kwilco

what do you base that assumption on?

If you look at the photo both vehicles are aligned perfectly to the direction of travel. Why would there be any skid-marks?

THe crash seems to have taken place outside a shopping lay-by. there are road-side rot-ken and a lot of people pull up on the hard shoulder here - it looks like tht is what the SUV has done - either that or he pulled over in front of the M/C. THis piece of road has lots of parking off the road but it doesn't stopp people pulling over on the hard shoulder. THere is a convenience store there so people stop for snacks of their breakfast take aways. I think we really need to know what the SUV was doing there and how long it had been there.

Seriously? You think you can solve THailand's road safety with one single issue??? - you clearly don't understand what I'm talking about - obviously the education bit has missed you out.

QED - absolutely not and that is the attitude that prevents progress. Road safety is a public health issue. the concept of "idiot" or "bad driver" is just plain stupid. Homun behaviour is pretty much constant the world over - what a good road safety plicyty does is protect people from the vagaries of driving Some countries are particularly good at doing this - the unfortunate side effect is that drivers from those countries mistakenly thing they should take the credit - they aren't good drivers, they are just proeteted by a good road safety policy and system.

Yes!

No idea - I was just looking to the max speed for and exaple - whichever way you look at it, it was unlikely that the bike was travelling at 160kph.

Measuring skid marks is from really old crash analysis - most vehicles these days - including the XMAX - have ABS - so the absence of skid marks is very common - they only occur these days after the vehicle has been damaged or completely changed position in relation to travel. THis crash was - pretty straight but on the hard shoulder and one has to presume the SUV was stationary and question why both vehicles were there.

we need to completely change the way we look at ETIs... People fixate of apportioning blame but this is unhelpful and actually an archaic approach. Here are a couple of reasons why focusing on “blame” isn't helpful when analysing road crashes: The main goal after a crash should be preventing future ones. Pinpointing one person as entirely to blame doesn't address the bigger picture: were there road design issues, unclear signage, distracted driving habits, or mechanical failures that contributed? By looking at all contributing factors, we can develop better safety measures to prevent similar crashes. Most people (including the Thai authorities) grossly underestimate the complexity of crashes: Rarely are crashes caused by a single action. There's often a chain of events or contributing factors. (BTW - these are usually missed by videos). Focusing on blame can overshadow these complexities and make it harder to identify ways to prevent future accidents. Instead of the blame game, it is recommended that a data-driven approach that analyses all contributing factors to understand the "why" behind the crash. This can lead to improvements in road design, driver education, and vehicle safety features. Thailand simply doesn’t achieve this at all.

I think you need to get up to speed on police crash reports - the fact tet they are already guessing is not good - but in Thailand the analysis of RTIs is basically back in the stone-age. Have you ever seen the statistics? Comparethem to countries with low road deaths and injuries - every minute detail is recorded and analysed - Thailand gets nowhere near this. If fyou want to get an idea how it should be done - check out this site... https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/reported-road-accidents-vehicles-and-casualties-tables-for-great-britain#all-collision-casualty-and-vehicle-tables-excel-format

now as ever just guessing - what is the point? What is needed is a police force who can hand in a comprehensive crash report and not just gossip to the media. If Thailand is to improve road safety they need to have a comprehensive set of analyses and statistics to work from. Palying childish guessing games based on prejudice doesn't help, it actually harms any progress towards safer roads. It also shows what incredibly bad drivers the commentators themselves are.

we are talking about a particular m/c in a precise accident not how fast you bike can go.

to assess the damage you can't just look at it. You have to tke into account that the rear of the car is designed to collapse and crumple to absorb impact. You need to know the mass of th m/c and also the speed of the SUV - I suspect it had stopped suddenly? THe spare tire looks like a diversion - they are normally stored inside the rear - if it had been a custom job bolted to the rear door it would have had a highly detrimental affect on the impact. you also need to accurately calculate the kinetic energy stored in the m/c and it is clear the police haven't dome this.

THat is a most facile comment a "one quote wonder" - the actual top speed depends on where you look and of course the conditon of the bike, the weather conditions, the weight of the passenger etc etc - - - as I said it would be pushed to do 160 kph. And of course you have to h=take into account the calibration of the speedo.

It seems the police assessment of this incident falls way short of the standards one would expect from a preoper scientific analysis of the crash. No science just supposition and prejudice.

what do you base that on??

THat is not a reasoned conclusion. Assuming the bike was a 400 cc top of the range - it would be hard pushed to get up to 160kph. What it possible is the electronic speedo or mechanical was affected y the collision. If the wheel of the bike had left the ground during impact it may also have spun up to that speed whilst absorbing energy from the two vehicles.

It seems they are talking about provinces. Although last March in Pattaya it was crammed

PM 2.5 figures are the really worrying ones.

Unless there is a huge social sea-change, we need private 4-wheeled transport. THe OP "ICE vs EV, the debate thread" is really a false dichotomy. For a start one needs to define ICE - as some hydrogen vehicles may be ICE. THe production costs and raw materials for traditional cars have the same but different dark sides too. Again we get the appearance of the "not a lot of people know that" brigade who want to emphasise single issues with EVs as if they mean we should revert to fossil fuel ICEs. For instance child labour is a red-herring – this crops up in production systems all over the world for different products – and it has to be stopped but it isn’t a reason to stop making EVs., trainers, jeans, drilling oil (Nigeria) etc etc…. (https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/press-release/2011/08/un-confirms-massive-oil-pollution-niger-delta/#:~:text=According to UNDP%2C more than,clean up all oil spills. ) The truth is we are not returning to fossil fuelled cars. Nowadays, any car built today is built with FAR more consideration to the 3 phases. For those who haven't considered them, they are 1. production - from raw materials to product 2. usage - the life of the car 3. disposal - how much of the vehicle is reduced, reused and recycled Any transport requires energy and it is how that affects MMCC that is important. Emissions are the obvious but how and WHERE they are emitted is also important. Centrally generated energy can be far less polluting than mobile devices spreading climate change gases as they go. Central power generation is changing too and the emissions are much more easy to monitor and control The motor industry in general has accepted the concept of EVS and within a short time they will undercut fossil fuel ICEs in every way. The key factor being annual cost of ownership. Hydrogen may be an alternative in the future – Toyota have done a huge amount of research into hydrogen vehicles – even selling production cars – as yet it isn’t viable but this may change. The other side of EV v ICE is that we already use static hydrogen power in hosptitals aetc and other vehicles and static uses will also supplant fossil fuels – power generation, shipping, railways and maybe even aircraft. 4-wheeled private vehicles are only part of a major turnaround.

...and do the same from ICEs? Must be something else then?

QED

seriously - how dumb can you be? So how do you get your scientific information?

Like just posting anything next to you? You don't even have to be that smart to see how dumb denying theories are

You know that's wrong don't you? - Do you seriously think that scientists have overlooked the cyclical nature of climate change - unlike you they have done the msth and understand the difference.