Cat Boy

No I'm saying Thailand is both a broken democracy and a failed dictatorship. There is a parliamentary, constitutional monarchical system and there are also, naturally, invisible forces both intentionally circuitous and byzantine

One is reminding of the expression : " If you don't like Scottish weather, wait 30 minutes, and it is likely to change." Raymond Bonner The same can be said about news of changes in Thai law

One can only presume this question is 1) rhetorical and 2) satirically absurd. Its not an easy, nor bloodless, path to attain the status of more military coups against democratically elected governments than any other country in the world 🌍

Birds of a feather: "UnitedHealth secretly paid nursing homes to cut hospital care, Guardian reports" https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news/unitedhealth-secretly-paid-nursing-homes-to-cut-hospital-care-guardian-reports-052125.html Healthcare Insurance companies, where universal healthcare does not exist, are motivated solely by profit derived by payment then doing everything possible to deny coverage or, in this case, eliminate liability (the elderly).

The short answer is "no", health insurance is not worth it for a long term stay in Thailand. The long answer has already been covered in previous identical posts. Namly,: 1) Denial of claims based on either pre-existing conditions (note, chronic conditions acquired whilst under coverage will subsequently be considered as pre-existing resulting in termination and non-renewal. 2) Insurance puts a non-medical third party into the decision process for proper care between patients and doctors. That third party is solely motivated by profit, read: denial, or delay of treatment or minimizing to substandard inadequate treatment 3) Aging out, at a certain age the cost of health is becomes expensive for the insured while the insurer will seek any possible way to get out from coverage and or cancel coverage. The only sure method to insure coverage is to take charge oneself, save and invest the money otherwise thrown away on insurance and provide your own safety network.

Am I missing something? How is this change? How is this "tightening" or "restricting"? 11-14:00 and 17-24:00 was already the law of the land, except on Buddhist holidays and Election days.

The Swede was neither guilty nor a victim, he made poor choices, but perhaps even that was a choice, we'll never know. But, yes, had he been wearing horns, befitting his Viking heritage, the whole story would have been ever so much more interesting an exit, and well worthy of relating to the grandchildren of how grandpa went that-a-way. https://external-content.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=https%3A%2F%2Fichef.bbci.co.uk%2Face%2Fws%2F660%2Fcpsprodpb%2F392D%2Fproduction%2F_116373641_gettyimages-1294932124.jpg.webp&f=1&nofb=1&ipt=1515bfa852357c8d47141f83ed982393548e68d9c72e0c8211665dcf320e430d

In all due respect, you've either not reviewed, or misinterpreted the context within which my comment was made. The original comment by another person to which my response to was directed, "Then they should remove as many Thais from the roads as possible. They are the ones who can't drive". That is NOT showing respect, assimilation or empathy for our Thai brethren of which we reside in their country as guests. That's just racist xenophobia, plain and simple. My comment was NOT intended to invalidate others opinions or comments wherein they suggest positive change, such as improving driver training, or testing prior to licensure, or improving enforcement of existing laws, my comment was here rather, to push back, on those who condemn all Thai as somehow inferior and incapable of driving safely or adhering to laws established, again, that's not assimilation or empathy, quite the opposite, its armchair bitterness, and anger aimed to incite hatred of Thai, and thus inspire similar in reverse. That I cannot abide.

No one here is an apologist or apologizing for dangerous behavior. There is a huge difference between offering an explanation and and a justification or excuse. Thailand's traffic mortality rate is at or near the top globally, there is no excuse or justification for that. An explanation is poor or entirely absent law enforcement, poor or non-existent drivers training, leaving Thai drivers, however wrongly, to believe that, since they're not going to get caught, fined or penalized in any way, anything goes. Again, that's an explanation, NOT an excuse, NOT a justification, NOT an apology. Given your self-proclaimed hatred of everyone equally, try dialing it back a bit, to propose solutions rather than generalized, broad-based condemnations of an entire society that leads nowhere. Clearly law enforcement and driver training is warranted, plain and simple, to begin and improve better compliance to existing statutes in the general population.

Absolutely hilarious and in a large measure why I avoid social media and farang in general, endless bitterness and complaining. That I inspired hate by some little comment you disagree with says more about you than it does me. Take your meds, or you'll have an aneurism.

True enough. There was none of that. It was a closed course. Kinda artificial situation. In the US it was on the actual streets and roads. The US is actually a bad example for leniency. I'm to understand that the UK by contrast is quite strict, with many nationals choosing not to drive, and foreigners giving up. Both standards are better than presently in place in Thailand, particularly where motorbikes are concerned - the primary cause of vehicular accident and fatalities.

That's an enforcement issue. And again, their country, their law enforcement, their citizens abidance to their laws. Your position as a farang is limited to endless whinged about it on social media, or better yet, not driving at all, and keeping your negative views to yourself.

As far as I know both are required. When I got my Thai driver's license I had to take both a "written" test (it was point and click multiple choice questions on a desktop computer after watching a long video that was at least 90 minutes), and a hands-on driving test. For the driving test they had a car, or cars, at some nominal cost, like 100 baht. Test was like parallel parking and backing into spaces. I failed the driving test the first time, I think I bumped a cone or something. I hadn't driven for 10 years. Second test went fine. I used the license as an ID card. I never actually drove. Driving was fun as a teenager, later commuting to and from work it became a tedious bore. Having moved to Thailand if I never drove again that would be great for me.

Its their country, NOT yours.

Hindsight. Its easy to judge the actions of others when you weren't there, 3 am outside a bar, surrounded by others who were likely also heavily intoxicated, in a highly charged, emotional situation. The lady in the video was his wife. She tried to rouse him, but was unsuccessful. One can only imagine her frustration and panic. Yes, obviously, moving "witch hats" would have been the logical thing to do, but you're ignoring the human element, which isn't logical in such situations, In fact, without extensive training and preparedness in emergency situations, it's highly unlikely that simply saying "I would do...." this in such a situation, or "why didn't they do that.....it's obvious", carries any validity at all.

It was the Yellow Shirt protests that closed the airports, PAD, the Anti-Thaksin, so-called "Ultra-Royalist". They had previously protested every Friday in Lumpini, but that was fairly contained. Later the Red Shirts took over and occupied Lumpini Park for months, and trashed it. That's what precipitated the violence under Abisit that resulted in the deaths of 76. You'll also recall that it was the Red Shirts protests disrupt the ASEAN Conference in your supposed safe-haven Pattaya precipiting heads of state to be evacuated by helicopters from the roofs of venues. https://factsanddetails.com/southeast-asia/Thailand/sub5_8a/entry-3198.html

She was his wife. Its far too easy to place judgment based on a video after the fact. Information here is quite limited and hindsight is always 20/20. Its 3 am, the Swede had been drink heavily, as had perhaps everyone else nearby, she couldn't move him, others weren't alarmed and why would they necessarily. Very easy to say first she should have moved traffic cones nearby around him then stand vigil to wave her arms to protect him, but people don't always behave logically in the same way others might see it, in the light of day,they panic, that being a highly charged, emotional situation. There's is shared negligence in this incident, however I'm not seeing hers as being culpable, actionable nor worthy of the hindsight judgement of others. "There by the grace...", any of us, anyone, could have misjudged and made the same mistake. With that said, there are many places to pass out from excess drink, on the sidewalk, at home, or inside the bar where he had been drinking. Passing out and shinning assistant is primarily on him, not others. RIP Swede, you did this to yourself, you're not a victim.

Apparently not hard enough. As reported by The Thaiger: "The man, later identified as Paul, a 54 year old Swedish national, was groaning in pain after his head had been crushed by the vehicle’s wheel. He was immediately given first aid and transported to a nearby hospital, but later succumbed to his injuries." The woman, shown in the video, who tried to raise him from the parking lot pavement unsuccessfully, prior to the impact, was his wife. Not a very happy story to tell the grandkids about whatever happened to grandpa. https://thethaiger.com/news/pattaya/drunk-swede-run-over-after-passing-out-in-pattaya-car-park

I saw it here on Asean Now Forum a few hours ago, but, Thaiger, the parent company, is likewise reporting : " The man, later identified as Paul, a 54 year old Swedish national, was groaning in pain after his head had been crushed by the vehicle’s wheel. He was immediately given first aid and transported to a nearby hospital, but later succumbed to his injuries. " https://thethaiger.com/news/pattaya/drunk-swede-run-over-after-passing-out-in-pattaya-car-park

Woke means empathy. Any other meaning, beyond the historical context, is just right-wing brainwashing. Whether the Bolt driver would have hit any object, animate or inanimate, is purely conjecture, and irrelevant. There some other points you've misunderstood, but we'll agree to fundamentally disagree. 🥱--> 😴 The Swede is dead, its unlikely there will be any further facts revealed, and tomorrow they'll be another death. So what. 'Nuff said

The driver was working for Bolt, so, it's safe to presume that he's a Thai national. Perhaps you're implying being Thai he's predisposed to negligence in vehicular accidents. I'd say that's a generalization. No, it wasn't the manufacturer's fault, he was driving a normal sedan, not an SUV or Hybrid, and I'll admit that as a bit of a tangent, though valid elsewhere, particularly in the US. In this incident, there is obviously shared negligence, it could have been prevented by either party, and thus the investigation will likely determine joint liability and culpability. RIP Swede

Ahhhh, I see, so it's a more generalized conjecture based on your grouping all Thai drivers as incompetent. Understood

Any other races or nationalities you'd like to eliminate? Genders? Religions? Does "Indians" only refer to people from India? Or does it extend to the entire Sub-Continent (Nepal, Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Bhutan, and Bangladesh). Arabs? Non-grata? Or just Muslims? 😐 Or is your disdain more generalized, (and less rational) , ie hating everyone equally? Just curious

No, that's a non sequitur, you're making a comparison between alternative situations and drawing the same conclusion. Standing vertically looking at one's phone (stupidly unaware) whilst in the middle of a parking lot, Or, Half bent over picking up a 10 baht coin Are infinitely more visible, and NOT in anyway the same as laying flat, passed out on the pavement. If the drivers had been driving an SUV or even some crossovers, there's absolutely no way they would have seen an adult body, or even a toddler standing. That's a testimony to the inherent danger of some automobiles in terms of blind spots, and to some extent an irrational trust of the driver that there's nothing there, when in fact, due to their obscured view, there's no way of knowing, beyond exercising heightened caution ⚠️ at all times, especially at 3am outside a bar

It was an "accident" only in so much as an accident is an incident. There was shared negligence and thus liability and culpability. So, yes, we'll agree, this wasn't an "act of god" or an incident that couldn't have been prevented by either party.