richard_smith237

Given that the SUV stopped in their lane of a single lane road (single lane in each direction road) and the motorcyclist passed the SUV up the inside, which is not a permitted manoeuvre, theoretically, the Op is exonerated from blame, from a legal perspective. The lady on the motorcycle who undertook the SUV on the left side would be considered at fault (legally)... Realistically, the BiB in Thailand would follow the path of least resistance and just call it 50/50 because thats the easiest thing to do and they nearly always take the easiest path. IF the lady was hurt and had no insurance or money for medical bills, they may try and pin something on the Op who they believe may be able to pay for the medical bills... (this is not a farang always to blame thing, just a perceived 'who can pay?’ thing... ) If he yields, then he takes the blame. If he sticks to his guns and maintains he is not at fault the police will likely yield and call it 50:50 !!!.... it all depends how the issue is negotiated and how confident, composed and firm the Op is in this situation. In the UK Highway Code the flashing lights is a warning as it is in any other country. BUT, it is more commonly used as a courteous ‘you first’ signal.... but that does not hold any water from a legal perspective.

Knowing regulations and the law in Thailand can swing things in your favour before the Police make the decision to go with the path of least resistance (which is usually, wealthier person pays out (up to a point where a person has influence). Years ago (possibly 20 years ago) I was turning right on Petchaburi rd (in BKK), not at a junction, across traffic into an office building... I was in the right hand lane (3 lanes in each direction), nothing coming in the opposite direction, as I made my turn across three lanes I was hit by a van trying to over take me. Police initially tried to blame me for making the turn. I managed to disperse the blame indicating that the van should never have been attempting to over take. I refused to accept any fault, but in the end accepted 50:50... the van was uninsured.

There has been some more information ‘single lane road’ (single lane in each direction)... which I believe changes things. My initial response is considering a dual lane or more road (in each direction) in which case ‘he’ the motorcyclists crosses the paths of two lanes without making sure they are first clear - IMO he would be at fault in this scenario where it is acceptable for queueing but flowing traffic to pass on the left. On a single lane road one vehicle cannot pass up the inside (left side) undertaking another - thus doing so would place an undertaking motorcyclist at fault.

In that case (single lane road) then a motorbike cannot pass the vehicle in front up the inside (left side) - the female motorcyclist may be at fault. IF the SUV had slowed to turn left, the motorcycle would have hit the side of the SUV. Thus, in this specific case, with it being a single lane road I believe the blame is now shifted to the female rider.

‘See... farang bad too’.... has become a very predicable and boring response from you... We all know you have Thai nationality... but don’t go ‘all native’ when attempting to deflect an issue by highlighting a different issue.... The mask wearing debate is old... so many countries are already ‘over it’.... Thailand wants to cling on to these things [mask wearing] then thats a different debate..... Not wearing seatbelts is risking the lives of others... 50kgs of un-restrained person in an accident is projected with massive force into others in the vehicle. There are additional impacts on others with people not wearing seatbelts where deaths would otherwise be avoidable...

I can think of numerous reasons.... The first being there is very likely more accurate knowledge on this specific subject on this forum than a FinnAir helpdesk could offer. The second, have you tired contacting an airline recently ??... go through numerous automated options before being put on hold and finally getting through to a human who will tell you to read the terms and conditions on the FinnAir website !!!... and when point out that they are not specific enough to answer the question they’ll answer with the safest option from their perspective and not necessarily the accurate answer (i.e. you’ll need a return ticket). The answers provided on this forum have already been accurate. The Op will need proof of onward travel (to anywhere outside of Thailand) within 30 days of arrival. Its a simple question with a simple answer.

If I was driving or riding and going straight on and a car or motorcyclist turned across me, I would not accept 50/50 at all. A a car (SUV) stopping does not change traffic law, the SUV does not become a traffic light, a junction with an unbroken white line and a give way sign. The motorcyclist is perfectly within her rights to be riding ’straight on’.... Yes, stupid of the motorcyclist not to ride defensively and consider why the SUV stopped, but that does not place the female at fault for not stopping, the OP should not have turned across traffic without first ensuring ALL traffic was giving way and had stopped. How can you explain that in the UK he is at fault ? he has turned across traffic without knowing the road was clear.

Its not over taking... its lane splitting queuing traffic. In the middle of Bangkok, when in slow moving traffic and the middle lane moves faster than the right most lane its not considered ‘under-taking’ (overtaking)... its just moving traffic.

Legally, you were in the wrong. In actuality, she is stupid !!!... When riding, if a car has stopped for no apparent reason, I also stop. meanwhile others scream through only to discover why the car has stopped - a pedestrian crossing or someone turning across them... I’ve seen numerous accidents this way. It seems to me that in Thailand more than any other places I’ve riden or driven that there is a huge reluctance to stop or slow for anything - this results in the inevitable. But.. ultimately, even IF the vehicle has allowed you to pass in front of them, and even IF when riding defensively it would be sensible for the other motorcyclist to stop the right of way remains theirs and in the event of an accident you would be at fault. Realistically - this lady would have had no idea that she was riding carelessly... she would think that the blame is 100% with you, the thought wouldn’t cross her mind for a millisecond that she could have avoided and accident by riding more carefully - thats just how many riders in Thailand are, everyone else has to watch out for them.

Not true.... I was there a few months back and saw one on a sun-lounger..... ???? (I’ll get me’ coat)...

I think he means when a teacher undertakes a Batchelor of Education degree (in the UK for example) part of the study is ‘child psychology’... I can’t say for sure because I’m not an educated educator - but those who are, are taught the skills not only to teach, but to interpret and read the classroom and respond accordingly, they are trained to handle ‘certain situations’ conversely a TEFL’er does not undergo education or training to anywhere near that extent.

Avoidable death if he was wearing a helmet ?? Any hit-&-runner should automatically receive serious charges... it is a despicable act of cowardice. Obviously extenuating circumstances involve escaping for ones safety when locals are getting riled up... but in all other cases its utterly inexcusable.

Nothing announces "we're a tin-pot nation with an inadequate legal system" quite like these reenactments do !

Very impressive... Would love to see him in a few years competing in the World Championships and Olympics and doing Thailand proud.

Thanks for the correction....

The wearing of seatbelts in the rear seats became compulsory in the UK 1991... While think Thailand can do a lot better, I don’t think the exaggerated criticism is fair. And... to take this a step further... pretty much all manufacturers make vehicles which ‘chime’ if the front passengers are not wearing seatbelts.... Why do they not do this for the rear seats ???...

A good idea... Now thats how to stimulate tourism.... make tourism easier and cheaper... Get the tourists in and get them wanting to spend, not forcing them to spend. Take note Thailand, no additional entry tax or headlines with horrible optics.

I much prefect credit Cards use it wherever possible.... It builds up points (each year (pre-covid) we get a return flight to Japan (3 of us) from the Air-miles we build up)... Keep paying cash... its your choice !!!... Its also simple and easy to use QR code transfer.... its often quicker when considering waiting for change etc... Cash: I only find it useful for flag-fall taxi’s... smaller bars or the wet-market... everything else is cashless, its just easier and I find it quicker.

Of course, its possible.... But they don’t even do that in public-city busses in many of the cities in our developed nations.... We can’t expect to see that here. (interprovincial and long distance busses are a different matter).

And you have dramatically over exaggerated and deliberately taken out of context the comments of a minority of posters and turned it into ‘many’.... You seem to be debating from the extreme and uncompromising fringes of this discussion and anyone who doesn’t agree with your exact line of thinking is a child murderer....

This is Thailand... there are no laws until there are laws !!!... Laws are also selectively enforced and followed... not only enforced by area, but also by the ’target’.... I suspect many may follow this law, simply because its a law, others will continue to ignore it. The law will save lives and have fantastic impact on some families, but I doubt the seatbelt and child seat laws will have the significant impact on society we would like to see, because of the widely accepted utter laziness of enforcement in Thailand.

Many cities have ‘taxi exclusion laws’.... i.e. its not a legal requirement for people to wear seatbelts in taxi’s in London, neither is a child seat a legal requirement. (but all taxi’s do have a seatbelt). I imagine the same will be permitted for Songthaews (truck-taxi’s) and TukTuks... Private pickups - they’ll just be overlooked and filed in the ‘too difficult to deal with’ bin...

Of three point seatbelts that go across the shoulder are safer than two point seatbelts that only go across the lap..... But a two point lap belt is still safer than no-belt.... just look at the amount of incidents in Thailand where the driver is thrown out of the vehicle. ------------ When my family all visited with their children a number of years back we needed to hire a mini-van to transport us all around. I enquired for rates etc, type of vehicle and if all the seatbelts were 3 point seat-belts. Of course, yes was the answer - I then asked for photos of the exactly vehicle we would be provided with, with number plate etc and photos inside the vehicle of 3 point seatbelts. The probably thought I was mad... a case of ‘farang think too mut’.... A couple of the companies were caught out lying of course !!!

I suspect exempt, in the same manner trucks with labourers or extended family thrown in the back will also be exempt.... .... usually under..... 'oh... feel sorry for them, they can’t afford the fine’...... All of these regulations and laws only usually apply in ares of visibility..... i.e. Main ares of Bangkok and the main tourist and busier areas of Pattaya, Phuket, Hua Hin and Chiang Mai.... Other cities and areas of Thailand generally seem exempt from the periodic crack-downs and road-blocks....

Suicide doors are simply the name given to doors which open backwards.... (they’re also called suicide doors on a Rolls Royce).