Video: Peril awaits at Thai U-turns - three on bike in lucky escape

[AGareth2]

6 hours ago, toofarnorth said:

  I try but often my temper takes over.

don't carry a machette

[balo]

11 hours ago, Moti24 said:

It wasn't the traffic cop's fault!  The dash cam vehicle had stopped, and no doubt any cars in the outside lane also.  But as usual, a ****in muppet on a motorcycle speeds down the inside at full blast, only this time, karma got its revenge.  

 

Speeding, no he!mets, 3 on a bike;

 

Exactly, look at the video again , the other bike riders were paying attention , this moron was speeding with 2 passengers and did not pay attention! 

 

And no helmets and no IQ, seen it before, accidents waiting to happen. 

 

Don't blame it on the traffic cops , they work 12 hour shifts and can't control idiots on the road. 

 

Edited October 18, 2017 by balo

[wotsdermatter]

21 hours ago, stanleycoin said:

More idiots on the roads.

This is not news,    it's a way of life in Thailand. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!.

Me first im so important, get out the way, and so on and on.

Looking and thinking about the road ahead is a alien concept here.

Amazing Thailand.

Next 

 

 

 

 

 

Sorry, but all who use the expression "Amazing Thailand" are incorrect.  Rather, it is "A Maze In Thailand."  That states the situation succinctly. 

[Si Thea01]

23 hours ago, jaiyen said:

If you look at the video you will see other bikes on the inside lane going slowly. The kids on their bike were going way too fast. However the truck did do a very wide turn and probably didnt look left, both at fault

i have to disagree.  Given the poor steering lock (Turning Circle) on pickups, they have to take a wide berth when effecting a U turn. The driver was not at fault, he was given right away by the police officer and was travelling slowly when the clowns on the motor cycle, at speed, rode past stationary vehicles and impacted, without any apparent braking, into the front o/s of the ute.  No helmets, three up, clearly speeding and you want to bung it on the driver of the pick up.  The truck didn't look left, didn't know they could see.  Sorry, couldn't resist that.

[manarak]

Peril awaits bad drivers everywhere !

[Si Thea01]

21 hours ago, wirat69 said:

So explain to me why Thai drivers need 3, sometimes 4, lanes to do a U turn, please

Because of the poor steering lock (Turning Circle) fitted to pickups.  In so far as cars, I can offer no reason other than that many obviously have no idea what they are doing. 

[Si Thea01]

22 hours ago, jackdd said:

I don't think the motorbike could see the cop, because the cars were in the line of sight, so obviously the cop did not stop the traffic properly.

Honestly, even if the cop was out in front of the second line of cars, given the speed the motorcycle was being ridden at, do you think they would have stopped, I don't? The rider was inattentive, speeding and would have just veered further into the number 1 lane.

 

Now, if as someone else suggested that they have two cops, the second one could have been impacted by the  imbecile. No matter what happens in Thailand, cops are always to blame. Don't you lot ever get sick of bagging them?  Guess not, given it's the in thing, even when people have no idea as to the overall circumstances?

[MaxYakov]

On 10/19/2017 at 7:17 AM, Si Thea01 said:

i have to disagree.  Given the poor steering lock (Turning Circle) on pickups, they have to take a wide berth when effecting a U turn. The driver was not at fault, he was given right away by the police officer and was travelling slowly when the clowns on the motor cycle, at speed, rode past stationary vehicles and impacted, without any apparent braking, into the front o/s of the ute.  No helmets, three up, clearly speeding and you want to bung it on the driver of the pick up.  The truck didn't look left, didn't know they could see.  Sorry, couldn't resist that.

"The driver was not at fault, he was given right away [sic] by the police officer ..."

 

As both a defensive driver of 50 years experience (Not in Thailand) and as a defensive cyclist with nearly 10 years almost daily experience as an urban Bangkok cyclist I have to disagree. BTW, it's "right of way", or maybe you intended "right away", as in "right now"?

 

I also witnessed a very similar and serious motorbike accident 30 feet from me where the operator did not stand up afterwards either. It also involved a car driver that did not clear the lane he was turning into and collected a high-speed motorbike in the process. The situation was also supposedly under the control of a parking lot entrance flagman who really was not in control of all approaching traffic. One reason for that was that he did not even have a flag (although he did have a sort of uniform)!

 

That having been said, here's why I disagree:

 

1) Given clearance by a RTP who probably wasn't or could not possibly be aware of the entire situation in this case does not absolve one from checking the lane one is turning into for oncoming traffic. The pickup driver was in the best position do this, being higher up and  better able to evaluate the situation in the #1 lane. There's a pretty good chance the pickup driver was either not a defensive driver or may have been distracted.

 

I have evolved a shorthand rule for this over my 60 years of operating both motor vehicles and bicycles: Avoid unnecessarily causing another operator to use their brakes. Why not? Because they may not use them or their use would be ineffective or even impossible. In order to properly apply this rule, one has to be completely undistracted and in predictive mode (i.e. doing their job, paying attention to business). Many drivers have been killed by proceeding into intersections by not applying this rule and being T-boned by a red-light runner.

 

I, of course, fault the motorbike operator for misreading or ignoring the road situation and speeding. This is endemic and very predictable w/r motorbikes at all times.

 

The RTP traffic officer was operating at a severe handicap by not having awareness of, and the ability to control, the #1 lane. This situation could be corrected either by having a second officer assigned or a piece of portable equipment that does not yet exist that would provide a stop-traffic signal in all three lanes, but only when so desired and then all lie flat when it is desired to let traffic proceed.

 

My biggest fear in urban Bangkok or anywhere on any road these days is the possibility of a distracted driver texting or talking on their mobile phone and not reading the road situation for several seconds and/or having the vehicle drift. Mobile phone use while driving is a serious problem and is well-known to cause horrific accidents.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by MaxYakov

[Confuscious]

On 18/10/2017 at 9:20 AM, smedly said:

the traffic cop did not stop the traffic OMG

BU....IT

The cop did stop the traffic and cars were doing the U-turn.

Only a few motorbike did want to go trough.

In my country, when you allow a single vehicle/pedestrian to pass you need stop also for the other vehicles/pedestrians.

[smedly]

1 hour ago, MaxYakov said:

 

The RTP traffic officer was operating at a severe handicap by not having awareness of, and the ability to control, the #1 lane. This situation could be corrected either by having a second officer assigned or a piece of portable equipment that does not yet exist that would provide a stop-traffic signal in all three lanes, but only when so desired and then all lie flat when it is desired to let traffic proceed.

 

 

the severe handicap as you put it was the fact that the police officer did not ensure that all the traffic was stopped in all lanes before giving the U-turn vehicles the clearance to make their turn, he could have achieved this by moving further towards the center of the road and taking full control of all the lanes giving clear instruction to the far lanes of traffic to also stop, he failed to do this  

[Moti24]

6 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

"The driver was not at fault, he was given right away [sic] by the police officer ..."

 

As both a defensive driver of 50 years experience (Not in Thailand) and as a defensive cyclist with nearly 10 years almost daily experience as an urban Bangkok cyclist I have to disagree. BTW, it's "right of way", or maybe you intended "right away", as in "right now"?

 

I also witnessed a very similar and serious motorbike accident 30 feet from me where the operator did not stand up afterwards either. It also involved a car driver that did not clear the lane he was turning into and collected a high-speed motorbike in the process. The situation was also supposedly under the control of a parking lot entrance flagman who really was not in control of all approaching traffic. One reason for that was that he did not even have a flag (although he did have a sort of uniform)!

 

That having been said, here's why I disagree:

 

1) Given clearance by a RTP who probably wasn't or could not possibly be aware of the entire situation in this case does not absolve one from checking the lane one is turning into for oncoming traffic. The pickup driver was in the best position do this, being higher up and  better able to evaluate the situation in the #1 lane. There's a pretty good chance the pickup driver was either not a defensive driver or may have been distracted.

 

I have evolved a shorthand rule for this over my 60 years of operating both motor vehicles and bicycles: Avoid unnecessarily causing another operator to use their brakes. Why not? Because they may not use them or their use would be ineffective or even impossible. In order to properly apply this rule, one has to be completely undistracted and in predictive mode (i.e. doing their job, paying attention to business). Many drivers have been killed by proceeding into intersections by not applying this rule and being T-boned by a red-light runner.

 

I, of course, fault the motorbike operator for misreading or ignoring the road situation and speeding. This is endemic and very predictable w/r motorbikes at all times.

 

The RTP traffic officer was operating at a severe handicap by not having awareness of, and the ability to control, the #1 lane. This situation could be corrected either by having a second officer assigned or a piece of portable equipment that does not yet exist that would provide a stop-traffic signal in all three lanes, but only when so desired and then all lie flat when it is desired to let traffic proceed.

 

My biggest fear in urban Bangkok or anywhere on any road these days is the possibility of a distracted driver texting or talking on their mobile phone and not reading the road situation for several seconds and/or having the vehicle drift. Mobile phone use while driving is a serious problem and is well-known to cause horrific accidents.

 

Thanks for the good laugh!  Best I've had today.  

 

Your post is the biggest load of crap I've read in a long time; defensive this, defensive that! 

 

You're in Thailand now!  ****in wake-up and accept things as they are!  

 

I could go on, but I can feel my blood pressure rising, trying to understand how naive you are.

Edited October 20, 2017 by Moti24

[MaxYakov]

56 minutes ago, Moti24 said:

Thanks for the good laugh!  Best I've had today.  

 

Your post is the biggest load of crap I've read in a long time; defensive this, defensive that! 

 

You're in Thailand now!  ****in wake-up and accept things as they are!  

 

I could go on, but I can feel my blood pressure rising, trying to understand how naive you are.

I do accept (and react to) Thailand and anywhere else in the world as they are, knowing I cannot change them - which I believe should adequately explain my ridiculous survivalist attitude.

 

However, in Thailand, due to the several untoward factors which I should not have to elaborate on to a long-term observer of Thailand such as yourself, I have to be "ultra defensive", especially since a bicycle (or even a motorbike) offers little to nil crash protection, leaving little latitude for human or machine error - that of yours or others.

 

You are a "long-term" and "observant" expat, right?

 

You do operate a motor vehicle or cycle or are even a pedestrian in Thailand 365 days a year rain or shine, right?

 

So can we assume from your reply that, if you operate a motor vehicle on Thailand's roads you are an "offensive driver",  or at least someone who does not believe in "defensive driving", right?

 

How's your blood pressure doing now? 

Edited October 20, 2017 by MaxYakov

[mommysboy]

The whole idea of u-turns that cut across 3 lanes of traffic is flawed.  Here, we see yet another dangerous outcome.  The motorbike is going way too fast, which is a common theme.  Nevertheless, the pick-up driver just drove in to the lane, rather than edging and looking.  Perhaps the driver was lulled in to a false sense of security by the copper waving him through.  Thank goodness nobody was badly hurt.

[mommysboy]

On 19/10/2017 at 7:59 AM, Si Thea01 said:

Honestly, even if the cop was out in front of the second line of cars, given the speed the motorcycle was being ridden at, do you think they would have stopped, I don't? The rider was inattentive, speeding and would have just veered further into the number 1 lane.

 

Now, if as someone else suggested that they have two cops, the second one could have been impacted by the  imbecile. No matter what happens in Thailand, cops are always to blame. Don't you lot ever get sick of bagging them?  Guess not, given it's the in thing, even when people have no idea as to the overall circumstances?

I agree the rider may as well have been wearing blinkers..  He clearly wasn't looking, and was riding way too fast.

 

Yet there is illogic in your post if you think about it, because had the copper stopped all flow of traffic, the rider and all others would be backed up in the queue.  It's a long stretch of the imagination to believe the rider would have broken the blockade.  It's much more likely he just saw open road, saw others ride through, and assumed right of way (which it ordinarily is).  Arguably the copper is at fault here, although the car driver just made a mistake, and the rider driving illegally and without due care. 

 

But I'd be interested to know: if someone is driving too fast, but not breaking the speed limit, can he/she be guilty of driving without due care and attention, etc?  And further, if riding illegally does that invalidate any rights under highway law, as it probably does with an insurance claim?

[barrywhite]

[Si Thea01]

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

I agree the rider may as well have been wearing blinkers..  He clearly wasn't looking, and was riding way too fast.

 

Yet there is illogic in your post if you think about it, because had the copper stopped all flow of traffic, the rider and all others would be backed up in the queue.  It's a long stretch of the imagination to believe the rider would have broken the blockade.  It's much more likely he just saw open road, saw others ride through, and assumed right of way (which it ordinarily is).  Arguably the copper is at fault here, although the car driver just made a mistake, and the rider driving illegally and without due care. 

 

But I'd be interested to know: if someone is driving too fast, but not breaking the speed limit, can he/she be guilty of driving without due care and attention, etc?  And further, if riding illegally does that invalidate any rights under highway law, as it probably does with an insurance claim?

I cannot see where I am making an illogical statement. Your first paragraph contradicts the second.  What you are proferring is hypothetical and has no relevance because it just did not happen. Of course had the traffic stopped  in the number one lane then we would not be debating the matter and the cyclist would not be in the situation that he put himself and his companions in.

 

You have to accept that the cyclist was inattentive, going way too fast for the circumstances and no doubt was blinkered.  You don't have to be going at speed to be negligent, however, this clown was an accident just looking for somewhere to happen and unfortunately, it was at this location.  I also wonder, given none of them were wearing helmets, what else was amiss.

 

Was he licensed, was his bike roadworthy and was it registered, that is road tax and 3rd party insurance paid. And did he even have full insurance.  If we were ever given the full story, which they don't, then maybe half the arguments on here would go away.  But that is not good for the thread, is it.

 

Now I could assume, given you last question, that, if he had insurance, then it may be voided but as I don't know for sure, maybe someone else more learned than I can answer that for you. If it was in my country, they normally have what they call tit for tat, each insurer recognises the claim and payout.  It alcohol or drugs are involved, it's voided.

 

I don't agree with you that the police Officer was at fault. He stopped two lanes or traffic, and was sent alone to control six lanes of traffic yet this moron, at speed, decided to by pass the stationary vehicles and travel along the painted lane lines.  Given that the police officer would know how Thais drive, he placed himself in a position so as not to endanger himself, then, because some maniac has driven like one, he is now at fault.

 

Crap to that is what I say, he did his best given the circumstances.  The pickup driver has effected a U turn, as vehicles in front of him did, safely, yet now others want to blame him also.  The guy has proceeded lawfully, under the direction of Police, yet now he is copping some of the blame.  BS to that also.

 

I really don't care that others want to shift the blame, if that is the way they think, then they're wrong, their  logic has no basis in law and it is apparent they have no actual knowledge of the law or how it is applied.  So good on them but from my experience in law enforcement, given all the circumstances that have been presented via the video, then the person who is to blame is the nut behind the bars of the motorcycle, no one else.

[mommysboy]

11 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

I cannot see where I am making an illogical statement. Your first paragraph contradicts the second.  What you are proferring is hypothetical and has no relevance because it just did not happen. Of course had the traffic stopped  in the number one lane then we would not be debating the matter and the cyclist would not be in the situation that he put himself and his companions in.

 

You have to accept that the cyclist was inattentive, going way too fast for the circumstances and no doubt was blinkered.  You don't have to be going at speed to be negligent, however, this clown was an accident just looking for somewhere to happen and unfortunately, it was at this location.  I also wonder, given none of them were wearing helmets, what else was amiss.

 

Was he licensed, was his bike roadworthy and was it registered, that is road tax and 3rd party insurance paid. And did he even have full insurance.  If we were ever given the full story, which they don't, then maybe half the arguments on here would go away.  But that is not good for the thread, is it.

 

Now I could assume, given you last question, that, if he had insurance, then it may be voided but as I don't know for sure, maybe someone else more learned than I can answer that for you. If it was in my country, they normally have what they call tit for tat, each insurer recognises the claim and payout.  It alcohol or drugs are involved, it's voided.

 

I don't agree with you that the police Officer was at fault. He stopped two lanes or traffic, and was sent alone to control six lanes of traffic yet this moron, at speed, decided to by pass the stationary vehicles and travel along the painted lane lines.  Given that the police officer would know how Thais drive, he placed himself in a position so as not to endanger himself, then, because some maniac has driven like one, he is now at fault.

 

Crap to that is what I say, he did his best given the circumstances.  The pickup driver has effected a U turn, as vehicles in front of him did, safely, yet now others want to blame him also.  The guy has proceeded lawfully, under the direction of Police, yet now he is copping some of the blame.  BS to that also.

 

I really don't care that others want to shift the blame, if that is the way they think, then they're wrong, their  logic has no basis in law and it is apparent they have no actual knowledge of the law or how it is applied.  So good on them but from my experience in law enforcement, given all the circumstances that have been presented via the video, then the person who is to blame is the nut behind the bars of the motorcycle, no one else.

 

Somewhat over the top reaction, isn't it?

 

No, it's up to the policeman to stop the lines of traffic, not just two.  If he'd done that, then there would have been no problem.  When he saw the blockade had been breached he should have halted the u turns.  Probably overworked, under trained, and with little goodwill from road users.  I'm not blaming him as you imagine.

 

I still think the motorbike is mainly at fault because he was riding illegally and carelessly, but crucially the traffic lane he was in had not been stopped, as we see other riders going through.  Thinking about it, the car driver is not at fault at all as you say- he rightly assumed traffic had been stopped and so didn't apply the usual caution, only it had not been stopped.

 

Can you just partake of an interesting conversation.  I'm here to be educated, but not attacked.  I don't see any reason for your unpleasant tone.

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by mommysboy

[Si Thea01]

4 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Somewhat over the top reaction, isn't it?

 

No, it's up to the policeman to stop the lines of traffic, not just two.  If he'd done that, then there would have been no problem.

 

I still think the motorbike is mainly at fault because he was riding illegally and carelessly, but crucially the traffic lane he was in had not been stopped, as we see other riders going through.  Thinking about it, the car driver is not at fault at all as you say- he rightly assumed traffic had been stopped and so didn't apply the usual caution, only it had not been stopped.

 

Can you just partake of an interesting conversation.  I'm here to be educated, but not attacked.  I don't see any reason for your unpleasant tone.

 

Not over the top, just as it is, people blaming whoever, without any idea. You are entitled to you opinion, me to mine. I just happen to disagree but if my tone offended you, sorry.  What coppers do elsewhere, doesn't necessarily mean it will happen here.  Unfortunately, law enforcement are two words that generally do not equate to the actions taken by general traffic police in Thailand, which is a shame.

 

They are paid a pittance, their training leaves a lot to be desired so no wonder they have problems.   Many are corrupt but many also try to do their best, yet not matter what, they cannot win, they're just bagged. I'd say this guy did the best he good at the time,  yet he is now being held up as the person who is responsible or partially responsible for the incident.

 

Not in my books and as for attacking you, I don't think so, just my feelings being expressed as to why others, other than the moron on the motorcycle, are being deemed to be part or fully responsible. Tell me why do people hold up the idiots and turn them into victims and put down those who are only implicated because of the idiot's actions?

 

It could easily be said that had he, the motorcyclist, not been on the road that day,  which you didn't, then the incident would not have occurred but you want to blame the police and initially the driver of the pickup, which I now see you have altered you opinion on. So I must have educated you slightly for you to have applied some logic to your thinking.  Have a nice night and please do not be so thinned skinned.

[mommysboy]

26 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Not over the top, just as it is, people blaming whoever, without any idea. You are entitled to you opinion, me to mine. I just happen to disagree but if my tone offended you, sorry.  What coppers do elsewhere, doesn't necessarily mean it will happen here.  Unfortunately, law enforcement are two words that generally do not equate to the actions taken by general traffic police in Thailand, which is a shame.

 

They are paid a pittance, their training leaves a lot to be desired so no wonder they have problems.   Many are corrupt but many also try to do their best, yet not matter what, they cannot win, they're just bagged. I'd say this guy did the best he good at the time,  yet he is now being held up as the person who is responsible or partially responsible for the incident.

 

Not in my books and as for attacking you, I don't think so, just my feelings being expressed as to why others, other than the moron on the motorcycle, are being deemed to be part or fully responsible. Tell me why do people hold up the idiots and turn them into victims and put down those who are only implicated because of the idiot's actions?

 

It could easily be said that had he, the motorcyclist, not been on the road that day,  which you didn't, then the incident would not have occurred but you want to blame the police and initially the driver of the pickup, which I now see you have altered you opinion on. So I must have educated you slightly for you to have applied some logic to your thinking.  Have a nice night and please do not be so thinned skinned.

 

Yes, I can change my mind, if I see I have made a mistake, and can accept it with good nature when others do too.  What's the point of taking a snipe?

 

You possibly didn't see that I wrote I was not blaming the policeman as such, after all it is not his fault if people as one choose to defy his authority.

 

But surely it has to be accepted that the lane in question simply had not been stopped, or had been breached.  And only one person was empowered to do something about it.  Who else?

 

Unfortunately, in Thailand, bikers treat that kerbside lane as if the law does not apply- you even see some of them riding in the opposite direction.  So, quite possibly, as you say, the policeman can wring his hands and justifiably say: "What the heck am I supposed to do?

 

As I said in my opening posting, this u-turn business is just flawed.  it's a practice that should be stopped.

 

Addition: And wuite possibly the person who is most at fault is the total idiot who broke the line in the first place, and who was probably sailing ahead waiting to cause the next problem.

 

 

Edited October 20, 2017 by mommysboy

[Si Thea01]

2 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

 

Yes, I can change my mind, if I see I have made a mistake, and can accept it with good nature when others do too.  What's the point of taking a snipe?

 

You possibly didn't see that I wrote I was not blaming the policeman as such, after all it is not his fault if people as one choose to defy his authority.

 

But surely it has to be accepted that the lane in question simply had not been stopped, or had been breached.  And only one person was empowered to do something about it.  Who else?

 

Unfortunately, in Thailand, bikers treat that kerbside lane as if the law does not apply- you even see some of them riding in the opposite direction.  So, quite possibly, as you say, the policeman can wring his hands and justifiably say: "What the heck am I supposed to do?

 

As I said in my opening posting, this u-turn business is just flawed.  it's a practice that should be stopped.

 

 

Sure if the lane had been stopped then it may not have happened.  So why is it that you find it difficult to acknowledge that if the motorcyclist had not been on the road that day, then the same scenario is equally applicable, that the incident would not have occurred.

 

The U Turn bays IMO, are not flawed, they are great if utilised correctly, it is just that the nation's drivers don't have the patience or the wherewithal to understand the rules and how they should be applied.  We have to remember where we are and stop trying to apply western logic to Thai thinking.  Will never happen.

 

 

 As for sniping, I do not think so but that is your opinion.  What will you accuse me of this time? 

[mommysboy]

40 minutes ago, Si Thea01 said:

Sure if the lane had been stopped then it may not have happened.  So why is it that you find it difficult to acknowledge that if the motorcyclist had not been on the road that day, then the same scenario is equally applicable, that the incident would not have occurred.

 

The U Turn bays IMO, are not flawed, they are great if utilised correctly, it is just that the nation's drivers don't have the patience or the wherewithal to understand the rules and how they should be applied.  We have to remember where we are and stop trying to apply western logic to Thai thinking.  Will never happen.

 

 

 As for sniping, I do not think so but that is your opinion.  What will you accuse me of this time? 

 

Whose job was it to ensure the lane was stopped?  Who was the only person empowered to control the situation? 

 

I haven't answered your cryptic statement because we're not really dealing in hypotheticals and it was rather a poor analogy pitting a wide existential point against a defined problem quite within occupational control.  It is simply not cogent.

 

On reflection, I don't actually blame the policeman because what probably happened is at least one, and probably more just rode away as soon as his back was turned.... and that was the end of that.   It probably happens so often that they just give up the ghost on that kerbside lane.  The biker rode at an inappropriate speed and is responsible for the collision imo, police oversight notwithstanding

 

The u-turns are flawed imo, because Thais are simply not capable in actuality of coping with them- they just can't hold a line as one- and, anyway,  it's in the nature of u-turns that one vehicle crosses three lines of traffic moving in the opposite direction, often at speed.  Indeed , that was the case here.  I am generally not talking about the u-turns at traffic lights, but the ones that seem to allow turning right in the middle of moving traffic, and are unsupervised.  This one was of course supervised, and there was still an accident!

 

How about laying off the 'wais'.  You're not Thai and neither am I  You are a fellow poster and not a commanding officer.

 

 

 

[Moti24]

13 hours ago, MaxYakov said:

I do accept (and react to) Thailand and anywhere else in the world as they are, knowing I cannot change them - which I believe should adequately explain my ridiculous survivalist attitude.

 

However, in Thailand, due to the several untoward factors which I should not have to elaborate on to a long-term observer of Thailand such as yourself, I have to be "ultra defensive", especially since a bicycle (or even a motorbike) offers little to nil crash protection, leaving little latitude for human or machine error - that of yours or others.

 

You are a "long-term" and "observant" expat, right?

 

You do operate a motor vehicle or cycle or are even a pedestrian in Thailand 365 days a year rain or shine, right?

 

So can we assume from your reply that, if you operate a motor vehicle on Thailand's roads you are an "offensive driver",  or at least someone who does not believe in "defensive driving", right?

 

How's your blood pressure doing now? 

I think you're missing the point.  Look at the video, again.  Other motorcyclists slow down and look, ready to stop, but it only took one idiot to ignore what should have been common sense.  Even in Thailand, it is illegal to overtake on the inside, but that is another issue.  In this instance, only the motorcyclist was at fault.  The pickup driver could do nothing about it as the motorcyclist was travelling too fast.  You are not wrong with information in your post, but your constant defensive driving remarks were not fitting for this situation.

 

I no longer like driving in Thailand, nor do I like riding my motorcycle, but they are necessities for everyday life.  Unfortunately, here in Thailand, travelling on the road is a lottery.  Until the Thai drivers are educated to a competent standard, it will always be a lottery.

 

Have a nice day.

[MaxYakov]

3 hours ago, Moti24 said:

I think you're missing the point.  Look at the video, again.  Other motorcyclists slow down and look, ready to stop, but it only took one idiot to ignore what should have been common sense.  Even in Thailand, it is illegal to overtake on the inside, but that is another issue.  In this instance, only the motorcyclist was at fault.  The pickup driver could do nothing about it as the motorcyclist was travelling too fast.  You are not wrong with information in your post, but your constant defensive driving remarks were not fitting for this situation.

 

I no longer like driving in Thailand, nor do I like riding my motorcycle, but they are necessities for everyday life.  Unfortunately, here in Thailand, travelling on the road is a lottery.  Until the Thai drivers are educated to a competent standard, it will always be a lottery.

 

Have a nice day.

Thanks for the reply. I have already faulted the motorbike operator for speeding and misreading the road situation in a previous post. However, from the video I'm not sure he was actually speeding and if so by how much. It was a survivable hit (at least for the passengers) considering none of them had helmets. And the motorbike was near the center of the lane and should have been at least visible.

 

Anyway, from your apparent attitude, I can only hope that you are not the one assigned or volunteering to be educating the Thai road users.

 

In my humble opinion (which seems to be supported by the horrific motorbike road casualty rate) motorbikes are the "road disease" of Thailand and they are or have become necessities for too many people, but not a necessity for all. Motorbikes usage is a major reason why the horrific road casualty rate. Some 75% of fatal road accidents involve motorbikes.

 

Everyone who uses the roads in Thailand should already be aware of this, even you, but I'll link it anyway.:

New Year road deaths surge in Thailand despite safety campaign - Reuters - January 4, 2017 [link]

 

From the above link:

 

"The Department of Land Transport said 426 people died in 3,327 accidents between Dec. 29 and Jan. 3, up from 340 in the year-earlier period. 

Thailand’s road death rate is the highest in the world apart from war-ravaged Libya, according to a 2015 World Health Organization report."

 

What are you doing personally to avoid speeding motorcyclists (or other vehicles) that are "travelling [sic] too fast" for you to do anything about them, as you allege* was the case in this collision?

 

* = How do you know if the pickup driver had even attempted to clear the #1 lane of oncoming traffic before entering it? Is that in the video also?

 

Have a Safe Day.

Edited October 21, 2017 by MaxYakov

[Si Thea01]

15 hours ago, mommysboy said:

 

Whose job was it to ensure the lane was stopped?  Who was the only person empowered to control the situation? 

 

I haven't answered your cryptic statement because we're not really dealing in hypotheticals and it was rather a poor analogy pitting a wide existential point against a defined problem quite within occupational control.  It is simply not cogent.

 

On reflection, I don't actually blame the policeman because what probably happened is at least one, and probably more just rode away as soon as his back was turned.... and that was the end of that.   It probably happens so often that they just give up the ghost on that kerbside lane.  The biker rode at an inappropriate speed and is responsible for the collision imo, police oversight notwithstanding

 

The u-turns are flawed imo, because Thais are simply not capable in actuality of coping with them- they just can't hold a line as one- and, anyway,  it's in the nature of u-turns that one vehicle crosses three lines of traffic moving in the opposite direction, often at speed.  Indeed , that was the case here.  I am generally not talking about the u-turns at traffic lights, but the ones that seem to allow turning right in the middle of moving traffic, and are unsupervised.  This one was of course supervised, and there was still an accident!

 

How about laying off the 'wais'.  You're not Thai and neither am I  You are a fellow poster and not a commanding officer.

 

 

 

So after blaming the copper in post 74 and I quote " Arguably the copper is at fault here, then proceeding to implicate the driver as having made a mistake," then changing your mind, again in Post 77, where you state, "Thinking about it, the car driver is not at fault at all as you say- he rightly assumed traffic had been stopped and so didn't apply the usual caution, only it had not been stopped." Sure, you can change your mind. 

 

But why then,  if in reflection, if you don't actually blame the copper then why the need for these statements, "Who was the only person empowered to control the situation?" ; "police oversight notwithstanding," ; " this one was of course supervised,"  I would say that it appears you still want to lay blame on the officer, as you did it Post 77 where you stated  that, No, it's up to the policeman to stop the lines of traffic, not just two.  If he'd done that, then there would have been no problem."  You then go on to say that you are not blaming the police officer as I imagine.  Really?  The only thing you have gotten right is that the motorcyclist is at fault, full stop.

 

I have seen multitude of accidents at U Turn bays controlled buy traffic lights, so who  do you want to blame under those circumstances.  And what has my nationality got to do with the way I sign off on my posts. Just who do you think you are telling others what to do? I could easily say lay off the rubbish you are posting but I am not.  Obviously someone who has a problem so if it irks you, than just ignore what I post.  As for  a commanding officer, what are you on about here?     Oops, 

 

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by Si Thea01

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, Si Thea01 said:

So after blaming the copper in post 74 and I quote " Arguably the copper is at fault here, then proceeding to implicate the driver as having made a mistake," then changing your mind, again in Post 77, where you state, "Thinking about it, the car driver is not at fault at all as you say- he rightly assumed traffic had been stopped and so didn't apply the usual caution, only it had not been stopped." Sure, you can change your mind. 

 

But why then,  if in reflection, if you don't actually blame the copper then why the need for these statements, "Who was the only person empowered to control the situation?" ; "police oversight notwithstanding," ; " this one was of course supervised,"  I would say that it appears you still want to lay blame on the officer, as you did it Post 77 where you stated  that, No, it's up to the policeman to stop the lines of traffic, not just two.  If he'd done that, then there would have been no problem."  You then go on to say that you are not blaming the police officer as I imagine.  Really?  The only thing you have gotten right is that the motorcyclist is at fault, full stop.

 

I have seen multitude of accidents at U Turn bays controlled buy traffic lights, so who  do you want to blame under those circumstances.  And what has my nationality got to do with the way I sign off on my posts. Just who do you think you are telling others what to do? I could easily say lay off the rubbish you are posting but I am not.  Obviously someone who has a problem so if it irks you, than just ignore what I post.  As for  a commanding officer, what are you on about here?     Oops, 

 

 

Mindless rant.

 

This is a discussion thread.  In the course of discussion we look at things, reflect, change our minds, take on board advice, see what others think, etc.

 

You seem to think there should be one fixed view we should stick to, and that it is to to be defended at all cost.

 

Poor debating.

Edited October 21, 2017 by mommysboy

[Si Thea01]

1 hour ago, mommysboy said:

Mindless rant.

 

This is a discussion thread.  In the course of discussion we look at things, reflect, change our minds, take on board advice, see what others think, etc.

 

You seem to think there should be one fixed view we should stick to, and that it is to to be defended at all cost.

 

Poor debating.

Is this supposed to be constructive criticism?  You lost it with the first two words.  

 

[MaxYakov]

Another motorbike / pickup collision at a U-turn - statement by the pickup driver:

 

"While he was making a U-turn, a scooter, ridden by Mr Pisarz, suddenly tried to overtake his vehicle, cutting in front of him. Relying on a statement by this witness, Pol Lt Col Potwad said, “He told us that the driver of the other vehicle had been driving so fast that he was not able to stop in time and ended up colliding with his SUV at high speed.”"

 

Farang Deaths - Edward Anthony Pisarz - Sukhumvit Rd. Chon Buri - August 10, 2017 [link]

 

Looking at both the left-side damage to the pickup and the absolutely demolished condition of the motorbike, I'd bet the pickup performed the U-turn and collected the motorbike which was traveling at high speed in the opposite direction (similar to this accident) - not necessarily as the driver states. The driver's statement would not eliminate the possibility that his U-turning in the path of the motorbike caused the collision. Just that the "driver of the other vehicle had been driving so fast that he was not able to stop in time".

 

Yes, I'd bet the deceased was much chagrined to find the pickup suddenly in his path and in close proximity (for the  few seconds or less he had left to be alive).

 

Edited October 21, 2017 by MaxYakov