Brit's leg left 'hanging off' in Thailand crash

5 hours ago, blaze master said:

Ya I dont believe you hit a concrete barrier full on at 100km. You might have clipped something or slid into one at a drastically reduced speed.

But full on at 100. Na bro sorry.

It’s 62mph not 100 🙈🙈

2 hours ago, Hummin said:

Risk management is about always staying ahead of the situation. It does not come just because you want to be a safe rider. It comes from years of experience and understanding risk.

When you hit the Thai roads, you have to treat everything that moves as a potential threat to your life. There was not a single day of riding when I did not experience a near miss or someone doing something unexpected. After a while, that becomes the normal pattern in Thailand. Adapt, anticipate, and never assume other road users will do the right thing.

It also helps to have proper insurance, as that is part of risk management too.

I think you've misunderstood my point. I said risk assessment, not risk management.

Risk management is what governments, employers and organisations do through engineering, legislation, enforcement and policy. Risk assessment is what an individual does every time they get behind the wheel or on a bike.

A risk assessment is a systematic process: identify the hazards, assess the likelihood and consequences, then decide how to minimise the risk. That process is exactly the same whether you're driving in Thailand, Britain, Australia or anywhere else.

"When you hit the Thai roads, you have to treat everything that moves as a potential threat to your life."

Why would you do anything different in any other country? Defensive driving isn't uniquely Thai; it's the basis of good driving everywhere.

"There was not a single day of riding when I did not experience a near miss..."

If that's literally true, I'd suggest it says as much about your own risk assessment as it does about Thailand. I've driven well over 600,000 km in Thailand since the 1990s and I certainly haven't experienced a near miss every day.

"Adapt, anticipate and never assume other road users will do the right thing."

Absolutely—but that's Defensive Driving 101. You should adapt to the local driving environment in every country.

The mistake many foreigners make is assuming "the right thing" means behaving as drivers do back home. Thai traffic has different conventions, priorities and expectations. Failing to recognise that is often where the problems begin.

Insurance is another good example. Many foreigners who would never dream of driving uninsured at home arrive in Thailand, rent a motorcycle, rely on the compulsory Por Ror Bor cover, or don't even have the correct licence. That's a failure of risk assessment before they've even started the engine.

Good driving isn't a uniquely Thai skill. The principles of observation, anticipation, space management and hazard perception are universal. The only thing that changes is the environment in which you apply them.

And finally, with respect, this is exactly why anecdotal evidence is so unreliable. Your personal experience—whether it's "a near miss every day" or "I've never had an accident"—doesn't tell us anything about road safety as a whole. It simply illustrates confirmation bias. Road safety is a science, not a collection of driving stories. People tend to judge risk by what they can easily remember, not by what the evidence shows. A dramatic near miss sticks in the memory, so they conclude it happens "all the time". That's one reason why personal anecdotes are such poor evidence in discussions about road safety.

18 minutes ago, Reddavy said:

It’s 62mph not 100 🙈🙈

100kmph is what I said. Try to keep up.

15 minutes ago, kwilco said:

I think you've misunderstood my point. I said risk assessment, not risk management.

 

Risk management is what governments, employers and organisations do through engineering, legislation, enforcement and policy. Risk assessment is what an individual does every time they get behind the wheel or on a bike.

 

A risk assessment is a systematic process: identify the hazards, assess the likelihood and consequences, then decide how to minimise the risk. That process is exactly the same whether you're driving in Thailand, Britain, Australia or anywhere else.

"When you hit the Thai roads, you have to treat everything that moves as a potential threat to your life."

Why would you do anything different in any other country? Defensive driving isn't uniquely Thai; it's the basis of good driving everywhere.

 

"There was not a single day of riding when I did not experience a near miss..."

If that's literally true, I'd suggest it says as much about your own risk assessment as it does about Thailand. I've driven well over 600,000 km in Thailand since the 1990s and I certainly haven't experienced a near miss every day.

Thaicooking classes

 

"Adapt, anticipate and never assume other road users will do the right thing."

Absolutely—but that's Defensive Driving 101. You should adapt to the local driving environment in every country.

The mistake many foreigners make is assuming "the right thing" means behaving as drivers do back home. Thai traffic has different conventions, priorities and expectations. Failing to recognise that is often where the problems begin.

 

Insurance is another good example. Many foreigners who would never dream of driving uninsured at home arrive in Thailand, rent a motorcycle, rely on the compulsory Por Ror Bor cover, or don't even have the correct licence. That's a failure of risk assessment before they've even started the engine.

 

Good driving isn't a uniquely Thai skill. The principles of observation, anticipation, space management and hazard perception are universal. The only thing that changes is the environment in which you apply them.

 

 

And finally, with respect, this is exactly why anecdotal evidence is so unreliable. Your personal experience—whether it's "a near miss every day" or "I've never had an accident"—doesn't tell us anything about road safety as a whole. It simply illustrates confirmation bias. Road safety is a science, not a collection of driving stories. People tend to judge risk by what they can easily remember, not by what the evidence shows. A dramatic near miss sticks in the memory, so they conclude it happens "all the time". That's one reason why personal anecdotes are such poor evidence in discussions about road safety.

I do not think I misunderstood your point. Risk assessment and risk management are connected, and individuals do both. You assess the risk, then manage it through your choices, speed, position, equipment, licence and insurance.

I also never claimed defensive riding was unique to Thailand. I said the Thai road environment requires constant adaptation and anticipation. A near miss does not necessarily mean emergency braking or nearly crashing. It can be someone pulling out, changing lanes without looking, riding against traffic or doing something unexpected that you had already anticipated and avoided.

My experience was not presented as scientific proof of road safety in Thailand. It was personal experience explaining how I learned to ride there. Calling every personal observation confirmation bias does not automatically make it unreliable. Statistics tell us the wider picture, while experience teaches us how to survive within it.

If you never experienced a near miss in Thailand, or maybe you are not aware, you maybe the problem 😁

1 minute ago, Hummin said:

If you never experienced a near miss in Thailand

You still don't seem to understand – you are conflating risk management and assessment – and you don't seem to understand the difference. When it comes to riding a motorcycle, risk assessment is the key; it's a personal choice. Risk management is what governments do to mitigate the problems of road safety

"My experience was not presented as scientific proof of road safety in Thailand; it was personal experience explaining how I learned to ride there." - Unfortunately, people also conflate "learning" and "experience" with the accumulation of bad habits. Also, as said, you are presenting anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias – the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

A lot of this is down to perception, which is misleading, and, as said, experience is so often just the accumulation of bad habits.

As said, I've experienced near misses all over the world.

Edited July 17Jul 17 by kwilco

16 hours ago, Upnotover said:

There's one in the photo, maybe it's his.

But maybe he has a personal attitutude of: 'Yes I have a crash helmet attached to the frame of the bike and I'll put it on when I'm going to have a crash'.

(But does that include properly putting on the under the chin straps?)

4 hours ago, alanrchase said:

What is your point? You asked for a posted speed limit, suggesting 100 might have been legal on the stretch of road involved? I pointed out that 90 is the maximum limit in the left lane on all highways.

I'm pretty sure the stretch of highway 2 northeast out of Korat has a speed limit of 100.

15 hours ago, Front Row said:

FWIW if you are going 120 kph in the USA then you are almost certainly going over the speed limit. 70 mph / 112 kph is the absolute maximum speed limit on American highways. (There may be a few rare exceptions.)

Of course everyone else on the highway is probably going 80 mph too. 😝

Interstate highways in Texas have maximum speed of 75, except in some areas set at 85mph.

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You still don't seem to understand – you are conflating risk management and assessment – and you don't seem to understand the difference. When it comes to riding a motorcycle, risk assessment is the key; it's a personal choice. Risk management is what governments do to mitigate the problems of road safety

"My experience was not presented as scientific proof of road safety in Thailand; it was personal experience explaining how I learned to ride there." - Unfortunately, people also conflate "learning" and "experience" with the accumulation of bad habits. Also, as said, you are presenting anecdotal evidence and confirmation bias – the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

Thailandtravel guides

A lot of this is down to perception, which is misleading, and, as said, experience is so often just the accumulation of bad habits.

As said, I've experienced near misses all over the world.

You keep returning to textbook definitions, while I am talking about practical riding and personal responsibility. An individual assesses risk and then manages that risk through speed, position, awareness, equipment, licence and insurance.

Experience can include bad habits, but it can also include learned judgement, improved awareness and survival. Calling personal experience confirmation bias does not make it meaningless. You can continue your lecture, but you do not convince anyone with your pedagogic behaviour. I have managed risk in several professions and extreme sports, came through it in one piece, and hope it continues for as long as possible.

And yes, near misses happen all over the world. My point is that in Thailand I learned to expect the unexpected every day and ride accordingly.

16 minutes ago, Hummin said:

You keep returning to textbook definitions, while I am talking about practical riding and personal responsibility. A

you clearly don't understand what you are talking about – road safety is a science - road users suffer from perceptions that are distorted and unhelpful – the plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'data'.

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

you clearly don't understand what you are talking about – road safety is a science - road users suffer from perceptions that are distorted and unhelpful – the plural of 'anecdote' is NOT 'data'.

You are trying hard to control the definitions. That is all you have when you try to dumbify others in debates.

3 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

I'm pretty sure the stretch of highway 2 northeast out of Korat has a speed limit of 100.

The 120 limit roads in my area are only 120 in the right lane. The centre lane is 100 and the left is 90. The 120 lane also has a minimum speed of 100. The highways without a 120 limit are all 90 for all lanes. There are lower limits for various vehicles. That does not mean you are not right about roads northeast of Korat.

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

For those who don't understand the joy of motorcycling I guess it would be natural to call all of us fools. Many of us ride bikes here on a daily basis. I wouldn't advise it without a lot of experience and a lot of talent and even then one must be incredibly cautious, but accidents can be avoided and we all pick our spots in life, and find Joy from various things.

Many things in life carry some risk, the safest thing to do is just to lock yourself in your home and never leave the safety of that barrier.

18 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Many things in life carry some risk, the safest thing to do is just to lock yourself in your home and never leave the safety of that barrier.

Walking out the door carries risk no doubt.

It's a question of risk vs. benefit analysis.

Choosing not to ride a motorcycle compared to becoming a shut-in is a poor comparison.

13 hours ago, KhunLA said:

Google is your friend, and can probably answer all the questions you'd end up asking me about it.

Thanks KhunLA have done.

14 hours ago, blaze master said:

Ya I dont believe you hit a concrete barrier full on at 100km. You might have clipped something or slid into one at a drastically reduced speed.

But full on at 100. Na bro sorry.

It obviously caused some traumatic brain injury or he was dense before hitting the pole. Most would die and the rest would be a mess. I've done it at 65kph and it wasn't pretty.

Such a serious injury, and above the knee suggests, something is missing in the report. Especially since happening at U-turn, as striking vehicle wouldn't be going that fast.

We're not getting the whole story, or that was one unlucky bounce. Admitting doing 100 kph is a clue. If doing speed limit, 90 or less, and hitting the brakes just slightly, and I'd think there would be less damage, but who knows.

Simply speeding or reached limit of his insurance or 3rd party coverage, may be part of the no coverage for better care.

44 yrs of scooting around on 2 wheels and I haven't managed a serious accident yet, let alone been hit by anyone else. Need to pay attention when on 2 wheels, and I can't say the same about 4 wheels, as too many have hit me in the USA None in TH, or their fault should I say...oops.

8 hours ago, Hummin said:

I do not think I misunderstood your point. Risk assessment and risk management are connected, and individuals do both. You assess the risk, then manage it through your choices, speed, position, equipment, licence and insurance.

I also never claimed defensive riding was unique to Thailand. I said the Thai road environment requires constant adaptation and anticipation. A near miss does not necessarily mean emergency braking or nearly crashing. It can be someone pulling out, changing lanes without looking, riding against traffic or doing something unexpected that you had already anticipated and avoided.

My experience was not presented as scientific proof of road safety in Thailand. It was personal experience explaining how I learned to ride there. Calling every personal observation confirmation bias does not automatically make it unreliable. Statistics tell us the wider picture, while experience teaches us how to survive within it.

If you never experienced a near miss in Thailand, or maybe you are not aware, you maybe the problem 😁

Agreed. The only way to avoid accidents or near misses in Thailand is to live elsewhere. No matter how good of a driver you are, you'll eventually be involved in one or the other. I have driven in states that were supposed to be somewhat dangerous in the US,. New Jersey, Texas, New York, Florida, and have never seen such incompetency in my life until I moved here.

The road infrastructure definitely needs improving, along with enforcement, but the main problem is s till the drivers. Good drivers can manage all conditions. bad drivers will always have trouble and affect others.

16 hours ago, Sigma6 said:

Not in the boiler rooms jobs, where they have these kind of titles

How do you know that?

16 hours ago, Front Row said:

Are we reading the same article because what I read didn’t mention anything about a motorcycle sidecar.

No, we're not. I'm quoting from his own GoFundMe appeal

16 hours ago, kwilco said:

Rather than a litany of false syllogisms, I'd suggest it's largely down to risk assessment and being able to minimise the risk – I think many foreign road users in Thailand have no idea how to minimise risk, and the nation has no idea of how to deal with what is essentially a public health risk.

Why are my syllogisms fallacious?

I've seen grizzly (excuse the pun) vids of deaths of people doing all of those activities.

Yes, life is about risk assessment, and we all take risks occasionally. Thoughts about unnecessary risks doesn't mean you should be locked away in a safe house if deciding to not participate in someone else's risk taking.

21 hours ago, Blueman1 said:

Yeah, You almost certainly can !!

Police need to check these company's records and they should be made to contribute.

15 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

Let's agree to disagree. You just done like motorbikes. That's OK.

I disagree about this statement as well.

I don't dislike the machines; It's the madness of the road users in Thailand that I don't like. I've bought and paid for at least six motorcycles in my time here. There are 3 sitting in the carport area as I write. . The family members who use them don't have the same risk awareness of myself.

In addition, I have 3 EV disability scooters on the property. Last month while trying to catch a dog killing our chickens, I managed to overturn the 3-wheeler in the rain and mud resulting in a mangled foot, and me spending three days in hospital on a drip when it became infected.

I've reassessed that and won't take similar risks for a chook next time. You apparently find that cowardly.

1 hour ago, KhunLA said:

Such a serious injury, and above the knee suggests, something is missing in the report. Especially since happening at U-turn, as striking vehicle wouldn't be going that fast.

We're not getting the whole story, or that was one unlucky bounce. Admitting doing 100 kph is a clue. If doing speed limit, 90 or less, and hitting the brakes just slightly, and I'd think there would be less damage, but who knows.

Simply speeding or reached limit of his insurance or 3rd party coverage, may be part of the no coverage for better care.

44 yrs of scooting around on 2 wheels and I haven't managed a serious accident yet, let alone been hit by anyone else. Need to pay attention when on 2 wheels, and I can't say the same about 4 wheels, as too many have hit me in the USA None in TH, or their fault should I say...oops.

I read in another report (trying to find it again), that he had just bought the bike and hadn't insured it (apart from the Government standard insurance)

On 7/17/2026 at 10:13 AM, Front Row said:

And now, after the fact, he should try to go after the driver that did the illegal u-turn.

No actual proof that someone committed an illegal u-turn.

9 minutes ago, roo860 said:

I read in another report (trying to find it again), that he had just bought the bike and hadn't insured it (apart from the Government standard insurance)

That explains a bit. You can't fix stupid. Something I wouldn't even consider in TH, leaving a showroom or the home, without full insurance, even crappy coverage.

And I'm one who rarely had vehicle insurance in the USA, even though mandatory.

So a month to month income, buys toys can't really afford, with no savings / safety net for oops.

Classic 'go fund my stupidiy' mentality.

Edited July 18Jul 18 by KhunLA

1 hour ago, Old Croc said:

I disagree about this statement as well.

I don't dislike the machines; It's the madness of the road users in Thailand that I don't like. I've bought and paid for at least six motorcycles in my time here. There are 3 sitting in the carport area as I write. . The family members who use them don't have the same risk awareness of myself.

In addition, I have 3 EV disability scooters on the property. Last month while trying to catch a dog killing our chickens, I managed to overturn the 3-wheeler in the rain and mud resulting in a mangled foot, and me spending three days in hospital on a drip when it became infected.

I've reassessed that and won't take similar risks for a chook next time. You apparently find that cowardly.

I don't believe I mentioned the word coward but you certainly did, risk-averse yes, cowardly no. We all make our choices and I'm not criticizing anybody for not choosing to ride a motorbike, it's a personal choice. I'm simply stating that many things in life carry risk and we have to weigh whether or not we consider that risk worthwhile. In my situation it's very worthwhile.

16 hours ago, save the frogs said:

The main reason most or some people buy motorcycles in the first place is to go at insane speeds, adrenaline rush, to be a daredevil, to be rebellious, to feel invincible, to be the coolest kid in town to impress the girls with tattoos.

They got nowhere to be in a rush.

Look at the motorcycle commercials. They are mostly about dangerous speeds.

True, I've been the transportation my whole life train commercially obtained all the bells and whistles to even train commercially. Lucky to have been in right place right time even in 90's when complain for helmet law was being introduced in California got properly train by the CHP, non of that training I ever thought would be relevant here.

Thailand drivers rightfully so not properly train nor educated to be more responsible in general fly around on their bikes like little kids as if the government were giving out free grave sites and the males might miss out on them.

Insurance companies have stats reason rates are high for guys until they are 28 years old but times it doesn't matter this guy was in his 30's!

5 hours ago, Old Croc said:

Why are my syllogisms fallacious?

I've seen grizzly (excuse the pun) vids of deaths of people doing all of those activities.

Yes, life is about risk assessment, and we all take risks occasionally. Thoughts about unnecessary risks doesn't mean you should be locked away in a safe house if deciding to not participate in someone else's risk taking.

Your examples illustrate exactly why I referred to your reasoning as a collection of false syllogisms.

A valid syllogism is deductive: if the premises are true, the conclusion must follow.

For example:

• All humans are mortal.

• Socrates is a human.

• Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

That's logically valid.

Your argument has a very different structure:

• I've seen videos of people being killed riding motorcycles, base jumping, wingsuit flying and by grizzly bears.

• Riding a motorcycle in Thailand is dangerous.

• Therefore, choosing not to ride is simply common sense, and those who do are taking an unnecessary risk.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

You've substituted anecdotal evidence for statistical evidence and then generalised it into a universal conclusion. That's a classic logical error—an overgeneralisation based on the availability heuristic and reinforced by confirmation bias.

By the same logic, I could watch enough videos of fatal car crashes and conclude that nobody should ever drive a car. Or watch enough videos of shark attacks and conclude that nobody should ever swim in the sea.

The existence of risk doesn't tell us whether the activity is an unreasonable risk.

Road safety isn't about asking whether an activity is dangerous—almost every transport activity carries risk. It's about asking:

• How large is the risk?

• What factors increase or reduce it?

• Can the risk be managed or mitigated?

That's the basis of risk assessment.

You also conflate very different categories of risk.

Wingsuit flying, BASE jumping and living amongst grizzly bears are voluntary extreme-risk recreational activities with very little societal necessity.

Motorcycling is a globally recognised means of transport used by hundreds of millions of people every day. The fact that some countries have poor road safety doesn't logically lead to the conclusion that riding a motorcycle there is irrational. It simply means the risk factors need to be assessed and managed.

That's why I object to anecdotal reasoning in road safety discussions. People tend to remember spectacular crashes because they're memorable, then unconsciously inflate the perceived risk. Psychologists call this the availability heuristic. It produces poor risk assessments because vivid stories replace objective evidence.

Good road safety isn't based on dramatic YouTube videos or personal anecdotes. It's based on engineering, epidemiology, collision investigation and statistics.

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Your argument has a very different structure:

• I've seen videos of people being killed riding motorcycles, base jumping, wingsuit flying and by grizzly bears.

• Riding a motorcycle in Thailand is dangerous.

• Therefore, choosing not to ride is simply common sense, and those who do are taking an unnecessary risk.

Can you prove the member has not watch such videos? No, I didn't think so.

Thailand has one of the highest road death statistics in the world.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/road-deaths-by-country

Therefore, any road transport in Thailand is statistically dangerous than many other countries, and motorbikes are road transport.

Choosing not to ride would therefore significantly reduce the risk of serious injury or death.