richard_smith237

Under-taking, over taking on the left, passing on the left….. whatever term, the terminology is irrelevant, the act is dangerous…. You explained why above, vision in the left blind spot is diminished. That’s why undertaking is illegal….. Is it safer to ride a bicycle or a motorcycle on Thailands roads ? I’d argue a motorcycle is less dangerous than a bicycle on Thailands roads as the speed differential is less. For this same reason I’d argue it’s safer to be travelling ‘in lane’ at normal traffic speed, than on the shoulder at 50 kmh with more traffic passing…. Or ride at traffic speed in the main lane. Unless traffic speed is too fast, in which case you’re on a tiny bike on the highway which is always a danger, so yep, keeping out of the way is better. Agreed…

Im not presenting an argument. I’m stating a legal fact you disagree with. … you believe a motorcyclist undertaking a car which is turning left is not wrong…. The law and basic road safety also suggest this is wrong. You simply fail to recognise the law and common sense…. …. But good luck next time you are riding & decide to under-take a truck thinking you are ‘in the right’ ????

Damn…. That why I understand fat basturdo in 25 different languages !????

You should check out the floor scales when stepping out of the lounge… … they also budget your food intake based on weight differential… Drink & eat too much???…. Ever been re-issued with a new boarding pass at the gate check ? it’s all about aircraft trim…. ????????????????????

You don't often notice it , there are weighing machines built into the floor and it looks just like a normal floor . All the peoples weights are added together at the end of the check-ins , that's why fat people are sometimes removed from the flights before take-off That must be why they seat my wife aft of the wings while I’m seated over the wings… …. They mention balance, I always figured they were referring to my wife’s mental state & giving her a break from sitting next to me !!! ????…. …. They weren’t saying balance, they were saying ballast… a bitter pill to swallow getting on an A380…. ????

Motorcyclists in Thailand very rarely make any interpretation of speed, positioning and indication of the traffic around them..... Just this week riding down Thonglor the trucks and cars in lane 2 (right lane) had slowed and came to a stop at a pedestrian crossing. Upon seeing this, in Lane 1 (left lane), I too slowed thinking the other traffic must be slowing to a stop for a reason... I stopped at the pedestrian crossing..... 3 or 4 motorcycles didn’t stop... the passed up the inside of me at a decent speed, oblivious to the people who were crossing the road and nearly hit them. This was a perfect example of motorcyclists doing ‘what they want’ utterly oblivious to any other vehicle on the road - in short, dumb people with no road safety sense or training whatsoever.

Yeah that's a good idea, plus almost overlooking to ensure no one there, we are in Thailand after all Agreed.... a good defensive driving technique is to prevent the ‘potential’ and this road behaviour and understanding the flookwittery that unfolds around me has prevented an incident on many occasions..... When turning left, I try to ’stay as left as possible’ to block the inside and prevent motorcyclists from trying to undertake as I slow and start to commit to the turn. Yet, so many times I’m turning left and have to stop as the motorcyclist attempts to squeeze through the impossibly narrow gap I’ve left. In short - so many motorcyclists ride around oblivious to their surroundings.... but when / if an incident does occur its not automatically the car drivers fault because they ’should’ have been on the lookout more for a motorcyclists breaking a traffic law and / or riding around in a mental slumber.

Even so... the Road Traffic Act section 45 highlights no over-taking (under-taking) on the left... = motorcyclist still in the wrong. Same experiences here... IF tootling along at 40kmh, then of course its safer to be out of the way of vehicles passing at 80-90kmh. But, I find it much safer to be travelling at the same speed as the other traffic in the primary lane. I consider not having a great speed differential between myself and all the other vehicles on the road to be defensive driving.. I'd be keeping up to speed with the traffic around me (as explained above). And no... I wouldn’t be sat in the right-hand lane at 90 kmh when any other vehicle is trying to pass at 120 kmh... I’d be in the left lane at the speed limit (or at the speed of the other traffic). This is also why the minimum size motorcycle I’d take on a highway of riding at highway speeds. The reason I avoid the ’shoulder’ is because of the higher risk of a soi dog running out, or gravel, litter, parked vehicles etc.. or ’things’ including cars and motorcycles emerging from a blind soi etc... Using that ’shoulder’ as a riding lane IMO is lethal. Was it not careless driving of the motorcyclist ???? The niece was making a legal turn.... indicated... the motorcyclist under-took her. = Motorcyclist 100% at fault. -------- Of course, these incidents can be avoided with a greater understanding that motorcyclists will ‘break the law’ and undertake... but that doesn’t place the motorcyclist in the ‘right' and the driver of the car in the ‘wrong’ when a car is making a left turn, has indicated and a motorcyclist still attempts to under-take (on the left) and hits the car.

IF the car was in lane two and the motorcyclist in lane one and the car made the turn from lane 2 I’d agree with you.... But, the car was in the left lane and the motorcycle on the ‘shoulder’.... .... Unless the shoulder was a designated ‘motorcycle lane’... but the motorcyclist was still, undertaking a turning vehicle.... = motorcyclists clearly in the wrong..... The accident ‘could’ have been avoided IF the driver was a lot more careful and alert. The accident ‘would’ have been avoided IF the motorcyclists was a lot more careful and alert and NOT under-taking on the left hand side of the vehicle. Additionally - the Land traffic act clearly states that no vehicle shall pass another on the left hand side. http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Road_Traffic_Act_BE_2522_(1979).pdf

Agreed... however, as the airline is legally accountable for the ‘onward or return’ travel of a passenger should immigration refuse entry they are ensuring all their ‘ducks are in a row’ and complying with immigration guidelines.... theoretically, Immigration don’t need to check as they know the airline already has... This is also why airlines will check the 6 month validity issue.... But allow travel to ’some’ destinations with a passport of less than 6 months, IF that country does not have a regulation preventing entry on less than 6 months. For example: Singapore will not permit entry if your passport has less than 6 months validity. Upon check-in, airlines will check this (many will anyway). IF however you are travelling to Japan and your passport has less than a 6 month validity and your return flight is within that passport expiry period the airline will permit travel IF you sign an affidavit confirming the airline is not responsible for any onward costs should there be an issue with immigration at the destination. Obviously, the most sensible advice in any such scenario is to always ensure you are traveling on a passport with greater than 6 months validity to avoid any confusion, discussion, debate etc at the check-in counter. Ultimately, all of this discussion is about avoiding and such confusion, discussion, debate and potential disappointment at the check-in counter.

Ubon Joe didn't say that, neither did Dr Jack. Please see posts 2 and 3 in this thread. But I suspect that the misquote better suits your agenda. Perhaps work on your reading comprehension.... Here.... I colour coded it for you... - Visa exempt = you should have a a return ticket - With visa = no need an onward ticket Now... what agenda are you implying ???

They could ‘remove the zoo licence’ under the guidance and advice of animal welfare experts. One of the issues is that there are no laws in Thailand which specify the conditions under which animals are caged. The criticism is that the animal is not being properly cared for... Or, rather it is but not in the context of zoo accommodation as we know it in the West, but closer to prison accommodation. Re-housing the gorilla at a facility far more suited to its size and physical needs would be a far better option... and example of such a place would be Safari-world. There has been a lot of accusation that the animal is not being treated well - there are numerous videos on the internet about this. This from 2015 (domestic and international news). https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-14/gorilla-to-be-released-from-bangkok-mall-zoo/6319084 https://coconuts.co/bangkok/news/activists-await-news-rescue-pata-zoos-bua-noi/

IMO - Hydrogen cars are the way forwards. The heavy and rare earth minerals and metals required for batteries are dirty - there is no environmentally friendly aspect of batteries. Battery tech needs to increase significantly to the point that batteries are ‘clean’ and do not rely so heavily on these rare earth heavy minerals and metals. The hydrogen fuel cell is IMO the cleanest solution of them all - IF we truly care about clean energy our governments would be pushing this tech over electric.

Agreed... at the moment they are encouraging people to switch to EV’s... IMO this is where the politics gets a little dirty... Once people have made the switch and are committed, it will be easy to increase the road tax on EV’s. The UK Government (and most of the EU) did the same decades ago with Diesel. Road users were encouraged to switch to using diesel as conventional thinking at the time was that diesel was far more efficient.... tax on diesel fuel was cut, diesel fuel was cheaper until too many people made the switch, the government increased the tax on diesel again.... (this in the 80’s / 90’s and way before the NO2 concerns). It doesn’t matter what the type of vehicle it is - the reality is a two fold concern: a) The numbers of vehicles on the roads needs to be limited (cost is the only effective way to do this). b) Tax on road use / cars is a major source of revenue for the governments.

Clearly not that critical because they never check the weight of the people or their hand luggage. The difference between my Wife and I is 47 kgs... yet they check to see if a carry on bag is not over 20 kgs and worry about a 5 kgs difference ?

I've done similar here (no with the perfect language switch though)... but having been pulled over at the traffic lights for speeding (was told there was a camera further up the road) with no proof of the speed I was doing, the BiB couldn’t tell me what speed I was doing... .... I ended up just telling them to give me a ticket or stop wasting my time... they waved me on - writing a ticket was clearly too much effort. If you are stopped for something ’spurious’ and you don’t believe you have done anything wrong, simply ask them to write you a ticket and refuse the road-side payment - in many cases they’ll simply wave you on. That said, the reality in Thailand is that the BiB are very rarely interested in Westerners driving a car. Even on a motorcycle the BiB in Bangkok do not seem interested in Westerners, that said, in area’s such as Patong and Pattaya the BiB seem to pull over foreigners a lot, perhaps because they’ve learned so many tourists are riding / driving without a licence or have had a drink etc...

Agreed... I have been in that situation and paid. I did question the fee and was told something along the lines of “because you were in an accident”.... (a somewhat vague and clumsy response, but also language was an issue) - the police at the time were otherwise very fair. But, it would be interesting to know exactly what this fee is... officially. If it is a ‘real thing’ or if this is just something the police have started charing because they feel like it and its become the social norm.

Poor driving from the motorcyclist actually.... The Ops wife was in the left lane turning left. One ‘could’ present the argument that because the Op’s Wife doesn’t have 100% 360 degree visibility that she is at fault because she didn’t see the motorcyclist speeding up the inside (left side), however, the road laws exist to prevent these very issues with the understanding that visibility is never 100% or 360 degree. So often I’m left cringing as I witness motorcyclists who’ve failed to recognise an indicating slowing car, truck or lorry and the motorcycle still tries to squeeze up the inside... Many have such low levels of observation and self preservation. This is one of the primary reasons I have both a forward and a rear facing dash-cam.

The UK has claimed it will stop the sale of ICE vehicles from 2030... thus, soon after the vast majority of households will have EV’s charging from their property. The calculations I used were for 1 EV charging per-household. The reality is that most households have more than one car, thus the assumption could be that the domestic draw will be greater than a 36% increase, perhaps as high as 50%. Will these vehicles also be charged at businesses ??... perhaps reducing the household draw but increasing the electrical demand at the point of business. The discussion on efficiency and electricity demand aside; the UK government currently makes huge amounts of tax from the the petrol we put in our cars - in 2016 approximately 70% of the cost of petrol at the pump was tax made by the government. In 2022 that amount is approximately 50%. The government will want their money some way.... Will the taxation systems change ? will it shift to ‘usage’ i.e. yearly road tax based on mileage ? or will they increase tax on electricity ? I can’t see a future where driving cars will be cheeper than it is now because. Even if we do provide our own electricity with solar panels etc... Even if we have local community solar systems to moderate peak demand etc... I don’t see the the government’s happily missing out on the huge amounts of tax they currently receive from petroleum.

This has been discussed too many times already. It’s not racism, Its nationalism... IF a westerner obtains Thai citizenship then state legislated discrimination will not impact that person.

Agreed..... these messages are sometimes posted with the implication that those who advise an onward ticket is necessary are incorrect, or at least their posts could be interpreted that way by someone looking for sensible advice.... These posters never seem to recognise the flaw in their logic when posting such experience...

I remember years ago (20 or so), a group of us stayed in Kata Noi (Phuket), one of our friends had rented a motorcycle - no deposit, no licence or passport left etc, but did leave accommodation info. The next morning the Motorcycle was gone. My friend went to the shop and told them the motorcycle was missing. They wanted a 50,000 baht payment (or some such amount). Another friend then piped up... “I remember where you parked it, we’ll go get it”.... and we left the shop. We were staying in cheap accommodation, we packed up and moved to different accommodation in Karen - no biggie. We knew the rental shop had tired to run their scam on a group of young 20 something guys.... We already knew of the scam. When one of our group said they’d remembered where the motorcycle was parked the shop couldn’t contradict that without owning up to their theft...

In the past couple of years I’ve rented twice: 1) Rawai Phuket - rented for 1 week. Left a 6000 baht deposit and Copies of my Passport and ML Licence. Owner was a westerner. https://motorbike-rental-station-phuket.com/fleet/ Motorcycle was very new, no scratches (I took photos of every angle etc). 2) Samet Island - Rented for 3 days: Left a copy of my Thai Motorcycle Driving licence (no deposit). Motorcycle was a couple of years old, had plenty of scratches etc (I took photos of every angle etc).

Yup... Police follow the ‘path of least resistance’ and usually start off favouring the poorer party. thus when a car and motorcycle are involved in an accident they know the motorcyclist is unlikely to have insurance and the car is more likely to have insurance and will thus levy blame towards the car. Medical bills should be free (close to free) but thats not always the case if the injured party is outside of their home province and not near their primary designated hospital etc (for their Thai healthcare scheme). I’d never accept blame for an accident when not at fault as that may leave myself open for compensation claims further down the road.

Agreed... there is a common misunderstanding that the ‘shoulder’ is a motorcycle lane, its not. But.. Most motorcycles will ride in that lane anyway under some strange assumption that its safer. Thus: The motorcyclist was not riding in a traffic lane and tried to ‘undertake’ you as you slowed to turn. When a car is turning left many motorcyclists are so careless they will still try and under-take the turning car. I often have to stop completely when turning left as motorcyclists attempt to ’squeeze’ up the inside. -------- I don’t know why the police charge every party 500 baht involved in an accident... its a weird one (only had 3 accidents in Thailand - police only involved in 1 of them). Its almost like a ’tax’ thing... its strange that anyone would be charged / fined for something that is not their fault. I get the impression that the police always feel entitled to receiving extra money whenever it involves doing their job... i.e. their basic salary simply involves putting on a uniform and sitting in a station, anything beyond this to assist the public they seem to believe they should be paid extra for.