richard_smith237

Its never 'happened to you yet'... or rather, through drunk driving you have not hurt yourself or someone else 'yet'... In 2023, approximately 31% of all traffic fatalities worldwide were attributed to alcohol-impaired driving. This translates to an estimated 270,000 deaths globally due to alcohol-impaired driving crashes (SafeTREC) (III) (Injury Facts). Thats just deaths - how many more with life changing injuries caused by people like you - you are clearly not alone though, there are hundreds of thousands of other ayholes in the world. Pathetic distraction - but you are correct. Riding a motorcycle presents elevated risk to my own safety. That risk is elevated more IF I were to ride at night because of anti-social selfish people like yourself drunk driving. Nope, thats your gaslighting exaggeration and a distraction from the point - I don't regularly have incidents on my motorcycle, but it has happend that I've been cut up by other motorcyclists and shouted "Oiy"... (as per my comment in the other thread which you've chosen to take out of context and exaggerate). I agree.... Its not a regular mode of transport. I have a car for that. But, the motorcycle is a convenient means to get around the local area when needed - its riskier than a car, but its a risk profile I balance against the speeds and type of the traffic on the soi's around my home - but again. Perhaps... but again that gaslighting exaggeration and a childish attempt to 'point score'... which is very poor attempt to divert the discussion with a very very daft comparison.... .. in fact, excluding those who don't wear helmets (50%) one of the reasons motorcycling is so dangerous here is because of drink driving / riding - where drunk drivers cause accidents and kill motorcyclists and drunk riders cause there own demise. By riding my motorcycle I won't kill innocent others (or its very unlikely)... there is a far higher probability that your anti-social selfish drink driving could, regardless of how careful you think you are while in reality impaired - why otherwise do think the laws exists and study after study shows unequivocal proof. I don't know how much further we can go with this discussion - You'll obviously not admit that your drink driving is extremely stupid, shows outrageous disregard for others and is exceptionally selfish.... Not one argument you have presented forms any justification for your drink driving.

I've played football near home (in Bangkok) and had a couple of beers afterwards... then had a 3rd and felt really uncomfortable riding the 2km or so home knowing I'm less sharp than I should be... that was way back - I just get a grab to football or the wife drops me because I know I'll probably have some beers afterwards and I don't need to think about how many I have. And that accounts for the night time carnage we see in the news on a daily basis. I know a lot of Thai's who drive, know very few who have not had a DUI related crash - they drive when inebriated to the point of hardly being able to walk !!! Idiotic to the extreme, especially if there are reasonable alternatives.

Thailand also seems to attract weak guys who think its ok to DUI because others do. Its not exactly being considerate of those around you, though is it ? (rhetorical) - ergo by the very definition the actions of someone who DUI's could knowingly injure or hurt someone else because they 'didn't want to pay for a taxi' is extremely antisocial... Erm.. issues ?... You mean the thread were I commented that I shouted "Oiy" by reaction when a motorcyclist cut me up a couple of times... What relevance does that have to this thread ? There it goes again... Anti-social comment - you are thinking of yourself... Your survival... not the motorcyclist or pedestrian you could hit because you were drunk and didn't notice them. On the Cars safer than bikes point - I agree... If I did the same mileage on the bike that I do in the car my risk profile would be greatly elevated - but that again does not justify drink driving - neither does thinking you'll outlive someone because you have a car - it just makes you more of an ayhole. I don't ride the bike at night because of the potential for idiots drink driving and poorer visibility... and more lately I take the car and deal with traffic rather than the bike because its just too hot... the bike is used mainly for local journeys and not so much on the main roads (i.e. Petchaburi / Sukhumvit rds in Bangkok anymore)... as you accurately point out, the risk is higher.... but that risk is not to innocent others, its to myself. You have also made a flawed mistake in isolating 'farangs drink driving' not being deadly - anyone drink driving is more dangerous than they would be otherwise..... You included... There is no justification for your drink driving other than selfishness.... at least you are honest about it, but all of your arguments presented so far highlight a despicable self centred nature... ... Go for it - get drunk, enjoy yourself - but don't put others at risk with selfishness when you can easily get a taxi - thats even more self centred and stupid than those out in the sticks who have no other options other than not drinking when socialising.

Nope.. not kidding myself at all... I know it happens... the fact that this is normalised by people who should know better perhaps fits well in a concurrently running thread about what type of foreigner Thailand attracts. Perhaps, or, there are not many who do drink and drive because they are not dyak heads... I see your point and what you are trying to do there, but you are using a comparison fallacy... People do care and get triggered, but not for the reasons you use - this is not some sort of jealousy that you have afforded yourself greater freedom than those who follow rules have afforded themselves - its that your behavior and others who drink and drive (Thai's included) is anti-social and dangerous. I also agree with live and let live... when it comes to things which cannot harm innocent people.

Interesting - you have a Cartoon Icon of Stalin as your Image... You draw a comparison of being required carrying identification to the holocaust... Note: Approximately 40-50 nations world wide have a Mandatory ID carrying law, its not exactly abnormal or anything close to the holocaust or segregation.

I fly both Qatar and Emirates a lot... Not much separates them at all in economy. I can't speak for Lufthansa & KLM - the preference there would be if you wanted to break up the flight or want to (are able to sleep) for longer periods on the flight.

That depends purely on preference and also class of travel. I'll happily take a sleeping tablet and lie flat for a good nights sleep on a non-stop business class flight - but I wont pay that for 3 of us. So Eco it is.. in which case I don't want to sit on an Eco seat for 12 hours and I don't want a 2 hour lay-over... Instead, I'll go for a stop-over... Get a hotel, chill out, have swim, have nice meal, get up and go again. For this I like Emirates a 6 hour hop landing at 12:30pm... in a pool before 2pm, chill and a few beers, then dinner... Then up early to the airport, no checking in (already have boarding pass) straight through security with carry on (baggage through automatically... then another 6 hour hop... - I find this to be a chilled hassle free way to travel and it breaks up the jet-lag and eases fatigue.

OK... (that answers my above question).... Then there are plenty of transport options - In Drive works particularly well in Phuket, better than Bolt and Grab IMO... So... the reason you are not using taxi's... is not because you can't get one - but because you are cheap.

Out of curiosity... Where are you that its so hard to get a taxi, yet has such great entertainment that you can go out 3x per week and enjoy getting pished up ? Are there really no available taxi's or transport options in your area. Playing the 'balance point'.... I understand someone with no other transport options, who lives in the middle of nowhere driving 2kms home after a number of beers with his mates... a very weak excuse.. but also, the absense of others around removes a degree of risk to others through simple lack of exposure... But... IF driving home to 'dark side' Pattaya or 5kms out of town in Hua Hin etc is no excuse as there are transport options.

Is the law also jealous of the Ops neighbour?... This argument is also fundamentally flawed, DUI is not solely an issue for the Op and his neighbour, is nationwide epidemic. Agree, everyone wants a good time, but not at the consequences of harm to others... you conveniently ignore that aspect of risk you present to other people around you when driving drunk - You have prioritised your good time over someone else life / safety... that is antisocial, ignorant and selfish. Blame your teachers, or lack thereof.

So the moto-tax rider cut up them up... they blasted the horn or shouted at him and dented his ego, he chased them and assaulted them.... ... they were 'not conscious' enough to recognise the risk they were in and continued to 'push his buttons' until he snapped and assaulted them... There's not justification for what the Moto-taxi driver did... but the women misread the risk of danger their reaction placed them in. Similar has happened to me while on my motorcycle... Getting cut up and shouting 'Oiy'.... (more of a reaction than anything else)... The response of the other rider when male is nearly always a look of anger as if the incident is my fault... (oblivious to the fact that I just had to brake hard to avoid them etc)... usually, its just a look and they ride off... Obviously, I try not react vocally, but sometimes its more of 'woah' reaction than actually shouting angrily at the other person... ...Still - its the dented male ego that reacts violently here and I'm not interested in getting in a fight or educating the world...

Its all extortion... thats all it ever is, regardless of the political and security temperature at the time. ... The is a story of them demanding a urine test from a holidaying pensioner (a 70 something year old man with is wife)... In the end I think it was pressure from Embassies and the onset greater publicity which forced a stop to this. I recall at the time being pulled over in a taxi on the corner of Asoke while heading at about 7pm... The BiB wanted me to get out - I knew their game and refused, but had to 'call a friend' (also BiB) to get them to back down - I was not going to pish on the side of the street for corrupt policeman (also 100% sober and not under the influence of anything so nothing to fear - but I knew such requests are illegal so I wasn't even joining the dance).

This attitude is typical of someone who claims, "When I'm drunk, I'm probably better than 80% of the other drivers on the road." In summary, the mindset of someone who drives drunk under the belief they are 'safe' because they have taken a defensive driving course and are taking precautions exemplifies what could be termed the 'Alcohol-Induced Dunning-Kruger Effect.'

Again a separate argument seemingly attempting to justify drink driving because other negative examples exist. My point in 'that' argument (regarding a parent who reversed over his child) was that after a child had died, the response from one specific poster (Nick Carter) was unwaveringly sanctimonious... it was at his sanctimony that I targeted my comments, while at the same time I understood how such an accident could occur and has occurred elsewhere in the world. Nick argued from 20/20 hindsight with a 'should have / could have' perspective suggesting everyone checks underneath their car before driving off / reversing - which IMO is over-egging his pudding which was already overladen with sanctimonious virtue signalling and a heavy amount of gas-lighting while attempting to win and point score rather than recognising the legal realities within which we behave. In this thread the discussion is a little different and using the example from a different thread shows poor reasoning. In Thailand we have authorities turning somewhat of blind eye to drink driving, almost enabling it, and Thailand has some of the highest road fatality stats in the world.... meanwhile, accident and road fatality rates are far lower in countries where DUI is considered something socially irresponsible and if caught penalised heavily. You have mentioned that you 'take precautions' - but clearly you do not, you have admitted to driving while drunk. If your precautions are limiting yourself to 2 or 3 beers with dinner over a few hours - then it could be reasonable to assume you have taken precautions. However, if you are having 10 beers or more and are then driving home, but making sure you are being careful, that is not sufficient caution - you are impaired whether you can recognise that or not. IF you were to be involved in an accident and hurt someone or worse, there is the legal perspective, but also the moral perspective... ... Would a drink driver ever self-evaluate and consider they could have avoided the *incident - would they feel guilty ? - this is one of the reasons many don't drink drive, not through fear of authorities, but for the simple reasons that they know impairment could mean the difference between hurting someone or not. I had a recent sporting accident while mildly drunk - I suffered a serious injury. I've spent time evaluating if I could have avoided the accident if I had been able to react faster if I had not had a few beers. [*I refuse to call it an accident because and incident involving a DUI is not an accident - there was a conscious choice made to drive while impaired]. My guess is that after mentioning 'sanctimony' above in relation in another incident discussed in another thread someone unskilled in debating will attempt to respond in kind in attempt to score a point - however, at this point it should be noted that the opinions expressed are not judging someone after and incident - but judging lifestyle choices which are considered both antisocial and illegal in most other countries.

I agree... Speeding also kills... As does using a mobile phone... As does driving while tired, as does driving while doped up / high.... Using an argument that cars can go fast and that can also cause deaths to justify drink driving which also causes deaths is a massive justification fallacy - its flawed at a point of very basic logic. Why are cars not fitted with speed controllers - that has been floated recently in the UK. But there are major practical issues to contend with. i.e. driving along a motorway limited at 70mph and travelling parallel to a road that has a limit of 40mph.. Will the car automatically slow to 40mph on the motorway.... ... OR, a Motorway crossing under a road with a 30mph limit, will the GPS read 30mph and cause the car to slow ? Thus: Automated speed control is just a matter of time - when the practical issues can be ironed out - by then, much of the driving will be automated anyway. The question the begs: Can I be drunk if my car is driving itself ? - at the moment, of course the answer is no... but in future, if you are a 100% passenger, then why not ? As far as cars that can drive 200mph - thats marketing, and some cars can drive to track for fun, then drive home... but just like drink driving, speeding is illegal... Thus just because a car can go faster than the limit is no logical argument to justify going faster than the limit and thats the same with drink driving, just because you can, does not mean its ok to do so.

That already happens on the concrete sidewalk... I know someone who hurt themselves (last night of a visit)... walking down the pavement to a restaurant from the apartment... A shopfront had been washing out their 'open air shop'... Oil, muck water washed into the street... the pavement was not level... Over she went, straight onto her hip... filthy clothes - not a pleasant experience - the ground was like ice.... ... All because some pr!ck was washing their shyte out straight onto the pavement instead of mopping it up...

Is a lot of money for Thais, you know that just as good as me. Aside from the fact there just really is no taxi's in most remote places. Thats not different from anywhere else in the world - the answer is not to drink and drive, the answer is not to drink and drive.... ... The issue is also an anti-social one... the reason some drink and drive is because they know they can get away with it, rather than not drink driving because they don't want to hurt an innocent other...

maybe can go to the station and file a complaint File a complaint at the station about the the police from that station trying extort you ??...

I think because the Op is sensible, non controversial, does not have a misleading headline, is well written and not misleading the thread will be short lived.... ... There is little to disagree and bicker about... so there won't be many responses other than.. Agree !...

I have 4 people on my ignore list - those are the worse of the trolls, people who are outright poisonous and toxic, looking for a personal argument every time.... He's not that bad - sometimes funny... but yes, very trollish and bias - but easily ignored if I want, just like a lot of others. Then there are outright idiots who I read who I don't put on my ignore list - these people are so idiotic in a perverse way its actually interesting to read how far beyond help they are... (one was posting a lot in a thread about DUI - biggest idiot on this forum IMO).

I haven't done one for a while (travel a lot)... But I never had an issue with the 90 day report. But, agree - the government Apps / Pages are not very good. I found that I could not use the WebPage to submit - but had no issues using the Section 38 immigration App on my Phone / iPad - when the site was reported down, so there was a work around. Have you [mokwit] tried to submit using the Section 38 App ??? Or what BS reasons were you rejected for ? Interesting - I never knew that and have never read of anyone receiving a visit from Immigration in Bangkok - though I take your word for it. Why do they need to Visit for a retirement extension ? I can't see what the need to prove. I can 'kind of understand' in their mindset the need to 'prove a marriage is genuine' - but still find that highly invasive - I wouldn't be happy letting Immigration Police into my home if it ever came to that.

You're trying to shoe horn the 'Thai's hate foreigners' rhetoric out of stories that do not involve foreigners and have nothing to do with foreigners... All you are doing is diluting any genuine and real issues you may bring up in future - but to be honest, any issue you bring up in future is already so diluted by your bias anything real is now masked and considered exaggerated - you've over played your bias, bob and any genuine point you could have is buried in the cynicism as soon as we see your name on a post.

Not really... I've been in the awkward situation of having to carry that amount into a Bank. Selling my car (two occasions)... On one occasion - the buyer (Thai) turned up with cash - we drove to the Bank and deposited the money. Completed the PoA forms / Proof of Sale etc... then the buyer drove of in his new car (my old car). Another, the buyer (Western), turned up, we went to his bank, he withdrew the cash, we carried it to my bank, deposited the cash, then went to the DLT and completed the exchange of ownership. I think the reason was that over a certain amount of money the bank said the transfer was not instant - or something like that - it may be different now. Additionally, a lot of businesses are still cash businesses.... people go to the bank and the end of the week / month with a large Sum. Another reason - envelope money from Weddings: We had over 1 MB envelope money from our wedding. BiL put the boxes in the boot of his car (as he didnt trust to keep it in the hotel) then paid it in to the bank after the weekend. ----------- One of the things that has always surprised me here. Why don't criminals 'case-out' outside Banks and look for people carrying 'pouches' which could have large amounts of money in them - could be an easy target. The other - Criminals watching at large weddings - watching where the envelope money is taken to, then ripping them off.

There will be very mixed responses to this... There has been mixed advice, with some regional police chief's suggesting a photo-copy is fine, while others suggest you need to carry your passport. IMO - the choice is individual. Within province - a Photo of the Passport on your phone (and entry stamps / visa etc) is sufficient. As is carrying a photo-copy (many laminate this) For most Police your Driving License will be fine. A copy of a Pink ID will also act as Government issued photo ID. Outside of province - I carry my passport with baggage, but keep that at the hotel so its accessible within a reasonable time frame should it be necessary. The risk of passport loss and hassle of replacement, plus impact on travel arrangements for the time it takes to replace by far exceeds and potential of the Police specifically demanding to see my passport and subsequent potentail hassle of not having the actual passport in possession. In any such sitation, if handled politely in the vast majority of situations the Police will be more than satisfied with a PhotoCopy, Photo on your Phone, Driving License, or Pink ID. ------- As pointed out - As far as the 2014-2015 issue of the Police in Sukhumvit Bangkok (Thonglor Police) asking for passports and fining people without - this reached national headlines - the police officers turned out to be 'somewhat rogue' and were told to stop.

IF you are drink driving because you live remotely and can't get taxi's then you are part of the problem. It seems people such as yourself don't mind this and justify your actions because 'others do it too'... Somehow, across society, DUI is widely acceptable here... I know of so many deaths as a direct result of DUI - families torn apart.... Also so many accidents - most Thai's I know have had a drink driving related accident at some point in their life... (and quite a few westerners too - on their motorcycle)... Selfish and stupid behavior.