kwilco

So you would eat a Soi dog?

people think thwy are being clever by rying to imply there is no difference - really they are just too daft to understand why we eat certain animals and not others - see my earlier post. currently the eating of "exotic species is doing untold hram to the environment and a lot is also damaging to health. - quite appart from the humane aspects -

Again, what is your point?

I don't see your point.

A fallacous appeal to antiquity.... hunting is obsolete in most modern society...it is no longer done as an essential source of protein, it is done for pleasure

Eating of animals is in most cultures a farmed source of protein. You put in a food themat humans don't find easy to eat and produce protein for humans .... you also get other products...it the case of rabbits we get fur as well as meat.. Dogs in most cultures were not bred for meat and do not fall into the usual protein cycle either...dogs have many uses but not producing protein efficiently. There is in most society a culture of eating "exotic" animals. These are not eaten as an essential source of protein but are consumed out of a misguided belief in some archaic cultural benefit e g. medical health animism or virility etc... most of these practices are based on nothing

Apparently it's become very unpopular in Korea.

I'm afraid some do.

"hunter Restaurnats are very common in Thailand and a lot of the stuff they have on the menu is highly damaging to conservation efforts in Thailand's national parks.

in a roundabout way you make the point. The laws of THailand are very inconsistantly enforced and it i=would be more effective if the genaral public start to frown upon the prctice rather than just making it illegal. Nakhon Sakon is/was famous for dog meat - it is vb;eived to have quasi-medical properties - I think it's safe to say that in Thailand it would take more than a law to put a stop to it.

Certain breeds of dogs were bred for the table

Firstly as humans most of th animals we eat for meat are farmed vegetarians - they are away of changing grass and other inedible crops into protiene. Dogs have a diet that makes them inappropriate for human consumption. But when eaten in places like Thailand and Korea, they are not properly farmed and often just caught offf the road - they don't follow hygienic food production methods and th habit of cooking them live is rather inhumane

I see Korea has taken measures against the eating of dogs. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/jan/09/south-korea-votes-to-ban-production-and-sale-of-dog-meat I wonder how this will affect Thailand? Will the Thai government take similar measures?

What does tht mean? - "of other cases"? the norm for alcohol in incidents is about 33% so why this enormous jump - the key word being "cases"? are to conclude that the police only prosecuted DUI and ignored all other offences? What precisely are they doing here?

Glad to hear it. - it explains this sweeping racist syereotype "My assertion is that the average Thai , or actually the majority of Thais do not care as much as you do, they barely give it a second thought, its been like this since they became mobile."

there you are - racist and derogatory comment. Why is it that racistis spend so much time arguing they aren't racist?

you hope!!

tp better understand the problems Thai faces, I'd suggest that people familiarise themslelves with the 5 Es of road safety. The 5 Es of Road Safety in Thailand These are basically the international tenets of the Safe System road safety method. The 5 Es were first mentioned in Thailand at the ASEAN road safety conference about 2007 successive Thai governments have failed to adopt this as it would interfere with such things as the constitution, road building and other government interests For over 3 decades Thailand has had various “Road Safety Action Plans” and has espoused the virtues of the 5 “E”s (it has to be said with little effect) ... but without them, Road Safety in Thailand is doomed. These are 5 “E”s of road safety….. 1. Education 2. Enforcement 3. Engineering 4. Emergency 5. Evaluation 1. Education This is fairly self-explanatory - people need to be told/shown how to drive and given the “tools” to share the road with other users – This goes way beyond a solitary driving test when people first start driving. UK had several government TV campaigns in the 60s and 70s. Clever well thought out ads with a bit of humour that weren’t condescending and helped to establish the country as a safe place to drive. (Do you remember the elephant in the fog?). Education of drivers continues throughout their driving life. The first people to educate in Thailand would be the police. 2. Enforcement Again self-explanatory - but Thailand has the added problem of ingrained corruption, graft and bribery which impedes this, no matter how many laws are passed. The laws need to be reasonable applicable and equitably enforced too. The police and courts need to be trained to deal with it 3. Engineering: - most critics of (Thai) road safety usually ignore this aspect of road safety. It falls into 2 categories …. A - Vehicle engineering - Safer car design and engineering: - car safety is both “passive” (seat belts, airbags and construction etc.) and “Active” (braking steering, handling, traction control etc.) these two are really interdependent now with so much computerised and hi-tech features on modern vehicles. Active safety features are designed to prevent collisions and accidents from happening. Passive safety features, meanwhile, are meant to mitigate the damage of a collision that is unavoidable · Anti-locking brakes (ABS) · Side impact bars · AVCSS – “Advanced Vehicle Control and Safety Systems" · Electronic stability control (ESC) · Traction control · Air-bags · More reliable engine, tyres and components · Vehicle dynamics in general (they vary from UK and Thailand) Of course, roadworthiness checks are vital - but totally unenforced in Thailand. B - Road Engineering - The design and construction on the roads, bridges, junctions, road surface, camber, drainage etc. · The use of barriers and median (e.g. Armco), the removal of roadside hazards - e.g. trees or boulders on the side and centre of roads. The clearing of billboards and vegetation that obscure drivers’ vision · Traffic - the use of lines, signs, bollards etc. etc. to dictate how and where the traffic flows and at what speed - virtually non-excitant in Thailand and seldom noticed by drivers in countries that make good use of it. · Better infrastructure and engineering · Better road surfaces · Better signage · More forgiving · Traffic calming · Shared space - keeping various road users apart is key to safety in some situations - if they are separated they can’t collide. Like so many things on the roads in Thailand, the only reason that U-Turns happen is because the road authorities ALLOW it.... this is a design and engineering problem (and a cost reduction exercise), not so much a driver problem. 4. Emergency - What happens in the event of injury... this is a major factor in who lives or dies. It has been well documented that the time between accident and getting treatment is crucial in the survival of RTI victims. Treatment on the scene and reducing the time it takes to get the patient to hospital is vital. Thailand still has NO EFFECTIVE UNIVERSAL EMERGENCY SERVICE!! Ambulances have no standard equipment levels and what comes to your aid at an accident could be anything from a boy-racer pickup truck through van to a partially equipped ambulance. Paramedics are seldom fully trained. 5. Evaluation - How do we ascertain if measures are effective and what new ideas can be implemented. Most governments have agencies of some sort that after engaging any road scheme, whether it is construction or a safety campaign, review in detail every aspect of that project; effects on local population, environment, accident statistics etc. etc. Statistics are gathered and monitored and appropriate action taken. - Whereas Thailand may nominally have such bodies their effectiveness is just about zero. Road safety in Thailand is left largely to ill-thought out, baseless pronouncements made by members of the government with little better to do. Statistics collected in Thailand are incomplete, amateurish and don’t eve correlate with international conventions.

now youre no longer arguing the debate, you are just ad hom and sealoning. (BTW - I undertook rests at a University in the UK as part of my training in road safety.) I don't educate peopoe you do that at university - it seems very common on this thread that people with no konwledge of road safet (or cannabis) are preapred just to say stuff based on nothing more than their lack of understanding. Weed might be detected in your system for up to 90 days after you’ve taken the drug, depending on a number of factors, including Why instead of getting sidelined don't you actually say something intelligent about road safety in Thailand - or at least go research something about it - you are arguing from a vacuum at the moment.

You are still fixating on driving which I have already explained is not the right way to analyse road safety. And now you are advocating intoxication in a debate about road safety. Is that what your do? There is a common misconception (about 50% amongst cannabis users that they can drive safely after smoking. THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, can impair a person's levels of attention and their perception of time and speed, important skills you might think for driving a car. - One meta-analysis of 60 studies found that marijuana use causes impairment on every measure of safe driving, including motor-coordination, visual function and completion of complex tasks. It is also worth bearing in mind that unlike alcohol cannabis stays in the bloodstream for up to 2 weeks. However I can tell you that II have driven way more miles than most people almost certainly you, judging by your comments - Thailand for 20 years and several vehicles. I enjoy driving both professionally and recreationally on 4 and 2 wheels and it has been shown that I am unusually relaxed when driving much more so than in other situations. As said it isn't driving it is how you analyse and understand the whole driving environment that is important in terms of road safety - It is worth noting that people who find themselves getting wound up and insulting other road users - like yourself - are more probably at fault themselves than the other drivers - they just get wound up because they are unable to adapt to driving in unfamiliar circumstances - so if you are of the opinion that you are better driver than the other road users, I would suggest you need to step back take a deep breath as it is quite possible that you are the one who is in danger on Thai roads. You might also bear in mind that many people aim their vitriol at drivers of 4-wheeled vehicles - the truth is you are more likely to die in a 4-wheeled vehicle in America than you are in Thailand. such is the skewed perception of expats in Thailand.

You don't seem to realise that that isn't an argument - which kind of backs up what I was saying. IdF I'm making a fool of myself, I would have thought someone like you would enjoy it, but I suspect you just feel uncomfortable not understanding my point of view so you just plead "make it stop" - you need to think why.

Yes- tht is the norm, not just for Thailand but holidays al over the world. Of course the statisitcs released so far can only be regarded at bast as a guidleline - they are nape-of-the-neck reactions by the RTP - and quite apart from their abiity to calculate some of the "causes" are just plain bizarre. YHe first thing is of course that the death staistics can rise - normally real statisitcs are not released for 6 to 12 months - there also is no preper scientific analuysis of any crasg=hes, just a local cop rubbing his chin - doubt if they even get a. tape measure out.

No, I said your comments were racist, and explained why.

people who use the word "expert" as a term of abuse to describe others usually do so because they themselves no nothing about a topic, can't argue against it a therefore use it in a derogatory sense - but it still has no meaning. Another thing they do is resort to sealioning. So - "evidence" - what evidence would you like? and furthermore what counter-evidence have you presented?

Why is it that people think that just because they drive or have driven somewhere they consider themselves to be in a position to comment of road safety? BTW - I have driven in Edmonton, Alberta and Vancouver BC, as well as Washington, Oregon and California. I've also driven in Australia, Morocco, Italy, Spain, Portugal Germany, France Netherlands, Belgium, Switzerland, Luxembourg Austria I've driven FURTHER than you in Thailand and also in Laos and Malaysia. but that doesn't make be an expert of road safety - it is the analysis I get from critically thinking about road safety and working in a traffic engineers department that helps most. People are incapable of interpreting what they see - what they call "experience" is in reality just an accumulation of bad habits backed up by confirmation bias and a liberal dose of cognitive dissonance.