IDP vs IDL to drive in Thailand

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, dotpoom said:

In order to obtain an IDP you would have had to have a regular driving licence for your country.....would that not have been sufficient to obtain your Thai licence ( along with a small test, if I remember correctly).

Quite, an IDP has no validity unless accompanied by a national licence.

As far a s a Thai licence is concerned it would appear to be at the DLT office discretion. When I went for mine at Chonburi they were not interested in the national licence only the IDP.

[Smokin Joe]

4 hours ago, giddyup said:

Depending on how long you've lived here. If it's more than 90 days you're required to get a Thai licence, if under that you were within your rights driving on a home country, plus a IDP, and I would have disputed it.

 

For the record, that is not true at all. I have posted the relevant section of the Thai law before. There is no limit on how long you can use your foreign license.

 

There is no valid reference that states that unless you believe that info on Trip Advisor or other 3rd party sites takes precedence over Thai law.

[sometimewoodworker]

1 hour ago, Smokin Joe said:

 

For the record, that is not true at all. I have posted the relevant section of the Thai law before. There is no limit on how long you can use your foreign license.

 

There is no valid reference that states that unless you believe that info on Trip Advisor or other 3rd party sites takes precedence over Thai law.

Maybe you can use your national licence (I strongly believe not) however you will not be driving legally as you will not have valid insurance.

 

Insurance policies requirements are that if you have been in Thailand for more than 90 days you must have a Thai licence.

[giddyup]

2 hours ago, Smokin Joe said:

 

For the record, that is not true at all. I have posted the relevant section of the Thai law before. There is no limit on how long you can use your foreign license.

 

There is no valid reference that states that unless you believe that info on Trip Advisor or other 3rd party sites takes precedence over Thai law.

So, as long as you have a current home country licence you can use it to drive legally in Thailand indefinitely? Must be one of the only countries in the world that allows this.

[MINIMIGLIA]

9 hours ago, giddyup said:

So, as long as you have a current home country licence you can use it to drive legally in Thailand indefinitely? Must be one of the only countries in the world that allows this.

No 90 days max , if you stay longer you must have Thai licence or NO INSURANCE

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, MINIMIGLIA said:

No 90 days max , if you stay longer you must have Thai licence or NO INSURANCE

That's what I said, but Smokin Joe seems to think differently (#32).

[sometimewoodworker]

26 minutes ago, giddyup said:

That's what I said, but Smokin Joe seems to think differently (#32).

He seems to think that if you are not charged with driving without a valid licence, but are charged with driving without insurance then it is OK. Even though in many countries driving without insurance gets a more severe punishment.

 

The fact that to drive legally you must have BOTH a licence AND insurance seems a concept a little difficult for him, though to give him credit he only said legal to USE not USE to DRIVE.

[Smokin Joe]

I don't advocate driving without insurance at all. I also think it is reasonable for a insurance company to require a Thai license for purchasing insurance for a vehicle you own here, regardless of how long you've been here. I also think it would not make sense to live here and not have a Thai license

 

My issue is that claims are made as to what the law says and no one can back that up.  My position is backed up by what the Thai law actually says.

 

Also I question the unsubstantiated rumour that no insurance is valid after 90 days. This would put a lot of liability on rental companies if they rented to someone who has been here longer than 90 days. 

[giddyup]

My position is backed up by what the Thai law actually says.

 

What the law says and what is actually implemented might be two different things.