KhaoYai

Thanks for that Vinny. So it looks like I can book in near home - as long as I can sort the transport out with the hotel. Doesn't look like my mate can do go to Chiang Mai though.

I can't find any information about this other than for Bangkok, Phuket & Samui. Last time I arrived on Test & Go I booked into a hotel in Bangkok for my frst night and then travelled home to Khao Yai. However, as there are SHA Plus + hotels near to me now, can I do my 1st night near home? I'm guessing that if this is possible it would have to be in a car sent by the hotel, which would probably cost a crazy amount. That could be negotiable though, so I just need to know if its possible - with links if the info is avilable. Also, a friend is coming over soon - hos final destination will be Chiang Mai. I believe there are SHA Plus+ hotels in Chiang Mai, can he do his Day 1 test and quarantine there? If so, how about airport transfers, would he be allowed to board a flght from Suvarnabhumi to Chiang Mai or does he have to arrive at Chiang Mai? I think the latter and that would not be easy (maybe impossible) from the UK. I'm not even sure that CNX is open to international flights at the moment - I can't see any international arrivals or departures today on their website. I'm guessing that in both cases, it will be far easier to stay in Bangkok for the first night.

A link? No, the agreement was prepared by a Thai lawyer (Barrister) and it is registered on the Chanotte.

A Usufruct can do more than that. My Usufruct prevents sale of the land or a mortgage being taken out over it without my permission.

I'm sure most of us will have been passed on the old 'wisdom' at least once in our lives. I think it was the guy I was apprenticed to that said "you'll pay for it one way or another". How right that turns out to be. Utilising the services of the 'rental industry' may well turn out to be a far cheaper option in the long run.

Yet another ridiculous statement. Thai drivers don't know they are supposed to give way to pedestrians and stop at red lights? The only people that need educating are the police - educating on how to do their job properly. Rather than pulling motorcyclists over every day and extracting 100 baht from them for failing to wear a helmet, try doing some real law enforcement and issuing some real fines, fines that are collected, not ignored.

At 3.5 years old I wouldn't be changing them if there's plenty of life left in them. Just do a thorough check of the sidewalls for signs of cracking - although I'd be surprised if you found any. If they're the originals, they will be a quality brand and good for that age without a problem.

Very much amateurs, I'd say. Professionals work alone and use a double tap to the head. Two shooters firing 10 shots and 'escaping through the beach' sounds like paid Thai thugs to me.

If it was foreigners that killed him, I very much doubt they'd bring their weapons with them - the country's awash with guns.

Unfortunately this is an argument you will never win. Anti-smokers are, in my experience, totally unreasonable and incapable of taking account of the views/rights of others. This goes to the root of the problem - the OP, rather that accepting that his neighbour is going outside to smoke and take simple measures to deal with it, seeks to find out if he can curtail his neighbour's rights and make him bow to his anti-smoking views. I've seen anti smokers start fake coughing as soon as they see someone light up - the fact that the smoke has not and may never reach them is irrelevant, they simply want their own way and sod what others want.

The only thing I 'get' is that anti smokers have no recognition of other people's rights and seek to impose their views on others. I am considerate - even to myself. I don't smoke in my house, even though I live alone - why? I don't like the smell of cigarette smoke either. However, outside I don't have a problem with it - the smoke dissipates. I'd suggest those that do are simply focusing on it because of their anti-smoking views.

I didn't 'pick it up' - I enjoy it and have no intention of stopping. Do you own a car or a motorbike - most probably yes. So you have no problem with your exhaust fumes polluting other people's lungs? Or do you walk everywhere to avoid that happening? The justification is that I have a choice, you do not make other people's choices for them - please try to understand that concept, this is no China!

You might note I said I was in a bar - not a restaurant? Smoking is banned from inside bars but most allow smoking outside. Don't be ridiculous. Its pretty obvious why smoking is confined to outside. One thing you might wish to consider is that smokers have rights too. I'm not trying to impose anything, I am simply saying that you, and people like you (and its obvious from the whole tone of your post),, think you are the only group that have rights and smokers should all give up because you say they should. I'll wager that you drink? You state that smoking is harmful, I don't fully agree, I would say that smoking is often harmful, Other things we do are also harmful, including drinking. I lost both my father and my grandfather to alcohol - my grandfather smoked 60 unfiltered cigarettes per day and died at 89! People die everyday because of alcohol - either directly or indirectly but I'd guess you are not anti alcohol? By and large, smoking has been dealt with in most countries - smoking is banned from the inside of bars and resturants and that's fine, I support that. But if you choose to sit in an area where smoking is allowed, you should not moan about it. Having said all of that, you will not listen or consider a single word of it. That is exactly what I mean by anti smokers trying to impose their views on others. You are anti smoking and anti choice and think your way is the only way, no matter what. I believe around 20% of people smoke but according to your thinking, they have no rights whatsoever, no right to choose what they do or what they put in their body. You need to learn that the world is not exclusively yours buddy. Heil Anrdre!

If you read the Highway Code fully - including advice to pedestrians, you will find that a pedestrian cannot simply step onto a crossing and expect traffic to screech to a halt. What the Highway Code is saying is that vehicles should give right of way to pedestrians so if you see someone waiting, you must stop - when it is safe to do so. Giving right of way does not mean a pedestrian can step into the path of a moving vehicle and expect it to stop - that would be ridiculous. But yes, I agree about giving way being an alien concept in Thailand. On the whole, traffic does give way to pedestrians in the UK whereas in Thailand, you would probably have to stand there all day before a car stopped voluntarily. Roundabouts in Thailand? I just don't get why Thai's have a problem with them. I've been over and over it with my wife many times and she still doesn't get it. How can you not understand 'give way to traffic on the roundabout, coming from your right'? When she was in the UK she was amazed at how well roundabouts work - something we just take for granted. Its not difficult but if you've learned to drive in a totally selfish way, maybe its ingrained?

I would agree but none of us really knows what happened. However, from the photo, the Mazda is on the wrong side of the yellow line. Then you have to consider that whilst the entire front of the Mazda is damaged, the heaviest damage is on its offside. The Ford is also mainly damaged on the offside - indicating that both vehicles hit each other's offside front corner. It does not appear to have been a 100% head on collision. In that case, it would be fair to believe that the Mazda was even further over the yellow line at the time of impact as it would have been pushed back towards its own lane. I note also that the yellow line is solid, I believe that means it should not be crossed by vehicles to the left of it - not 100% on that. The road looks to have 2 lanes in the direction the Ford was travelling and 1 lane on the Mazda's side. I would not be at all surprised to learn that there was a third vehicle involved, one that the Mazda was overtaking - that might explain why it was over the yellow line. Being hit where it was - the main impact being to the O/S A pillar (hinge pillar) and inner flitch panel - the angle of the impact suggests that the Mazda may have been trying to avoid the collision by steering back into its own lane. If you study slow motion videos of crashes, they often show that vehicles sometimes travel many feet following an impact. In the photo the Mazda appears to be straight on in the carriageway but the main impact damage indicates that it was far from straight on at the point of impact. A side on photo showing how far back the Mazda's O/S front wheel has been pushed back would clarify things a lot. It doesn't appear too far back but its not really clear. However, its all just speculation without full details. One thing for sure, its a crash that could easily have been avoided. (Ex garage owner/mechanic/panel beater/painter who spent many years recovering vehicles from accident scenes)

Obviously there will be some ignorant and selfish people but I think on the whole most smokers are considerate. I would also like to point out to our non smoking brethren that between cigarettes, smokers also like to breath clean air. I for one am happy that smoking indoors at bars and restaurants etc. is largely banned now - I also enjoy clean air. In this case the smoker is using the balcony and a cigarette lasts what - 5 minutes? Unless his neighbour is an absolute chain smoker, I think he's become to fixated on the issue - like many non smokers who turn molehills into mountains. True example, I was sitting at an 'outside' bar in Sukhumvit a few years ago. I had specifically moved to one of the outside tables to have a cigarette. A guy at the next table asked me if I would mind not smoking - I did mind and asked him if he'd mind sitting inside. The point being though, that at the same time there was a BBQ cart parked right outside the bar and every time the vendor added new fuel, smoke was everywhere but nobody said anything, including the guy asking me to stop. I think that sometimes these issues are not so much about offensive smoke - they are raised by people who are total anti-smoking. Even if a smokeless cigarette was invented, they would complain because smoke is not the real issue. What they really want it to impose their views on other people.

I agree, the amount of damage they have done by their crazy policies and flip flopping is yet to be seen.

Jeez, where do you expect them to smoke? He/she is at least using the balcony. You live in a city with major air quality problems but complain about someone smoking? Place a fan behind you on your balcony and get a life.

I don't think that will happen and the nay-sayers here will claim that nobody will listen - without even trying. I think a better policy would be for people to write in to the TAT and make their feelings known. Its quick and easy to do if you have LINE on your phone - done mine already. Tourist Authority of Thailand Contact Centre - LINE ID = @tatcontactcenter Phone:1672 in Thailand Phone: +66 2 250 5500 outside Thailand E-mail: [email protected] Thailand's government has a long reputation of ignoring what the general public says - especially foreigners. However, what they hate more is bad publicity on the international stage. If the TAT get flooded with complaints, I'm pretty sure they'll bring it to the attention of the government.

This story can't be true. The Tourism Authority of Thailand (TAT) say that Thailand Pass is still closed so there's no problem. Obviously the ministry responsible for tourism will have the most up to date information...............???? https://www.tourismthailand.org/home (09.30 gmt 04 February 2022)

Well Thailand is just over a year behind, because of course, they had very few infections or deaths in 2020.........dum dee dum............. Their vaccine programme then started late so let's expect all restrictions to be removed by say November? Just in time for high season again. It will be interesting to see how many hotels make it that far. This is one prediction that I sincerely hope I'm wrong about - getting to Thailand is a pain in the proverbial at the moment.

No idea about Aircon but the name seems to mean nothing these days. With many things, several brands may share one product. I was in Lotus a couple of weeks ago buying a new TV. Normally I stick to Samsung products and that policy has served me well but there were 2 TV's on offer that were 7 - 8000 cheaper that the Samsung. As I'm not in Thailand full time, I decided that maybe I didn't need the reliability that I've enjoyed with Samsung. The 2 cheaper brands were Hi-Sense and Sharp - I went home to read a few reviews before deciding. It turned out that Hi-Sense bought Sharp's TV arm and they were getting pretty good reviews. The only let downs were in terms of features - which doesn't bother me. If it works as a TV, that's enough for me. 13,300 for a 55 inch Smart TV is pretty good in my book - hope it doesn't let me down. I have a 7 day digital timer and recently lost the instructions (its pretty complicated to use). Doing a Google search I found the same timer under no less than 7 brand names. So, even though you've bought a Sharp Aircon unit, it may not be a Sharp product. One thing that's almost certain, it or its constituent parts will most likely be made in China - something that's difficult to avoid.

This was in Ayutthaya, 5 to 6 years ago. I had a problem with a hotel that was trying to rip me off.

Oh how I wish it was possible for you to say that to my face. What a ridiculous post - there are idiots in every country and in every part of those countries. If your post is removed, feel free to blame me for that.

Something else will come along. I was pleased to see the UK government remove the need for PCR tests for fully vaccinated passengers travelling to the UK - only to find that my usual airline (Etihad), have their own test requirement.