Liverpool Lou

The passenger was leaving the scene of a accident illegally. Period Says who? If the taxi I'm in, fo example, collides with another vehicle do you think that I cannot leave the scene? By the way, writing "Period" after a comment doesn't make it correct!

Illegal to leave the scene 9f a accident ,driver or passenger He didn't "leave the scene", as you put it, as in "fled the scene", he left after he knew that she was being cared for by medics. He was a passenger, not the driver, there is no compulsion for passengers to remain there.

Why are you so confused ?You portray yourself as a back street lawyer for heaven's sake I'm confused by your claim that "witness statements were "required". They're not "required". But perhaps the insurers rep would do that as there were no police to be seen in the photos or mentioned in the OP or link. Sorry to upset you by being correct. I have not portrayed myself a lawyer at all but maybe I am a lawyer, "for heaven's sake" [sic], you clearly aren't.

Then you need statements from witnesses. Useful, maybe, but not required. Didn't look as though the police were there so who'd take those (not-required) witness statements and were there any witnesses? You didn't say which was the "illegal" part.

Don't waste your time on a pointless, irritating "Darren" exercise, just get the new account opened and then tell them to duck off after you've drained the original account.

If he was authorized then that would be unethical if not illegal "Unethical" is a subjective opinion, he (the passenger) was there while the medics were arranging to take her to hospital. What was the "if not illegal" part?

Luckily for me and most others on this forum I can't and won't ever get as low as Mr. Pedantic. My comment wasn't pedanticism, it was accuracy. Every single one of your "observations" were just plain wrong in that post.

With all due respects I said he continued his journey . I never said immediately as you are implying. You think it is ok to continue with out authorization after a fatality involving the vehicle he was passenger in? How do you know that he was not "authorised" to continue his journey? What authorisation is needed? It's not the passengers responsibility to remain there at all! It wasn't a fatality at the scene, it was injury.

It's both relevant and everyone's business. No, it isn't. What's the relevance of whether import duty was paid or even required to be paid? And how is it anyone's business but his?

Choice.

Good question. This man didn't keep B1.5m in the house, though.

B50k and EUR1,000 isn't that much for well-off people who had just returned from Europe.

I'm sure they have been declared and taxed accordingly opon entry. Irrelevant and none of anyone's business.

Yes.

Is this the end of Thailand's Tourist Industry? No.

This forum may be useful to the majority of posters on this thread... "Improve Your Reading and Comprehension Forum"

Well said, seems that not many members here can read.

Or maybe because he's not medically trained, he's pictured there, with the medics helping her.

He didn't leave until she was being assisted by the medics whom he called.

He's pictured there in the OP with the rescue service aiding the woman. What do you think?

Really? Can you read? He wasn't driving, the car stopped, he called assistance and he waited until the woman was being cared for...see the photo?

Clearly, you need to read the report again. He stopped, assisted her by calling rescue services and waited there until they were able to attend to her as shown by the photo in the OP.

He stopped, called the rescue services and waited there for them to attend to her (see him in the photo?). What is so "very mentally sick" and "disgusting" about that?

How low can you get? He didn't fail to stop after the accident, neither was it wasn't reported that she was using a crossing. He called for assistance and waited (see the photo of him at the scene with the rescue service helping her?).

He's pictured there, at the scene, while she is being attended to by the rescue service.