anon467367354

reminds me of the campaign against smoking back in the '60's, the more you talk about it, the more smokers created.

9 hours ago, TVGerry said:

 

Someone died, someone has to pay. The law is the law. I doubt she will go to jail though.

 

Whatever the case, I just find it offensive you put the blame on the DEAD victim by assuming the victim was looking the wrong way when hit. Frankly, that’s the most idiotic thing I ever heard.

you still don't understand hypothetical nor can you even fathom I didn't blame anyone, an accident is an accident. You're finding it offensive that a DEAD victim cannot be blamed is frankly, the idiotic thing I've ever heard.

You seem to think that regardless of circumstance, if someone dies, someone goes to jail, but you state "I doubt she will go to jail though." which is it? The law is the law but you believe in selective prosecution. Where is the "law is the law" in that?

4 hours ago, TVGerry said:

 

Umm maybe I missed something but where in the article does it say the tourist was unaware of the car direction and it was entirely her mistake? It’s an accident but sheesh talk about victim blaming here!

Sheesh! are missing the big picture here? Here is the big picture, the rest is hypothetical which is irrelevant.

“There was no alcohol involved, she's just 24 and a student. But by local law, she's going to jail.”

one more time But by local law, she's going to jail

It seems to me that regardless of the circumstances, if you hit somebody and they die, you go to jail.

Ummm, what don't you get here?

So Britain is criticizing Trump as if anybody really cares. We Americans don't want America to turn out like Britain.

You made your bed, sleep in it and try criticizing your own government for a change if that's even still legal.

Maybe this would make it clear to the powers that be that make driving in Thailand so dangerous!

12 minutes ago, Time Traveller said:

Seems you're suffering from reality delusions, so let me help.

1. You don't need to "navigate" intersections. If the light is Green, you proceed thru the intersection, If the light is Red, you stop. Kind of easy so far, right?

2. When accidents happen, the speed involved increases the likelihood of fatalities. Go faster = More chance of dying if you're involved in an accident

3. Many Thai motorcyclists and their passenger choose not to wear helmets.

4. Being a competent motorcycle rider does not reduce your chances of an accident if other road users  (especially larger vehicles) make mistakes. 

In conclusion, when you consider these points, then if motorcyclists were allowed onto toll ways, where cars can be regularly seen travelling in excess of 160 km/h, I can confidently say there will be a lot more motorcycle fatalities.

obviously you don't ride a motorcycle or not in Bangkok that is.

Seriously cars are regularly seen doing 99.4 mph? I seriously doubt that, there seems to be some embellishing with that one.

Maybe speed limits should be enforced, what a concept.

All the motorcycles navigating the intersections getting to the front of the line slows down all the other cars and makes it dangerous for the other motorcyclists. If you don't think motorcyclists don't navigate when coming to intersections, you've never been on or driven a motorcycle in Bangkok traffic. I have 100's if not 1000's of hours of video to dispute any ridiculous claim like those above should you care to have me post them.

26 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

it would be the worst thing that they could do by allowing motorbikes on these freeways or tollways, the majority of motorbike riders are just plain idiots and by allowing them on here it would increase the death rate

this is not a tollway or a freeway, it's the bridge that crosses the Chaopraya river from Rama III. But what would be the harm in motorcycles using the tollways or freeways? no stopping, no vehicles entering from the left side? Traffic moves along smoothly. Motorcycles can keep up or go faster than the traffic. The tollways and freeways would be the safest place for motorcycles rather than having them drive on the frontage roads and competing with taxis, illegal parking, songteaws, cars exiting and entering businesses, people driving the wrong way, crosswalks,  and I could go on.

How is this not safer than navigating 3 very busy intersections???

If this was on motorcycle, why would it be illegal? What would the rationale be for motorcycles to not be allowed to travel safely this way?

Motorcycles are fast enough, way faster than most cars and certainly way faster than trucks and buses as they chug along to the top of the bridge.

Let's do the right thing and change law, no loss of face in doing the right thing/

I don't think "the number of people killed on Thailand’s roads have soared in 2017", I think they are starting to report more accurately.

Maybe it's time to take a look at the laws, they haven't been changed or probably even examined since created in 1972.

As motorcyclist, I have to drive safely which means, I'm not going to drive in other vehicles blind spots. I'm also going avoid whenever I can intersections by means of using the overpasses.

By going over the Bangkok bridge, the big one, I can avoid having to navigate through 3 dangerous intersections during rush hour, much safer and saves time, I don't slow down traffic.

Since the police no longer are allowed to set up "shop" and extort money from motorcyclists with some fake law about using the right lane, time to remove those motorcycles prohibited signs from the overpasses and let people enjoy less traffic and safer conditions.

the motorcyclist is clearly wrong which is why he hit the car. The car didn't hit the motorcycle, the motorcycle hit the car.

Section 45 (400-1000B)
[No driver shall overtake another vehicle from the left-side unless:
a. the vehicle to be overtaken is making a right turn or has given a signal that he is
going to make a right turn
b. the roadway is arranged with two or more traffic lanes in the same direction.]

why is she not paying 100000 baht and spending a year in jail?

Somehow smoking on the beach is a worse crime.

Should be expect attempted murder charges or a 100 baht fine for having a knife?

22 hours ago, Grouse said:

I can tell from all the detail that this is a fetish for you. Do you sleep with a gun?

being knowledgeable and informed is to you a fetish. I don't think you actually try to be ignorant, I think you just are. Keep up the good work!

3 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

Its the right to bear arms in a militia for the security of the state, That is a restriction on who can bear arms.

Its the right to bear arms when arms meant a single shot musket, when it was written there was only "one" type of arms. 

If someone invents a gun that fires nuclear warheads or nerve gas tomorrow, is that automatically covered by a literal interpretation of the 2nd amendment ?

 

all weapons were war weapons when the 2nd amendment was written. Most guns back then fired 70 caliber slugs, anything over 50 cal today is illegal. The Kentucky long rifle could fire three 60 caliber slugs per minute accurate up 300 yards. That gun would be illegal today. This leftish pseudo logical argument that guns were for hunting only is ridiculous. The 2nd amendment is so we can protect ourself from criminals and tyrannical governments. If governments create war weapons, we use them too, common sense. Do a search on 18th century weapons, there were far more than muskets.

17 hours ago, duanebigsby said:

Both England and Australia curtailed gun ownership. Where was the mass slaughter?

Americans own more guns than anybody else and have the most mass shootings. It's not rocket science.

"If everyone carried a gun there would be no crime," ...what an imbecile.

When gun ownership goes up, crime goes down, can't you do you own research. Most people seem to know this. https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/cnsnewscom-staff/more-guns-less-gun-violence-between-1993-and-2013

Maybe you should learn something about a free society and the myths created by those that wish to enslave them. Don't act like an imbecile with knee jerk reactions to something you obviously know nothing about. Cheers mate!

16 hours ago, William T said:

So the vast majority of gun killings are suicide. So what, does that make mass killings using automatic weapons accectable. Regarding the 2nd Amendment I enclose:-

what mass killing? Las Vegas was a false flag drill, call the hospitals and ask about shooting victims, they don't have any. When the 2nd Amendment was written all weapons were war weapons. You obviously have no clue what the 2nd amendment stands for so best to not just copy and paste other people's memes that mean nothing.

the vast majority of killings by gun in the USA are suicides, look it up!

When the constitution added the 2nd amendment, all weapons were military grade, so it's not about hunting. Take a look around what happens when the governments disarm the people, mass slaughter.

If everyone carried a gun, there would be no crime. Statistics prove the more gun ownership, the lower the crime. You want gun control go to Chicago, the murder capital.

maybe it's time to curb deep states military industrial complex false flags.

13 hours ago, habanero said:

Move to California. Smoke caused by lighter fluids and  self starting charcoal for barbeque grills is actually illeagal in some jurisdictions.

Move to California, you must think I'm an idiot, only an idiot would move to California. Then again, only an idiot would stay in California with someone like Governor Moonbeam at the helm. Now it's illegal to stop a school shooting with a gun. It's legal to donate HIV infected blood or even knowingly infect someone with HIV. It's illegal to use the wrong pronoun. California? I think not!

Just because I don't like something, doesn't mean I think it should be illegal. I don't like the smell of flesh being grilled, but I don't think it should be illegal.

how about a ban on smoke? There is nothing I hate more than having to breath the toxic smoke from someone grilling meat.

Why is it acceptable to force people to breath second hand smoke from those parked on sidewalks and other areas just because they want to sell something? People grilling meat is way more smoke and therefore probably way more toxic than someone sitting outside smoking a cigarette.

Smoking is gross anyway you look at it, but lets not be stupid just because you think one is aroi and the other mai aroi.

I wonder if his father demanded that he must become a doctor and the pressure was too much for him.

Who really wants to be a dentist anyway?

what a dramatic rescue!!!!

I find it hard to believe that anybody would go to McDonalds.

why was the guy in the white car  driving like an A-hole, why didn't he just let him pass if wanted to?