Video: Chinese woman arrested after illegal parking road rage in South Pattaya

[balo]

You can say what you want about Thai drivers, but the Chinese are even worse.  

 

[jacko45k]

I can't play the video......

[lvr181]

I wonder if the Forum's owner (Thai Nation?) will follow up on this and let us know the outcome? 

 

I know, I can be an optimist.

 

Hope the young girl recovers okay.

Edited October 12, 2017 by lvr181
Additional comment

[mikebell]

12 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Why?  Because that's what insurance policies are for.

In civilised countries, Insurers do not pay if the driver is doing something illegal - drunk/speeding/without licence.

[lvr181]

13 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Why?  Because that's what insurance policies are for.

Huh? You expect your insurer to pay for someones criminal behaviour? Since when should crime be rewarded? Get real!

[lvr181]

9 hours ago, Frank67 said:

I hope that the insurance paid properly. The insurance makes sense for both parties, the driver who causes an accident and his victims. Therefore a proper insurance should be a must.
For the victims I hope that they got best available treatment and that the insurance pays this.
For the driver I hope that the insurance company will claim back all this money plus handling fees as such behavior should not be covered by any insurance policy.

Yes, to your first four sentences but nothing should be paid to the driver who committed the offence. In fact the insurer should have the opportunity to take the driver to some court to recover payments made.

[lvr181]

Lets be clear about this - the criminal driver gets nothing and that driver's insurer should have the right in law (no court case needed) to claim back monies paid to the victim/s of the criminals behaviour. If that involves seizing assets in lieu of money, so be it.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2017 by lvr181
Additional comment

[Bangkok Barry]

23 hours ago, aaro1628 said:

why the insurance will pay for her insurance? what happaned r they mad?

 

 

Where does it say that HER insurance will pay? And if it is hers. why shouldn't they pay the victims and then refuse to insure her any further due to her criminal act?

Edited October 12, 2017 by Bangkok Barry

[Deli]

Nobody mentions that the pillion rider on the bike is not wearing a helmet... so not only the car driver to blame.

[khunpa]

17 hours ago, balo said:

You can say what you want about Thai drivers, but the Chinese are even worse.  

 

 

I think she did pretty well and showed some pretty good skills.

 

The reverse was pretty good and nice fast gear-shift before hitting the motorbike. Some of the best driving skills, I have witnessed in Asia.

[baansgr]

Meanwhile her Aussie Kik is in even more trouble then her

[johnefallis]

On 10/10/2017 at 8:39 PM, mikebell said:

Why?  Thai insurance companies are mad.  Do they not have any shareholders?  My company; Thannachart, paid out huge sums for medical expenses; compensation; a new faster bike to two under-age, speeding, licenceless tearaways who smashed into my stationary car. The bent cop took a further cut.

That sounds about right for Thailand...and people wonder why I never buy a car there.

[Just Weird]

17 hours ago, lvr181 said:

Huh? You expect your insurer to pay for someones criminal behaviour? Since when should crime be rewarded? Get real!

I think it's you who needs to get real, no one is being rewarded for criminal behaviour.  An insurance company, to which someone pays for cover, has obviously decided that the claim is acceptable to them. 

 

Are you suggesting that insurers should, illegally, not consider claims objectively but arbitrarily decide not to pay just because they (you actually in this case) don't approve of their policyholder's actions even if the policy conditions are not contravened?

 

Get real.

[Just Weird]

18 hours ago, mikebell said:

In civilised countries, Insurers do not pay if the driver is doing something illegal - drunk/speeding/without licence.

That's actually not generally the case except in certain circumstances, and those tend to be extreme.  This woman wasn't drunk, speeding or without a licence as far as anyone here knows.

 

In civilised countries, like Thailand, insurers comply with their policy conditions.

[Just Weird]

On 10/11/2017 at 8:34 PM, nev said:

Sorry but loosing the plot like she did running over a traffic cop and then running into a bike and putting a kid in hospital and you think the insurance company have to pay?.

What I think is irrelevant in this case, as is what you think about what I think as your juvenile emoticon suggests. 

 

The insurance company has already confirmed that it will be covering the injured girl's hospital bills.  Insurers do not pay out when they have no liability to do so, so it's reasonable to assume that in this case the insurer did have an obligation to pay regardless of whether you think it should or shouldn't.

[ALFREDO]

7 hours ago, Deli said:

Nobody mentions that the pillion rider on the bike is not wearing a helmet... so not only the car driver to blame.

Would have that prevented the child from braking a rib? ?

[wakeupplease]

Was she another quality tourist or a local with stupid ancestry?

[Prairieboy]

In today's USA the policeman would have shot the driver!

[mikebell]

7 hours ago, Just Weird said:

In civilised countries, like Thailand, insurers comply with their policy conditions.

No they don't.  Ignoring the Chinese woman, in my case, waiting to turn right at a U-turn having two licenceless, speeding boys smash into me, my Insurance company paid for their medical bills; new go-faster bike + big compensation because they lost control.  Despite my policy saying I would pay nothing,  Thannachart agent advised me to pay over 50K to avoid going to court and as a goodwill gesture.  The company refuses to answer my emails any more.

[scorecard]

7 hours ago, Just Weird said:

That's actually not generally the case except in certain circumstances, and those tend to be extreme.  This woman wasn't drunk, speeding or without a licence as far as anyone here knows.

 

In civilised countries, like Thailand, insurers comply with their policy conditions.

 

"That's actually not generally the case except in certain circumstances, and those tend to be extreme.  "

 

I just asked a retired friend, an insurance senior executive all his life about this.

 

He says that his global company has operating regulations that their policies and actions must not in any ways condone, support, or suggest acceptability of things which break any local laws. Plus their operational policies must state the same points clearly and must be highlighted to potential and actual customers.

 

 

 

[Just Weird]

 

8 hours ago, mikebell said:

No they don't.  Ignoring the Chinese woman, in my case, waiting to turn right at a U-turn having two licenceless, speeding boys smash into me, my Insurance company paid for their medical bills; new go-faster bike + big compensation because they lost control.  Despite my policy saying I would pay nothing,  Thannachart agent advised me to pay over 50K to avoid going to court and as a goodwill gesture.  The company refuses to answer my emails any more.

Yes, they do.

 

If it has settled the claim why would your insurance company advise you to make a pay-off "to avoid going to court"?  The insurance company would have no say, whatsoever, on whether you were prosecuted, that's the job of the police and the prosecutor.  Of course, I'm not saying that I don't believe your version of what happened.

[Just Weird]

9 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

"That's actually not generally the case except in certain circumstances, and those tend to be extreme.  "

 

I just asked a retired friend, an insurance senior executive all his life about this.

 

He says that his global company has operating regulations that their policies and actions must not in any ways condone, support, or suggest acceptability of things which break any local laws. Plus their operational policies must state the same points clearly and must be highlighted to potential and actual customers.

I said that insurers comply with their policy conditions, and they do; what your retired friend says does not contradict that.   As a retired senior insurance executive myself I would not contradict what he allegedly said to you either.   The fact remains that insurance companies pay out claims even if there are transgressions of the law.  You may not like it but it happens.

[lvr181]

18 hours ago, Just Weird said:

I think it's you who needs to get real, no one is being rewarded for criminal behaviour.  An insurance company, to which someone pays for cover, has obviously decided that the claim is acceptable to them. 

 

Are you suggesting that insurers should, illegally, not consider claims objectively but arbitrarily decide not to pay just because they (you actually in this case) don't approve of their policyholder's actions even if the policy conditions are not contravened?

 

Get real.

And you "approve" of this policy holder's action? She committed a crime. You're trying to defend the indefensable?

 

Are you related to her?

[mikebell]

12 hours ago, Just Weird said:

why would your insurance company advise you to make a pay-off "to avoid going to court"?  The insurance company would have no say, whatsoever, on whether you were prosecuted, that's the job of the police and the prosecutor. 

The decision to prosecute or not was made by the bent Sattahip cop who, arriving on the scene fifteen minutes AFTER the accident, decreed it was the farang's fault.  To date he has never interviewed the Thai boys responsible.  He was judge/jury & executioner.

Thannachart decided it was cheaper for me to pay off the boys and the cop rather than have the nasty business drag on incurring further legal costs.

I paid up after the cop told me he would confiscate my passport and make applying for a 'retirement' visa 'difficult' in future years.  Having recently booked a ticket to UK, I paid rather than risk losing out.

[stanleycoin]

18 minutes ago, mikebell said:

The decision to prosecute or not was made by the bent Sattahip cop who, arriving on the scene fifteen minutes AFTER the accident, decreed it was the farang's fault.  To date he has never interviewed the Thai boys responsible.  He was judge/jury & executioner.

Thannachart decided it was cheaper for me to pay off the boys and the cop rather than have the nasty business drag on incurring further legal costs.

I paid up after the cop told me he would confiscate my passport and make applying for a 'retirement' visa 'difficult' in future years.  Having recently booked a ticket to UK, I paid rather than risk losing out.

Sorry mate but you went for option B and lost ( silly move)

Option A was No,   talk to the insurance guy and let the cop do what he wants.

No disrespect.

But please stop the bleating,   because you caved in at the first sign of trouble.

you did it all wrong 

 

 

 

[mikebell]

2 minutes ago, stanleycoin said:

Sorry mate but you went for option B and lost ( silly move)

Option A was No,   talk to the insurance guy and let the cop do what he wants.

No disrespect.

But please stop the bleating,   because you caved in at the first sign of trouble.

you did it all wrong 

 

 

 

Thank you for your humane reaction to my plight - I hope you never find yourself in this situation.  I did not cave in at the first sign of trouble;  I spent six agonising months whilst the 'victims' were issuing demands for up to 9 million baht on an almost weekly basis.

I put my house up for sale.  I lost all hope and trust in Thailand's judicial system.

My 'bleating' is friendly advice to other motorists who are contemplating car insurance with Thannachart.

[transam]

As the vehicle in LOS is insured and not the driver I would think the insurance must pay out a third party, plus she did not (I assume) hit the bike intentionally, panic.

 

The BiB will sort the "official" paperwork out to sort the claim and probably make a few quid..

[Pattaya28]

On 11/10/2017 at 8:33 AM, darksidedog said:

She thinks she can park wherever she wants, can drive away knocking others down

Yes, remember this is Pattaya.

A "double Wah" would be in order here. Maybe a "triple Wah". 

Do we not see this inconsiderate nonsense every day ?

[Just Weird]

20 hours ago, lvr181 said:

And you "approve" of this policy holder's action? She committed a crime. You're trying to defend the indefensable?

 

Are you related to her?

Oh dear.  No, I don't  approve of her action, where did I say I did?  I didn't condone what she did, I was commenting on the insurance company aspect of the report.

 

By the way, crimes are defensible, that's what defence lawyers do every day of their working lives.

 

Are you related to the officer or the injured?

[lvr181]

57 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Oh dear.  No, I don't  approve of her action, where did I say I did?  I didn't condone what she did, I was commenting on the insurance company aspect of the report.

 

By the way, crimes are defensible, that's what defence lawyers do every day of their working lives.

 

Are you related to the officer or the injured?

1) Read what I wrote - I ASKED, I did NOT say you did. 

2) Of course defence lawyers defend (whether they believe their client or not) because they want to make money or a name for themselves or both! She is guilty of a crime! After all who deliberately knocks down a kid and drives away! That would be a crime in most parts of the civilised world. But maybe not in your mind?

3) No, not related, I am a member of the commonsense family 

 

Goodbye and do try and have a nice day, please.