richard_smith237

3 minutes ago, novacova said:

How could they ever know being that the first initial act of stupidity is consuming the mind altering substance. 

 

Personally, I think its a great substance. I also think alcohol is great.

 

These gummies help me chill out, help with sleep etc...  they have plenty of effective purposes rather than the sole goal of getting smashed. 

 

As does alcohol, which can help with relaxation, a good beer, whisky, wine tastes great with dinner or after etc, again without the sole goal of getting smashed. 

 

 

Both clearly impair driving - there is no doubt about that and 100% proof of that exists. 

 

 

IT is the suggestion that someone who is high solely on Marijuana would not take a running taxi, drive it down the road 'could not happen' because Marijuana doesn't make people do that is plain stupid....   

... People do stupid things, they do stupid things while sober - just because someone is high, it doesn't stop them from doing stupid things - as seems to be the suggesting by some.

 

 

1 minute ago, MarkBR said:

The Yaba users while on motorbikes, mopeds or cars are a nightmare

 

Agreed... And the long distance truck drivers who are so wired they've lost the use of a brake pedal.... 

12 minutes ago, kiwikeith said:

I saw a weed shop in Hua Hin soi51 next to a Dr's clinic , the shop was named Overdose, and was advertising premium and lower grades of dope, notice said cant smoke in the shop and no selling to under 20.

I don't think there was THC control on what he was selling by the contents of his dope menu.

So it may be quite easy to get very strong thc dope that can do strange things to people.

Stealing a Taxi was an idiot act, dope wouldn't cause someone to steal a taxi but it still can screw a person up if it's really strong.

What some tourists do here is very crazy they can be crazy and smoke gungha and drink and drive.

Probably why the roads seem much madder now, with locals smoking and driving.

 

Agreed on the amounts...     There is plenty of very high THC product about.

I've seen Gummies for sale that each have 50mg THC while the norm is about 15mg THC for a Gummy.

... Someone taking a 50mg THC Gummy is going to be smashed - I can't see how anyone could drive after consuming such amounts. 

 

Equally so, I've seen CBD only vapes (with no or very low THC) which people are using to assist with sleep, though I don't know how effective they are.

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, shackleton said:

The Thai government promoted the use of these  products 

So probably think the money 💰 made from the sales to people especially Foreigners tourists ect  is worth the cost 🤔 

 

What cost ?

 

Just curious - what is the 'cost' of people using Marijuana ?

 

More on the roads having accidents etc ?...  I'd suggest that is minimal, although surely exists - but nowhere to the extent of drink driving or driving while coked up or on Amphetamine etc.

 

 

 

 

4 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Still Blabbing Nonsense take another hit or is it your day off 

 

OK... so you're unable to tackle the debate... 

 

Just own up to lacking the smarts to hold a discussion...    actually, there's no need for such a confession - your comments have already betrayed your lack of mental capacity to debate such topics. 

5 minutes ago, Irish star said:

Go back to school, when you get your PHD get back to us ffs 

1 minute ago, Irish star said:

Please stop annoying us with your long comments of No Substance 

 

OK - so you can't handle the discussion....   

... the result of marijuana abuse perhaps... 

 

IF you think that someone driving while high (on Marijuana) is safe - then you are a fool....  and a dangerous fool if you also drive while high...    As much of a dangerous fool as someone who drives while drunk. 

 

IF you believe that the 'calming' influence of marijuana is so effective it stops people from doing 'dumb shyit' then that also highlights your intellectual dwarfism.

 

 

2 hours ago, MarkBR said:

That is a definite symptom of alcohol, thinking they are still capable for driving.  If you know of valid evidence on the impairment of driving by cannabis consumption (low-strength to high-strength - there may be a difference) I would be grateful & interested to read these articles.

Alcohol is known to be highly deleterious, hence all the laws against drinking & driving.   I would suspect strongly that alcohol was involved.

PS I do not use cannnabis in any form.

 

The laws are against driving 'under the influence' which means under the influence of Alcohol, amphetamine, Marijuana etc etc... 

 

The difference is that while tools in the UK are used such as 'Drugwipe' made by Securetec and is used to  screen for Cannabis, Cocaine, Ecstasy, Ketamine, Benzodiazepines, Methadone, Morphine or opiates....  those same tests are not utilised in Thailand at the roadside where the only road side test that exit is for alcohol (breathalysers) - unless the police also want to test for Amphetamine (peeing in a cup type test).

 

Thus, in Thailand the Police don't test drivers for Marijuana - that requires either a urine and / or blood test back at the station. 

 

 

I do use Marijuana, perhaps a couple of times per week and enjoy doing so... 

I'd never drive having consumed Marijuana - but if I did drive while very high, its very probable I'd crash as impairment is extremely obvious IMO. 

 

 

I think it is perfectly feasible that this guy did not have a drink and was high on Marijuana...     I also believe its perfectly feasible that he was drunk and was also high on Marijuana...  none of us can know for sure... 

 

... There seem to be some on here who are overly defensive of Marijuana and stating that this 'could not happen' while some one is under the influence of 'only' marijuana - which IMO is a ridiculous thing to suggest... people do stupid stuff while perfectly sober, its not as if marijuana suddenly makes people law abiding citizens !!! 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 hours ago, smedly said:

the problem is getting police to do their job catching and prosecuting those insisting on driving while intoxicated, when people believe there is near zero risk of being caught they will continue

 

... and if / when the Police do catch someone, actually go through the process of prosecuting them rather than accepting the bribe and allowing the very same driver they've caught for being drunk then continue to drive and go and kill someone !!!... 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Or even teach people how to drive better.

 

My grandmother paid for me to do an advanced driving course when I first got my license. Very helpful as it teaches you how to really handle a car rather than just following road rules.

 

And gives you the false sense of belief that you are not impaired while driving drunk...  

 

 

1 hour ago, OneMoreFarang said:

About the gap: When I bought my tiles they had detailed instructions on the boxes.

I read them. And I made sure my contractor also read them and acted accordingly.

 

 

 

And watched them like a hawk while doing so, so that they didn't revert to just going through the motions without thinking.

 

Hopefully your contractor did a good job - Even out of the best ones, I've still have not had a contractor that has done anything other than 'an average job'... 

On 5/4/2022 at 12:18 PM, ThailandRyan said:

I have wooden laminate in my Condo, and the flooring near my sliders to the main balcony have started to become soft in some spots as the bonding agent, or cement used has deteriorated.

 

Water ingress...     We had the same and some of the flooring near the edges closer to bathroom leak had become soft (starting to rot)...  

 

Decided to relay the whole floor and do a proper job of it.  Contractors were a waste of time, reckoned they could do everything in one day (rip up old floor, install new) - no chance of that... they didn't turn up on the first day...  Were late on the second so I pulled the plug and decided to do it all myself. 

 

Hard work and shagged my knees, took me 5 days, but in the end a better job than they would have done - which is a little surprising as the some of the skirting board corners, at the doors etc are very tricky to get 'spot on'.

 

----------

 

The standard of workmanship in Thailand is generally atrocious - if there is a shortcut to be taken, it will be taken (thats probably true of labourers everywhere), but those shortcuts come back to haunt us later on - which doesn't matter for the workmen who have long gone by then. 

So, the only thing to do is 'look over their shoulder' all the time - which pi$$es them off and causes lots of debate about about the right way to do things... and 'This is the Thai way'  type responses as if that golden droplet supersedes international standards and common sense !!!... 

 

In this case 'popping tiles' its clear that the tiles have been laid with the incorrect bond and laid too close - not an issue initially, until of course, this happens. 

 

I know of a case where a foreigner had his whole floor done on the ground floor.

Paid for the job, weeks later many the tiles popped up - the contractor refused to come and fix the issue. The foreigner took the case to court and won. The contractor had to fix the issue or return the costs (money paid) so another contractor could come in and do the job... Great, a win in court !!!...  the contractor disappeared and was never heard from again !!!..  So, even with a court win - nothing happend.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Because Thai law does not allow that for offence of the type with which Vorayuth is charged.

 

Laws can be 'altered' under special circumstances, particularly when the interests of the general public are concerned - in this case the 'interests of the general public are that the a legal system is followed even for those seemingly untouchable'... 

 

... all thats happening at the moment is that the process reconfirms that those who are considered untouchable, are in fact, untouchable and the law is dual tiered favouring the wealthy - as if anyone ever thought any differently anyway.

 

 

In the UK just recently a Judge overruled that the name of a minor to be released to prevent further rioting in the UK (following the Southport attacks) - I know the UK is a different country, but the legal systems are very similar. 

 

Given such examples - there is no reason why a 'judicial ruling' can not be applied - that the case is tried in absentia or at least removing the statute of limitations due to his fleeing and absense. 

9 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It is because the member forces of Interpol do not need any public "assistance" that may be generated by civilians seeing wanted notices for the likes of Vorayuth - it would be of no help to the relevant authorities as all the police forces already have the information that he is the subject of a red notice.

 

Make sense.... But it also 'opens up the void' to speculation that the notice has been removed (hence the comments in this thread).

 

That in itself can lead to a certain degree of unrest and lasting distrust in the policing services.

 

Removing the Red Notice for Vorayuth from the public domain is an extremely clumsy move IMO. There is no evidence for the general public the notice still exists - this in itself lends to the very suspicious being drawn here and amongst the Thai public that this man continues to secure 'assistance' from authorities who may be 'turning a blind eye' instead of doing all they can to catch him.

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

There is clear evidence that canna­bis, like alcohol, impairs the psycho­motor skills required for safe driving.[2] Cannabis intoxication slows reaction time and impairs automated tasks such as tracking ability (staying within a lane) or monitoring the speedometer. 

In simulator studies, high doses of cannabis caused drivers to “crash” into a sudden obstacle more often.

 

100% agree..... 

 

I think the arguments presented so far imply that another substance was involved as 'weed makes lovers not fighters'...   i.e. under the consumption of marijuana people become chilled, less aggressive etc...   they are usually comparing to violent drunks etc.

 

Nevertheless, marijuana has psychoactive properties which makes people do strange things...    things as strange as seeing a running car and thinking... I'll take it for a drive !!! 

11 minutes ago, JBChiangRai said:

Are we supposed to guess where "locally" is?

 

There is no official system in place for 'disabled parking'... 

 

One would have thought that a driver could take a Doctors letter to the DLT and obtain a 'disabled parking badge' to display - but no such sticker / badge exists - which pretty much tells us all we need to know regarding how the rights of the less abled are considered here. 

 

Thus: IF you just want a sticker or badge - download or purchase one off the net. 

 

There is no 'resource' for obtaining one locally. 

 

 

--------

 

Disabled parking seems to be applied on a very hit n miss basis.. 

 

 

We see an older car in a disabled parking space and thing, valid use. 

 

Just a couple of days ago I saw a Bentley Flying Spur (Number plate 9999 I think) parked across two disabled spaces (yes thats right one large disabled space was not enough, the driver straddled two spaces)... Now, maybe the driver (or passenger) was genuinely disabled - there was is way to tell....  But I was sceptical. 

 

In short: what I see is the the disabled spaces being controlled by the parking attendant: usually there is a cone etc... IF you are disabled, you can ask them to move the cone, they may ask to see some sort of Dr's letter perhaps, or they may just decided to move the cone if they like you... 

Alternatively, (at a guess) they'll let you park in the disabled spot if you wave 100 baht at them etc or if you look hi-so enough that saying no to them may compromise your lowly position. 

 

To summarise: Get your own badge - and just see how you get along as trying to get anything official is no-goer. 

 

 

 

 

28 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

13 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

...until it wasn't.  Doesn't mean that it is not there for police forces' uses.

Prove it was moved, otherwise you speak BS... Shame on you

 

Firstly, get his name correct - is Lou not Joe, which implies that in your haste to argue you lack an attention to basic detail.

 

Back on topic: Liverpool Lou has pointed out on here and in other threads - while the Interpol Red Notice was public record, not all Police and Interpol Records are public record or can be accessed by the general members of public - there are apparently 1000's and 1000's of notices that we, the public do not get to see.

 

You (Aussie999) are arguing that the notice has been completely removed because the general public can no longer find the Interpol Red Noice on the publicly accessible area's  Interpol's Website - Just because you cannot see the notice, it does not mean that it is removed from Interpol's Intranet.

 

Liverpool Lou is arguing that the notice remains on the Interpol Intranet, while no longer accessible to the general public - that seems perfectly feasible, although I don't know why they would do that.

 

 

11 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:

   If you are watching it in public, then you are showing it in public 

 

And if you are watching it [porn] in public and staring at females to such a degree they / someone is made uncomfortable or threatened - then there is an issue which needs to be dealt with.

 

Its possible this cafe owner prevented a sexual assault. 

 

Its possible this cafe owner over reacted - but then, if I opened a video on the BTS and it was pornographic, I'd close it straight away....   

In fact I don't open messages from 'some message groups' in public because of the possibility of such content. 

 

 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

Personally, I think we went down a slippery slope when we started to criminalise behaviour that does not cause actual harm. Like I said, it has been this way for a long time, even among males a prolonged stare could be construed as "threatening behaviour" and thus technically common assault.

 

All legal slopes are somewhat slippery when it comes to criminalisation, thats why the legal system often so complex - however, what would you consider of phycological harm ?

... women, even people feeling petrified ?...    people need to be protected and thats the measure of a civilised society.

 

And no - the law differentiates between harassment and assault. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

However, this guy in Berkshire, if he spent half a year in prison for looking at this woman, he is sure to come out hating women even more. He had issues to start with most likely, but incarceration for looking, he's bound to feel aggrieved and may come out worse than before.

 

Possibly, but should someone remain 'un-punished' because they may become worse due to the punishment ??...    they're already a 'wrong-un' if they are behaving in such a manner to cause prolonged discomfort that it is considered harassment - thus, there needs to be some detergent if such examples are common place -

 

Note: A survey carried out by the British Transport Police recorded that 33% of females have endured 'sexual harassment' while travelling on the Train or the Tube.

 

Thus: 'looking' is the thin end of the wedge... Also, this is not just 'looking' but leering, being lecherous, staring in such a manner for such a duration that the other party is made to feel uncomfortable and unsafe. 

 

People who behave in such an antisocial manner need to be dealt with - if not, there exists a risk of escalation. 

 

Though, as mentioned earlier - safeguards need to be put in place to limit false accusations. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

You're right of course that it would be very rare for a woman to invoke this law about staring, I was thinking more about the second scenario you mention, if someone maliciously wanted to bring a prosecution  then it would be an evidential matter. If she can bring 2 or 4 friends who give witness statements it would be impossible for the man to prove he's innocent and the look never happened or was of "normal" duration.

 

In such examples there is also a risk of perjury and potentially causing a miscarriage of justice which also has serious consequences.

I suspect there would need to be more evidence than 'just witness statements' of friends which may well involve bias. 

 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

But it is fairly academic, neither of the above cases would happen a lot. With this Thai man, if he had looked at my family I may have started feeling uncomfortable, sure, was it antisocial, sure. But should he spend half a year in prison? I would say no. If no actual harm was done, I find hard to justify depriving anyone of liberty and proceed to a custodial sentence, if he did not cause actual harm.

 

I tend to agree...      Though, we (the public and on this forum) are also very quick to condemn authorities when they do nothing proactive as a preventative measure. 

 

Its an impossible metric to measure - but could this publicity have prevented the guy from committing sexual assault ?

 

A prison sentence is incredibly extreme - but that also depends on the seriousness, extent and duration of the behavior - I don't think action should rely on actual harm there are assault charges for that, harassment is a more minor offence but still causes psychological harm. 

 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

I know there are good arguments for ciriminal offences where no harm is done, the shouting fire in a crowded cinema argument, but it really is a slippery slope.

 

Agree, nevertheless legislation needs to be in place for the greater good of society - in this case, those less able to protect themselves need protection by the law. 

 

15 minutes ago, Cameroni said:

It's a good thing most women are unware how easy it is to get a man thrown in prison.

 

Is it that easy ???   There are of course very public and extreme circumstances of unfair accusation and sentencing... but there are also public and extreme circumstances of false accusation and the accuser is charged (example: Eleanor Williams jailed for 8.5 years for her wrongful accusations).

 

 

 

 

 

OK - thats this weeks van crash... 

We've also had this weeks 'lorry blasts through red light killing someone'... 

 

 

Whats next...   this months bus down a ravine or boat capsize  ????? 

1 hour ago, AsiaCheese said:

We have so much to learn from today's intelligencia, the YouTubers with an urge to prove to the world that they can be more stupid than the scale permits.

 

Haven't we all done stupid things in the past when young ????

 

We use to pay the TukTuk drivers a little extra and go into an empty car park and have a go...   It was great fun, although, with the benefit of hindsight also stupid. 

 

 

Thats not suggesting what this guy did was right at all, just that he is being heavily condemned on here for doing stupid shyite, when plenty of us have also done stupid shyite in our younger years -

 

Are we just jealous that he's making millions for doing stupid stuff while we had to work ????

 

 

 

 

 

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

I thought that driving a tuk-tuk was something reserved for Thai nationals only.  I hope the full force of the law is brought down against this maroon.

 

Erm...  really - thats your take away ???...  Driving a TukTuks is reserved for Thai Nationals only? - its not by the way..  Foreigners can drive a TukTuk if its a private conveyance and taxed etc....

 

Though obviously very daft and dangerous to others with his initial behavior - his response to take accountability will likely see him get away with this.

 

2 minutes ago, Foxx said:

I also recall that a few months ago someone was charged with violation of the Protection of Historic Sites Act for damaging a temple wall and faced a maximum imprisonment term of 7 years if found guilty and/or a 700,000 baht fine.

 

https://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/2023/03/30/graffiti-lese-majeste/

 

That was vandalism..  where was an 'accident / incident', albeit a very stupid accident / incident...    the comparison is rather different... 

 

 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Tompa said:

This is a horrible intersection. It's downhill from where the truck comes from and they absolutely floor it across the intersection. Many times they flash their lights and run the red lights as they are too arsed to stop and wait for the next green light. I travel from the opposite side multiple times a week and always wonder how there are not more serious accidents there.

 

In which case the comments and suggestion made by Spidermike appear more necessary. 

 

Authorities are way too soft of such outrageous traffic offences.

 

The surprise here is that the driver hasn't claimed brake failure - As you pointed out above, your 'take on it' is more likely the the cause of the accident...  complete recklessness and driving without any regard for the safety of anyone else. 

 

 

 

 

Authorities just don't care - this driving will continue until effective action is taken with a degree of consistency to form a deferent.