puchooay

10 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

I also have a licence and I have had mine since 1962. One of the factors that you a failing to accept and you claim to know the intersection is that there is a stop sign located there and the law states that you must stop at a stop sign. There are some locations where you can legally turn left with safety at anytime. But there is a stop sign and Mr blue helmet failed to stop and proceed with safety.

Your next point is a load of crap and you know it because none of your paragraph caused the accident. It is the same as the crap when a farang is involved in an accident, it is always the farangs fault because if the farang was not in the country then the accident would not have happened.

The only thing that is known about the student is that he did not wear a helmet but that did not cause the accident. The accident was caused by Mr blue helmet by failing to stop at the stop sign and entering the priority road unsafely which caused the accident. The weight of the baht bus has nothing to do with the cause of the accident, once Mr blue helmet hit the student there was nothing that the baht bus driver could do to avoid the accident. The baht bus drivers mistake was to not stop at the scene of the accident.

It does not matter what way you want to look at this, the cause of the accident is Mr blue helmet not stopping at the stop sign and entering the priority road unsafely.

They are the facts and that is why Mr blue helmet has been charged.

If you have a good look at the video you will notice that the student was riding in the right hand side of the bike lane which did give Mr blue helmet room to enter that lane if he had not been going so fast. After the accident there was a woman on a bike came out of the soi and she was able to stay in the left hand side of the bike left because she entered the priority road at a much slower speed than Mr blue helmet.

Yes. There is a stop sign. There is however a clear lane to turn left. I do know this intersection and you don't. 

Your comment about "always the farangs fault" is a funny old chestnut too. Simply not true. 

Funny how people have to bring out words like "ass" and "crap" when they are........?? 

37 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said:

 

No it doesn't.  It has nothing to do with how I drive.  The poster did not say slow down a little, they said they would not want to be on the inside of a songtaew when it was near a junction.  They said they would use their mirrors and take action by slowing down if they felt that that was going to happen.  If the songtaew approaches at speed and you are already very close to the junction, that implies potentially slowing down a lot.  If you disagree that slowing down for no reason (you can debate if there is a reason or not but most drivers would not see a reason) is not likely to cause an accident, then I wonder why there are so many crashes at roundabouts all over the world when the car in front stops instead of proceeding onto the roundabout as the driver behind is expecting.  Or even crashes at red lights when the car in front stops at an amber light and the driver behind is expecting it to continue and cannot brake in time.  If you disagree that the poster's actions are more likely to cause an accident that prevent it, then we'll just have to leave it at that, since neither of us has any data to back up our hypotheses (I assume).

I also said I know the junction well. That is why I make sure I am aware of what is around me long before the junction. 

Most junctions too really. When I took my driving lessons many years ago I was taught to use rear view mirror every 10 seconds or so. Something I still do now. 

28 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

If you have got a licence then how did you get it or are you just trying to be a smart ass and flame this thread?. Anyone who has a licence knows that the white stop line and the stop sign means that ALL vehicles stop and give way. There is no such thing in this case as a left turn lane. So the bike coming out of the soi broke the law so you better sit down and do some study so that you will know the law when you go for you licence. By your definition the bike rider was not traveling on the legal road, he was traveling on the shoulder of the road. Your other points have nothing to do with the cause of the accident. Was anyone speeding? YES, the bike rider who came out of the soi because if you open your eyes and look at the video you will see that the only thing that stopped him from going in front of the truck was by him hitting the student, if he had of come out of the soi slowly then he could have stayed on the left edge of the road and not hit the student. I suggest that you learn to drive and go and get a licence and then you might know what people are talking about

Yes. I do have a licence. Had one for 15 years. Last time I renewed I had to watch the video. In the video it clearly stated that the left side is a cycle/motorcycle lane, not the hard shoulder. It also showed that left turns without stopping were legal in some cases. They did point out that one should look first, this being the mistake that the red bike made. It was not a violation of the law. 

My other points are perfectly valid. If any of the parties are unlicenced or are operating unregisterd vehicles then, if they were law abiding, they should not have been there and the accident would not have happened. 

I'm not saying that the red bike was not at fault. If you ho back to my original post you will see that but ad I stated my knowledge of tha junction leads me to believe that it was not the red bike's actions alone. This is not the first accident I have experience of at this junction. That is why I proceed with caution when I am in that vicinity. I just hope that the many people who saw this accident and the aftermath will do the same in the future. 

Just now, Jip99 said:

 

 

Slight semantics on stop/give way scenario - but Mr blue helmet was at fault for not observing approaching vehicles before filtering into the flow of traffic on the main highway.

 

The poor deceased lad is not totally blameless (no helmet, lack of awareness of Mr blue helmet, riding too close to another bike..) but he would likely be alive today were it not for the stupidity of Mr blue helmet.

I totally agree, as I pointed out in my first post on this thread. 

It is driving standard and lack of awareness that has caused this tragic accident. Not a single violation of traffic law. 

4 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

That is correct. It was a single violation of the traffic laws that caused this accident. The rider that failed to stop at the stop sign and give way to all the traffic on the priority road was the cause of this accident. Leading up to the accident the student and the baht bus driver were doing the right thing, but it was after the accident that things went wrong as well with the baht bus driver leaving the scene of the accident.

If you look closely at the photo I posted you will see that the white line does not actually go right across the road. The left side lane has no stop line. Does that mean that a left turn is legal? If so the rider did not violate any traffic laws. As you have already mentioned, we do not know who had licences and what vehicles were legally registered. Was the truck overloaded? Was anyone speeding? 

43 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

Have a look at the video and see how many cars used the centre of the road to make 3 lanes on a 2 lane road.

 

The baht bus was in the lane where he was supposed to be, the baht bus driver did not kill this student.

If the other rider coming out of the soi had of stopped at the stop sign and given way to the traffic on the priority road then the student would not have been knocked under the wheels of the baht bus and killed.

 

It is quite clear that there are many on here who do not know the road laws. There is only one person responsible for this accident and that is the person that failed to stop at the stop sign and give way to all the traffic on the priority road

I'm confused. Are you saying that a single violation of traffic laws was responsible for this tragic accident? 

5 minutes ago, Happyman58 said:

He is not 10 he is older He is in year 10 makes him about 15 But yes last time i looked 15 year olds dont have or cant get a license  No helmet yep good chance you go to heaven You are right fine the bloody family for giving him that bike Just makes me so angry seeing this Wasted life 

15 is the minimum age for getting a licence. As mentioned by another poster, some have one but many don't.

8 minutes ago, oldlakey said:

The poster you replied to did say no licence no helmet referring to this accident

That was an assumption in that students case but nowhere did he say all students

were in the same boat as you will see if you care to check back

The lack of a license held by many is a fact 

The point in question should not be whether they have a licence or not. The question should be, what did they have to do to get the licence?

After my daughter got her licence we went out together, one bike each. Sometimes she followed me and sometimes I followed her. I showed her about awareness of what others might do and how to react.

She has learned more from me than any body is likely to learn during their driving "test". I'm not having a go. Just saying.

31 minutes ago, Russell17au said:

The student had only just passed the truck and he was knocked off his bike into the path of the truck if you bother to open your eyes and have a good look at the video.

Even more reason to know that it was there. 

In your other post you critisised me for suggesting that the student was going too fast. Now you say that the student had just past the truck. If a student on a bike is able to overtake a truck as easily as that then there is something wrong with his speed.

When you look at this video it is easy to see the fault of the side road rider. At first glance it is not so easy to see the fault of the other 2 parties involved. I can probably see it clearer as I know the spot well.

Incidentally......local reports are saying that the truck driver is facing stiffer penalties than the side road motorcyclist.

If your wife sets up a business and you are seen to be supporting her, whether it be financially or by actually helping her do a few jobs, then there should not be a problem.

If you were to take a bigger part, such as fitting a home kitchen for a client, then there could be a need for a work permit.

1 minute ago, dfdgfdfdgs said:

 

Let's just assume I have never passed a driving test.  Can you tell me yet?

I'm a bit busy right now. How about you have a little read.

https://www.safedrivingforlife.info/blog/mirror-signal-manoeuvre-learner-driver

5 minutes ago, dfdgfdfdgs said:

So you're not going to explain to me how looking in your mirrors is going to prevent a shunt from behind, then.

If you have passed a driving test, I would hope I don't need to.

Like I said, I know this junction very well. Knowing the whereabouts of traffic around you is paramount. This accident could have been avoided if all involved were aware. I have approached this junction both in a car and on a motorbike from the same direction as the deceased many times. If there is a vehicle near to me from the rear that is stopping me from possibly pulling out to avoid a bike or car coming out of the side road, I will slow down and allow that vehicle to pass before I get to the junction.

1 minute ago, dfdgfdfdgs said:

 

Bit harsh, he was doing somersaults in the air.

The  truck was travelling in the same direction so would obviously been behind him for a while. Like I said, no use of mirrors.

1 hour ago, phuketrichard said:

that is NOT a credit card, that is a debit card

 

 

EXACTLY!!!

name on the Chanot, (or nor sor sam) is the holder of the land paper >
has nothing to do with who lives at the house, (if there is a house on the land)

I owned my house as the building permit was in my name. No thai names in the blue book. But the land was owned by a thai friend who than gave me a 30 year lease that was registered at the land office.
when i sold the house/land both of us had to sign papers

So, in theory, the house holder, house owner and the land owner could be 3 different people.

43 minutes ago, MrPatrickThai said:

If you have a "yellow house book" or Pink Alien Card you can open one. No need for a WP.

You don't even need that. I opend an acvount with Kasikorn with just a passport. 

22 hours ago, The Hood said:

I would like to ask your views on the proverbial question of visa delays by some institutions, to try to get to the bottom of any unethical practises that, allegedly, go on behind closed doors.

 

It seems to me that obtaining work permits for a group of staff, involves costs, the WP, insurance, among other things, and not to mention the administration. I'm curious why some institutions seem to be happy to let teachers work on tourist visas, at times with a minimum of support to get off them, and multiple renewals of the tourist visa. I refer not to the state school, system btw.

 

I know of a situation where several employees who will not be renewing their contract, but have not said so much, are still waiting the final stages of the WP with barely a month until the end of term.

 

A good friend of mine informs me that many institutions are in the pocket of Immigration. This is hearsay and I don't quite understand the logic. However, if one imagines an institution who want to cut costs and are prepared to do so at the expense of their employees security (no bank account without a WP) and their sense of feeling settled in a new country, then it just may make sense that some of the stories i've encountered where companies let the visa situation run and run... are grounded in something. 

 

Such a place that secretly harbours questionable ethics towards employees when it comes to finance certainly would go as far as to hold an employee "in limbo" if they had reason to extend probation, for example... what would be in it for them to invest in a WP, if they were going to let the employee go?

 

The flip side to this, and there always is one, is things like extended probation, could be used unfairly, as it too would likely save the company a minimum of 5,000 Baht per employee (the going step-down in difference). So the two scenarios together.... employee on a tourist visa... fair/unfair extended probation... plays into the saving of money. I am no economist but my question is would that be a significant amount?

 

 

 

 

Why do you think you cannot have a bank account without a work permit? 

Kasikorn usually no problem. 

Go to the fresh, morning market. 

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Most TT will say BuLiLam.

 

I have seen a road sign for Lahansai spelt Rahansai! ?

It's the difference between dialects. Issan Lao dialect does not have the letter "R" and thus the pronunciation of said letter is also missing. My wife is a Khmer speaker and she does pronounce the "R" and in quite a defined way. 

The correct spelling would actually be Boo-ree-ram.