richard_smith237

Agreed.... he put together a couple of punches and a kick.... Yet, at the start of the video he’s on the floor... so perhaps the Thai guy initially got the better of the Frenchman..... Perhaps they both had some form of training which is why neither of them wanted to be the one to walk away....

I was unaware there was a legal requirement to wear a mask at all any more... Particularly since the the Emergency Decree was dropped.

Agreed.... it makes shopping online a headache.... We have to be so very careful and pay attention to the most minute of details.... the customer has protection, but its still a proper PITA having to deal with the issue that shouldn’t exist in the first place. I’ve purchased items, an obvious scam - forced the vendor (Amazon and Lazada) to refund for a fake items, but still see the shops online selling to more people. I guess there are just so many scammers out there its just too difficult to deal with them all. For things like razors etc I get directly from Boots / Watsons etc.

Well... we still need to know what started the incident. Did the Thai guy damage the car and try and escape, hence the chase down by the French guys ? Did the French guys simply get angry at the Thai guy for something innocuous ? There is still a lot missing from the story.

No... because you have narrowed it down to ‘one single punch’.... Both participants were fighting, both swung punches and kicks, both were aggressive, both could have walked away.... one person has paid with injury and another will pay legally. The extent of legal accountability may be limited by the actions of the Thai as a willing participant in the violent interaction. IF the Thai guy simply tried to run away and avoid conflict you would have everyone on side.... but this is clearly not the case here.

Your implication has been that the Thai guy its not complicit at all - this is clearly wrong. There was a fight in which both participants willingly fought. This is not an unprovoked attack as stated by the media. It seems you have refused to accept that the Thai man was also complicit for his behaviour in this incident. Both the Frenchman and Thai mans aggression and willingness to fight presents the legal grounds for mitigating circumstances of the other.

WRONG - you have blindly ignored section 34 of the land traffic act and continue to focus only on section 35.... this is why you are wrong. You are implying it is illegal for a motorcycle to pass another vehicle on a multi-lane road - you are wrong. Section 34 and 35 of the land traffic act is there for anyone to read (links posted in earlier posts).... Land Traffic Act: http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Road_Traffic_Act_BE_2522_(1979).pdf

Don’t want square. Don’t want Garmin. Don’t want to receive calls. Xiaomi Watch S1 Active (https://www.mi.com/global/product/xiaomi-watch-s1-active/) (note - I use apple so can’t offer first hand experiences of the Xiaomi watch - but have other Xiaomi products and have been happy with them). Other options: Suunto (various watches / prices). Google Pixel (maybe too expensive) That should get you started.

Thats a huge discount... what car is it that makes such a difference ? For our Car - Mazda - the cost is about 22,000 per year. Having named drivers only makes 2-3000 baht difference so not really worth it. The Dashcam lowers the premium by 5%.

The need for an IDP is heavily debated, usually quoting various conventions and thai laws etc.. All a moot point if you have an IDP anyway.... The bigger point is your Visa... if you are on a Tourist Visa or visa exempt you are fine with your home licence and IDP. IF you are on a resident visa (i.e. Non-Immigrant type O etc)... then you should have a Thai Licence. Regarding insurance: Most policies cover the vehicle for any driver, but some may have named driver policies to cut the premium - best to check the specific policy.

The one married with kids (the driver) didn’t seem to commit any serious crimes.... ..... other than drive a car on red plates, stop blocking the road, driving away making himself an accessory to a crime ( the accessory is a stretch - a decent lawyer could argued that he simply escaped trying to avoid further fighting ). Is that sufficient to deport him separating him from his family ???.... it was the other Frenchman who was involved in the fight... and of course, he should the the one facing penalties.

I've seen this before... in other articles... However, I’ve never seen an official document (or translation of) which states these laws.. i.e. Land Traffic Act etc... Good point.... he helped his passenger who participated in the fight to flee the scene and thus made himself an accessory.

That is still an edited version.... There is another version which starts a few seconds earlier than this clip you have linked.... It shows the Frenchman on the floor and the Thai man attempting to kick him while he’s on the flaw (other Thai’s drag him off preventing him from landing his kick). 51mins 28 seconds - into the the news video below.

Agreed...... There could be a very strong case for the Frenchmen to file a defamation lawsuit a the media outlet which first reported this incident with such extreme bias.... Silly, I know, but this is Thailand after all and we have seen people sued for defamation for far less. I’m still trying to work out exactly what illegal behaviour the driver committed.... - Drinking ??? - he was found drinking after the incident (not before - so no proof of DUI) - There is no evidence he participated in the fight. - Why arrest him at all ??? - Why refuse bail to someone with a family in Thailand when it seems there is no evidence against him? - Is there any documented law about driving on red places out of province?? - its often discussed, but seems to be one of those ‘myths’ - there is nothing in the land traffic act about this. - Why was the Porsche confiscated ? - was there some evidence on it ? indications of an impact with the motorcycle ? It seems the Police are acting however they ‘want’ just because a foreigner was involved. Certainly the Frenchman involved in the fight needs to be dealt with harshly, just as any Thai would need to be dealt with harshly in the same situation - is he going to receive fair and equal treatment as a Thai would in similar circumstances ??? I’m not defending the Frenchman at all - but questioning the potential for ‘unequal or more extreme treatment’ based on nationality here.

Your bias was on the wrong side of this situation.... (it was late, I didn’t word the sentence correctly) and you’ve clung on that as your only escape from a stupid stance which is one of flawed bias. You are arguing with the bias that the Thai guy did nothing wrong and is not complicit in his injuries because you feel you need to ‘balance the scales’ - that is a dumb perspective to hold. You have argued that anyone who suggests the Thai guy was also complicit is a ’Thai-basher’ who also defends foreigners in any situation - that is also a dumb perspective to hold. You have admitted to ’tipping the scales’ with an out of balance argument - that is trolling, you are a troll. The Thai guy was clearly willing to fight - only you cannot see this. The Thai guy is also willing participant in a fight. He is also responsible for whatever happens in that fight, as is the French guy... You are struggling to understand the very simple concept that when two parties are willing participants in a fight, both are responsible for the outcome which in a fight can go either way. You somehow see this perspective presented by many forum members as ’anti-Thai’ sentiment - its is not, it is simply stating the facts. Did you see the Thai guy try and kick the Frenchman while the Frenchman was still on the floor ? (towards the beginning of the incident) ???? You are clinging on to this ‘wrong side / right side of Bias’..... Bias is Bias... You are wrong in YOUR bias because you are refusing to accept facts instead wishing to argue that the Thai man is not responsible for his part in the incident. You are wrong - the Thai man is also complicit in the outcome (his injuries) as if the Frenchman. They were both willing participants in the fight which could have ended up with various or no consequences... none of them knew how the fight would turn out when it started.

You prefer the nakhon-no-where hole in the floor and bucket option ???? First time I saw one of those Japanese Toilets (about 20+ years ago) I thought... hmmm... what does that button do?... horrific mistake, I was stood up taking a leak at the time !!!...

Yawn...... motorcycles are not permitted to overtake then? Not allowed to get in the right hand lane to turn right ? Not allowed to pass a stationary vehicle in front of them? Not allowed to pass a slower vehicle ? Not allowed to get into the right hand lane to avoid an obstacle ? You’re on the wrong end of this one and making an utter t!t of yourself.... In accusing me of ‘freaking out’ you seem to be getting getting desperate because you can’t accept you made such a flawed interpretation of the regulations.... They’re pretty clear, motorcycles can be in a lane other than the left most lane under conditions highlighted in section 34..... You’ve clearly stuffed up but like a child lack the emotional tools to simply accept that.

It's pathetic that you’ve come to this conclusion when the police handed the situation with patience and without any injuries to anyone. IF you are struggling with the idea that a woman turns up to a police station with a knife demanding they calls her boyfriend to be a model of mental fitness then perhaps the woman in question is not the only one to need some mental health expertise !!! No... I’m guessing taser, perhaps guns, injuries.... certainly a lack of empathy and patience. This is why the patient actions of the Thai Police in 'this case’ are most certainly not pathetic. The do tend to handle these issues with a far greater degree of empathy than we see elsewhere. No... thank you... for the laugh at your expense ! Your definitely at the wrong end of this opportunity to bash Thailand..... While the Thai Police can often be critizied, this is not one of those cases - you are on the wrong end of this one.

There are quite a few videos around. One shows the two guys out of the car., Then drinking in a nearby bar. The Passenger was the one involved in the fight. The Driver (car owner?) was the bystander and seemingly didn’t get involved in the fight (none of the videos show him involved in the fight anyway). He was arrested later, but for what ? - drinking in a bar is not illegal, neither is being a bystander of a fight. Quite likely he was ‘about to drink drive’... if he had not done so already but there is no evidence of that for the police to base a DUI charge on - the article covers this (this thread or the other thread). There was some ‘spurious charge’ about driving with red plates at night, but know where is such a law documented (not that I’ve every found or has been quoted on this forum before or others before and the topic has been discussed at length). So... I’m wondering... What exactly the driver was charged with, because it seems he did nothing illegal. The passenger who fought - yes, of course he needs to face the same penalties any other Thai person would face in the same circumstances - he got himself into a fight and has to face the consequences of that. The Thai guy already is facing the consequences of being a willing participant in the fight.

Did you see the videos ( pluriel) ? The Thai was a tiny bit of a guy. The French guy was three times his size ! Nobody does that . The video I saw doesn’t show how the French guy ends up on the floor. It does show the Thai guy trying to kick him while he’s on the floor as other Thai’s are pulling him away. 3x the size you say? sure about that ?.... you mean the French Guy is 150 kgs and the Thai Guy is 50 kgs ? Your exaggeration would be better if you just said he’s about 20% larger... Nobody does that?... what... You mean kicking a guy on the floor ??

He is also using his misunderstood regulation to imply the Motorcyclist who was hit by this illegally U-Turning SUV was also in the wrong and thus at fault for his accident..... not a very clever puppy...

Section 35 clearly states motorcycles. This is your quote. You are wrong. Stop freaking out about it and move on, Mr. Richard Wrong. You are ignoring section 34 - this is why you are wrong.

With your (incorrect) understanding... no motorcycle, or truck, or passenger vehicle, or any private vehicle over 1600 kgs (that means most SUV’s) would be permitted outside of the left most lane and thus never able to overtake any slower vehicle... Section 35 simply serves to rule that all vehicles remain to the left when not passing. Section 34 clearly supersedes this. Clearly on city streets and in busy towns most vehicles are passing others, motorcycles are also ‘mostly’ passing, lane splitting etc and can travel in other lanes when passing !!! (which of course is most of the time in busy traffic).

You are blindly hanging on to section 35 without understanding section 34. Section 34 highlights vehicles can overtake slower vehicles in the left lane. Section 35 only points out slower vehicles must remain in the left lane. Land Traffic Act: http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Road_Traffic_Act_BE_2522_(1979).pdf

One would hope you never have to... Or at least hope that the local government hospital provides adequate cover for your child. IMO - there is a great deal of importance in ensuring our children have the best medical care - a lot can go wrong in their younger years - early identification of issues is paramount. Good medical insurance ensures private care and access to better equipment, doctors who have more time for you etc (I know this is debatable). Wife and son have been with BUPA, LUMA, April, VUMI... Inpatient only... Costs have been about 80,000 baht per year for them both. Different companies load higher premiums for younger children, thus, particularly for younger children its well worth shopping around. Also, it well worth considering ‘international’ vs ‘local’ cover, as local cover can heavily load the renewal premium if ‘something has been treated’ or they can out right reject renewal, where has international companies have stronger regulation for continued cover but also have higher premiums.