Who's at fault in this scenario?

[thaibeachlovers]

22 hours ago, Andaman Al said:

It's Thailand, so car A is in the wrong. Further evidence that colonial occupation was not always a bad thing......Education, Roads, Police etc etc.

New Zealand had the exact same stupid give way when turning left law, and they were a colony. 

[tinca tinca]

On 2/26/2018 at 10:48 AM, lannarebirth said:

In the absence of signage or flashing lights and assuming proper turn signals were used, I'd say car "B" is at fault.

agree CAR B in my opinion for cutting across the road into which it is entering 

[stevenl]

On 2/26/2018 at 8:28 PM, jackdd said:

Section 71 is talking about the situation that arises if for example one car comes from north and the other from west, then the "north car" is left of the "west car" and thus has the right of way.

If one car is coming from north and the other one from south then obviously there is no car "right" or "left"

 

I quoted the original Thai law (english sources are sometimes faulty) in my first post and gave a translation of it.

The translation that you linked to actually also includes this, it's the last sentence of Section 51: "Vehicles turning left shall give way to vehicles turning right"

 

The part that you quoted from Section 51 is referring to the situation if car A would drive straight, which i also explained in my first post already, then car A would have the right of way.

Thanks to you and rwdr... for good information with sources. In spite of the nonsense 'farang' 'TIT' comments your contribution made the thread worth reading and the information worth remembering.

[JungleBiker]

Having discussed this with a Thai cousin-in-law who is a motorist and policeman, and who told me that B is wrong, I have concluded that section 51 is either badly worded or has been misinterpreted by several of the posters in this thread. 

Edited March 7, 2018 by JungleBiker
To correct a grammatical error

[StreetCowboy]

44 minutes ago, JungleBiker said:

Having discussed this with a Thai cousin-in-law who is a motorist and policeman, and who told me that B is wrong, I have that section 51 is either badly worded or has been misinterpreted by several of the posters in this thread. 

I think that the example in the question, and in particular the supporting sketches showing B tail-ending A, are poor.  It would have been more appropriate if the two front ends had come together, since in that instance both cars could have stopped to allow the other to proceed.

 

And in that case it would have been more obvious that A should have given way to B, who was already much of the way through his maneuver and probably blocking the main road in both directions, and in accordance with the principle of giving way to what's in front of you.

 

SC