This looks like a question from the Thai driving test. There were a number of questions like this where the "correct" answer was definitely wrong. The English version of the test was so poorly worded that I kept flunking it. Finally, out of desperation, I asked to take the test in Thai, and was able to pass the first time. True story.

 

Car B is at fault. Car A has the right of way whether continuing to go straight or turning to the left.

Just now, jenny2017 said:

It also depends on if the driver of car B pointed a gun at the driver of car A?

Or if the driver of car A had a more expensive car or a bigger vehicle; the Thai basis of right of way

8 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

This looks like a question from the Thai driving test. There were a number of questions like this where the "correct" answer was definitely wrong. The English version of the test was so poorly worded that I kept flunking it. Finally, I asked to take the test in Thai, and was able to pass the first time. True story.

 

Car B is at fault. Car A has the right of way whether continuing to go straight or turning to the left.

It's clear that car B hits car A,. Car A didn't do anything illegal than trying to turn left, so easy cheesy. 

Left turn gives way to all traffic and pedestrians,

So all you other numpties hand your licences in or better still just stay of the roads.

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, willr said:

Left turn gives way to all traffic and pedestrians,

So all you other numpties hand your licences in or better still just stay of the roads.

 

 

 

Exactly what I said. Where can I pick up my bike? 

But A was 75% into the turn before B came along if B hit him like that & it also puts B on the wrong side of the road

In English law Car A has the right of way, Car B is at fault. Simple but this is Thailand, for which Jerry 921 explains perfectly.

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.

Car B

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

This law is not related to this situation, you have to look at Section 51. I explained this already on page 2

I saw, but I think that is incorrect. 71 *specifically* references the situation where two vehicles travelling in opposite directions meet at the same time at a junction. - which is the case in the OP.
 

Quote

Section 71 (500B)

If, when entering a junction, there are other vehicles, the driver must let such vehicles go through first.

If two vehicles enter a junction from different directions at the same time, the vehicle on the left side has a right of way, except when there's a designation of "principle roadway" in which case the vehicle on the principle roadway has a right of way.

Also the translation of 51at http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf says the opposite of what you explained on Page 2 if read literally:
 

Quote

Section 51 (500B)
...
To turn right:
...
e. at a junction the driver shall allow the vehicles that travel in the same roadway but in the opposite direction to pass through the junction first and, upon seeing that it is safe, may then make a right turn.

This says that Car A has right of way in the OP, not car B.

My *guess* is that 51 is intending to refer to right turning vehicles giving way to oncoming traffic that is not making a turn, but I'm sure 71 refers to the scenario in the OP - all preconditions match. What isn't clear though is what orientation the law is speaking from, so it's about as much use as a chocolate teapot.

6 hours ago, Mattd said:

Car A is required to give way to car B as per Thai traffic regulations.

How? Reverse back out on to the main road?

 

My understanding is that if car A approaches the junction, and B is mid way through his turn - not approaching the junction, not stationary, then he cannot dart in front of the turning car.

 

Same as the situation at my junction every day outside the office - the left-turning traffic in the slip lane gives way to the right turning traffic in the main junction, unless they are clearly in front.

 

SC

 

7 minutes ago, rwdrwdrwd said:

I saw, but I think that is incorrect. 71 *specifically* references the situation where two vehicles travelling in opposite directions meet at the same time at a junction. - which is the case in the OP.
 

51 on the other hand purely refers to any given situation where one wishes to turn, and also the translation of 51 says the opposite of what you claim:
 

Which says that Car A has right of way, not car B

Could be bad translations of course, but that is what http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf says.

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.

3 minutes ago, 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"

 

Ahhh yes that makes sense now.
 

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

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"

 

You're totally right, sorry for the digression!

Av not read all the posts but will having a Thai in one vehicle and a farang in the other have a bearing possibly on the outcome of blame... and as for rules of the road in Thailand, Good luck with that 555

Car B, if the diagram is correct. End of story and a stupid question.

Neither is at fault if the cars are in Thailand.

CarA is right!

The farang...

B

19 hours ago, robblok said:

Then I would say B is to blame... but I would not bet my life on it. Shared blame is a possibility too. 

You don't drive do you ? If you do drive you need to be retestested 

3 hours ago, mikosan said:

Car B, if the diagram is correct. End of story and a stupid question.

If it was such a stupid question, why did you get the answer wrong?  Car A is at fault - you can read Posts #10,11,14,and 18 for clarification. 

12 hours ago, StreetCowboy said:

How? Reverse back out on to the main road?

 

My understanding is that if car A approaches the junction, and B is mid way through his turn - not approaching the junction, not stationary, then he cannot dart in front of the turning car.

 

Same as the situation at my junction every day outside the office - the left-turning traffic in the slip lane gives way to the right turning traffic in the main junction, unless they are clearly in front.

 

SC

 

For some unfathomable reason, in Thailand car A must give way to Car B, so wait to turn left after car B has turned right, can't say I agree with it or the logic.

17 minutes ago, Mattd said:

For some unfathomable reason, in Thailand car A must give way to Car B, so wait to turn left after car B has turned right, can't say I agree with it or the logic.

He's following the principle of give way to what's in front of you.  If there is a car turning right in front of you, you can't dive into the side road in front of the turning car.  You have to let him clear the junction before following him round.

 

The drawings at the start of the thread (and in the copy of the Thai driving test material that I saw in a link) are confusing in that they show car B rear-ending car A, who made the turn in advance of car B.  Car B should have given way to through traffic on the other bound, and could not be sure that car A was turning left (maybe his indicator was stuck), and was not intending to proceed straight (for which he would have right of way), but if he had started to turn before car A arrived at the junction, car A should wait until B had finished his turn, even if there was space for him to turn in front of B while B was crossing the main road.  

 

SC

23 hours ago, mogandave said:

Would that only be if they arrive at the intersection at the same time?

Nobody really answered this point. While section 51 says B has the right of way, (see post #18), isn't that only if they arrive at the intersection at the same time? It was a given that A arrived at the intersection first. How much ahead of B does A have to be in order to be able to turn left without stopping & yielding? Far enough ahead that B can't hit him even if he tries? Or just far enough ahead that B can reasonably avoid hitting him? Is it A's fault because B hit the side of A but it would be B's fault if he hit the rear of A? Or is it A's fault even if he clears the intersection with plenty of room ahead of B but B is in road rage and floors it and intentionally rear-ends A a bit down the road?

 

I stick with my earlier opinion, post (#9). It's ambiguous enough that the policeman is probably going to make up a rule on the spot, regardless of what's written in the law, and the one who is at fault is the one the policeman says is at fault.

16 minutes ago, jerry921 said:

Nobody really answered this point. While section 51 says B has the right of way, (see post #18), isn't that only if they arrive at the intersection at the same time? It was a given that A arrived at the intersection first. How much ahead of B does A have to be in order to be able to turn left without stopping & yielding? Far enough ahead that B can't hit him even if he tries? Or just far enough ahead that B can reasonably avoid hitting him? Is it A's fault because B hit the side of A but it would be B's fault if he hit the rear of A? Or is it A's fault even if he clears the intersection with plenty of room ahead of B but B is in road rage and floors it and intentionally rear-ends A a bit down the road?

 

I stick with my earlier opinion, post (#9). It's ambiguous enough that the policeman is probably going to make up a rule on the spot, regardless of what's written in the law, and the one who is at fault is the one the policeman says is at fault.

Well actually I've addressed it a couple of times as A was there first since A is 75 % into the turn & then B turns up obviously cutting corner & crashing into the side rear of the car which put B on the wrong side of the road

 

1 hour ago, BEVUP said:

Well actually I've addressed it a couple of times as A was there first since A is 75 % into the turn & then B turns up obviously cutting corner & crashing into the side rear of the car which put B on the wrong side of the road

Is all that in section 51? I don't read Thai. As a theory it sounds fine, but is there any legal basis for your ruling?

On 2/26/2018 at 10:59 AM, pearciderman said:

Car B, he is crossing a white line, therefore Car A has right of way.

LOL... "right of way"

 

It's bloody THAILAND, not Cleethorpes!!!

5 hours ago, Mattd said:

For some unfathomable reason, in Thailand car A must give way to Car B, so wait to turn left after car B has turned right, can't say I agree with it or the logic.

You are absolutely, incontrovertibly and unashamedly 100% CORRECT!

 

See! It's NOT Cleethorpes after all.

5 hours ago, SABloke said:

If it was such a stupid question, why did you get the answer wrong?  Car A is at fault - you can read Posts #10,11,14,and 18 for clarification. 

I've read them, but it seemed to me that car 'A' clearly arrived at the junction first and commenced their turning manoeuvre and was then rammed by car 'B'.  However, I have now also read the Land Traffic Act of Thailand http://thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf and it clearly states, in Section 51 '....vehicles turning left shall give way to vehicles turning right'.  So I guess it's a matter of timing and dependent upon that, I stand corrected.  A very useful exercise.

Its a stupid Question. No speed or surroundings to make a fair assessment.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect