questions. Regarding the specific topic, I'm curious about why those in authority thought it was a good idea to paint a crosswalk in rainbow colours. And as I mentioned, after highlighting potentially flawed thinking, will the same decision-makers take the easy way out and paint over the rainbow instead of properly removing it?

Regarding 'big picture' thinking - You have not yet realised that 'your picture' is not 'the' big picture - I don't think you understand that yet. You've slotted in a semi-valid point but have dichotomised the issue into a binary problem when it is more complex. Yes, generalised society wide drugs testing would form a preventative measure, but there are other measures that can also be used which do not contravene laws which are put in place for a reason. You seem to think its ok for those in a position of authority to cherry pick which laws to abide by and which not to - the issue with this is that such authoritarian action has a bigger impact on the wellbeing of the nation (I listed the reasons earlier on). The suggestion that 'generalised society wide drugs testing' is not an ideal solution, does not mean that a void is left and that other solutions are not to be used, whereas you seem to be arguing from the perspective that its either 'generalised society wide drugs testing' or grannies and children will be raped... which is ridiculous. I do agree 'generalised society wide drugs testing' will reduce users - but I do not agree that it is the correct solution. In much the same manner I disagree that Thaksin's war on drugs and 2800 extra-judicial killings was the correct solution - When such actions are taken and rights violations exist its is noted by the international community - this is the 'bigger picture' you have missed - where international investment, business and trade is impacted and the 'filter down' from that does not reach society, development is hindered.

Yes it is unfair. Some idiot on a phone could run into the me and I would be blamed. Thats not quite true... If you could prove they were on the phone and caused the accident, then they would be blamed for the accident. But you still would / could be charged for the separate offence of drink driving.

OP - Do you have a Yellow House Book and Pink ID card ?? - this is perhaps one way to prove you are a Samui resident and secure the BKK Airways Samui Resident discount.

I'd agree that the word 'woke' is often used incorrectly to point score in an argument - however, I provided you with a definition and the context within which I used this term - I believe it was this post (below) which brought on this discussion... [Woke Definition: Woke can be defined as excessive political correctness, virtue signalling and progressive activism that is overreaching and insincere] Do you disagree with this definition of woke JT ? (no need to get personal or upset - I think its a valid discussion to see where and how the difference in understanding and opinion have created a conflict in the first place). Because.... I think the very actions of Authorities in Phuket to paint this crossing is particularly woke.. Any risk or danger was overlooked due to political correctness, were authorities virtue signalling and insincere ??.. perhaps. I think they just thought that this is a 'fashionable and popular thing to do, so lets do it [paint the road]'.... ... It was a clumsy course of action - and that is the problem with 'being woke' (in the context I understand it)... Woke-ness can knee-cap common sense - we have seen this a lot with the LBGQT+ issues of late (especially in sports). The opinions I have presented have not been 'anti-gay' - at least I don't believe they are, they have been anti-lack of common sense, and because some make take this specific subject very personally the interpretation of my comment has been met with some bias rather than taking it on face value. ... Painting the crossing was a silly thing to do - whoever made this decision did so because of wokeness, I don't see any other reason for it. Now.. I really do hope that they don't just paint over the top of the rainbow with grey or black paint (which would be equally as slippery) - they need to remove the paint completely so that the road once again has better grip.

So are you also claiming that DUI roadside tests don’t have any effect on reducing the amount of drink driving? You are just trolling. Of course it does. No, I am claiming exactly what I wrote... The fear of a DUI test hasn't stopped your addiction to drinking and then driving, has it? I accept that testing would work as a preventative measure for recreational users, but it wouldn't for addicts. You attempt to to virtue signal earlier mentioning rape and killing grandmothers.... thats not recreational users, thats the addicts and they are so far down the rabbit hole testing not act as a preventative measure, though it may catch the users... but then what, pee purple and go to jail ?? ... OR pee purple and pay the bribe... then they don't have money for their next fix and are more likely to 'rob a granny' as their desperation increases. What a load of lying hypocritical tosh.. You have already proven that by openly driving while drunk you have no regard for society whatsoever...

Deliberate phrasing ????

Perhaps he thinks Europe and the EU are the same thing.

In which context are you using the word 'farang' ??? - it was the Iranian on the bike and the Brit in the car. Are Iranians also farangs ? - without wishing to get into the 'farang' debate.. aren't Middle Easterners called 'Arabs' in Thailand ? But the Translation of Arab.. Kaek is seemingly more offensive than the Farang word as I never see it used in the media.