Running red lights

[Fed up aussie]

 

Red light running seems to be the latest pastime in The land of smiles.Nearly got cleaned up by 18 wheeler recently.I,m glad he changed lanes

[Lungstib]

I once ran my m'bike into the rear of a pick-up (no damage)  when he suddenly stopped at a green light suspecting a fast approaching car wasn't going to stop at his red light. One aware Thai driver who knew the dangers. That was 25 years ago. 

[joeyg]

4 hours ago, Lungstib said:

I once ran my m'bike into the rear of a pick-up (no damage)  when he suddenly stopped at a green light suspecting a fast approaching car wasn't going to stop at his red light. One aware Thai driver who knew the dangers. That was 25 years ago. 

However the one in the rear of a rear end collision is always at fault...

[NoshowJones]

7 minutes ago, joeyg said:

However the one in the rear of a rear end collision is always at fault...

I would dispute that as there is the odd occasion when a vehicle cuts in right in front of you then has to slam on his brakes before you get the chance to drop back a bit, on the sort of occasion, how can the rear end collision be the drivers fault?

[starky]

4 hours ago, Lungstib said:

I once ran my m'bike into the rear of a pick-up (no damage)  when he suddenly stopped at a green light suspecting a fast approaching car wasn't going to stop at his red light. One aware Thai driver who knew the dangers. That was 25 years ago. 

A lot more aware than that. I have seen many Thais who won't move till well after a light has turned green as it is well known that many Thais will run the red. Certainly nothing new. Having said that you put countdowns on traffic lights in Australia like you do in Thailand and the chaos would be just as great. Both from those trying to run the red and jump the green.

Edited April 3, 2018 by starky

[starky]

11 minutes ago, joeyg said:

However the one in the rear of a rear end collision is always at fault...

Yes and rightly so. Safe braking distance between you and the vehicle in front inclusive of changing road conditions.

[Pib]

In Thailand a red light means you should "consider" stopping, but obviously it's not mandatory. 

[starky]

1 minute ago, possum1931 said:

I would dispute that as there is the odd occasion when a vehicle cuts in right in front of you then has to slam on his brakes before you get the chance to drop back a bit, on the sort of occasion, how can the rear end collision be the drivers fault?

Because as soon as he cuts in front of you or starts to veer you should be covering your brake and ensuring you have a safe stopping distance. 

[joeyg]

1 minute ago, Pib said:

In Thailand a red light means you should "consider" stopping, but obviously it's not mandatory. 

That's why I gave up driving here.  It scares the s$$t out of me.  And I was a driving/riding enthusiast!

 

[NoshowJones]

10 minutes ago, starky said:

Because as soon as he cuts in front of you or starts to veer you should be covering your brake and ensuring you have a safe stopping distance. 

Read my post again.

[joeyg]

13 minutes ago, starky said:

Because as soon as he cuts in front of you or starts to veer you should be covering your brake and ensuring you have a safe stopping distance. 

Yep, tell it to the judge.  Unless some malice or deliberate activity can be proven, like trying to instigate a false insurance claim, the person in the rear is wrong.

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, starky said:

Because as soon as he cuts in front of you or starts to veer you should be covering your brake and ensuring you have a safe stopping distance. 

Written by someone who in attempting to follow his own advice would either recognize the practicalities of driving here and thus prove his comment above somewhat hypocritical or make very little progress in traffic. 

 

The idea that the vehicle behind is automatically at fault in a rear-end collision is flawed - someone cutting you up and slamming on the brakes is a perfect example. Sometimes, defensive driving cannot protect you from the insane maneuvers some carry out. 

 

On Thailand's roads, those who have experience and understand the practicalities of driving here have had to adapt somewhat. A balance is often necessary to make progress in traffic vs the risk of driving in close proximity to others will little knowledge or road safety and little training. 

 

 

[joeyg]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Written by someone who in attempting to follow his own advice would either recognize the practicalities of driving here and thus prove his comment above somewhat hypocritical or make very little progress in traffic. 

 

The idea that the vehicle behind is automatically at fault in a rear-end collision is flawed - someone cutting you up and slamming on the brakes is a perfect example. Sometimes, defensive driving cannot protect you from the insane maneuvers some carry out. 

 

On Thailand's roads, those who have experience and understand the practicalities of driving here have had to adapt somewhat. A balance is often necessary to make progress in traffic vs the risk of driving in close proximity to others will little knowledge or road safety and little training. 

 

 

I drove here for years, on and off.  try driving in Bangkok.  At least in the States unless it can be proved that the driver had "malicious intent" the driver in the rear is wrong.  Tell it to the judge.  I don't make the news I just report it... 

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, joeyg said:

Yep, tell it to the judge.  Unless some malice or deliberate activity can be proven, like trying to instigate a false insurance claim, the person in the rear is wrong.

Not always, and with the onset of dash-cams, footage is showing that the late and dangerous maneuvers of others is proving them at fault rather than the following vehicle. 

 

These days, no case is as clear-cut as the 'pre-dash cam' ideology that the following car is always at fault would imply.

 

Blame is proportioned based on individual merit and not some generic 'one fits all accidents' rule. 

Edited April 3, 2018 by richard_smith237

[joeyg]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not always, and with the onset of dash-cams, footage is showing that the late and dangerous maneuvers of others is proving them at fault rather than the following vehicle. 

 

These days, no case is as clear-cut as the 'pre-dash cam' ideology that the following car is always at fault would imply. Each case is and will be decided on its individual merit and not some generic 

Please approach the bench... 

[richard_smith237]

 

9 minutes ago, joeyg said:

I drove here for years, on and off.  try driving in Bangkok.  At least in the States unless it can be proved that the driver had "malicious intent" the driver in the rear is wrong.  Tell it to the judge.  I don't make the news I just report it... 

But you are not driving in the 'states' when you are driving here... 

 

Regardless, we clearly disagree.... You believe that in a rear-end collision the driver of the car behind is always at fault (except under malicious circumstances), I believe other mitigating circumstances will be taken into account when proportioning blame such that the driver of the following car may not always be at fault. 

 

There's no point taking over the thread with this - we simply disagree. 

Edited April 3, 2018 by richard_smith237

[geriatrickid]

In Hua Hin, the crossing walk  in front of Bangkok Hospital has multiple red lights that activate to allow pedestrians to cross. Few people  obey and  motorcyclists speed through the cross walk even when people are in it. The police of course do nothing, even when it occurs under their noses,

[joeyg]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

But you are not driving in the 'states' when you are driving here... 

 

Regardless, we clearly disagree.... You believe that in a rear-end collision the driver of the car behind is always at fault (except under malicious circumstances), I believe other mitigating circumstances will be taken into account when proportioning blame such that the driver of the following car may not always be at fault. 

 

There's no point taking over the thread with this - we simply disagree. 

Another outburst like that you will be held in contempt!!! 

[joeyg]

2 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

In Hua Hin, the crossing walk  in front of Bangkok Hospital has multiple red lights that activate to allow pedestrians to cross. Few people  obey and  motorcyclists speed through the cross walk even when people are in it. The police of course do nothing, even when it occurs under their noses,

What's the point?

[richard_smith237]

4 minutes ago, geriatrickid said:

In Hua Hin, the crossing walk  in front of Bangkok Hospital has multiple red lights that activate to allow pedestrians to cross. Few people  obey and  motorcyclists speed through the cross walk even when people are in it. The police of course do nothing, even when it occurs under their noses,

I see that in Hua Hin the Intercontinental Hotel and Blueport shopping mall have hired their own 'crossing guards'... it seems that the only way drivers in Thailand will obey lights at pedestrians crossings is if they are manned with 'guards' with large orange wands and whistles....  its clear that even then the traffic stops with a significant level of reluctance for crossing pedestrians.... 

 

Just in case someone asks "what is my point?".... the point is: Endemic in Thailands road users is the total and complete lack of consideration for pedestrians or other road users, such that running red lights, not stopping for pedestrians etc becomes the social and somewhat acceptable norm. 

[joeyg]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I see that in Hua Hin the Intercontinental Hotel and Blueport shopping mall have hired their own 'crossing guards'... it seems that the only way drivers in Thailand will obey lights at pedestrians crossings is if they are manned with 'guards' with large orange wands and whistles....  its clear that even then the traffic stops with a significant level of reluctance for crossing pedestrians.... 

 

Just in case someone asks "what is my point?".... the point is: Endemic in Thailands road users is the total and complete lack of consideration for pedestrians or other road users, such that running red lights, not stopping for pedestrians etc becomes the social and somewhat acceptable norm. 

What's the point?... 

[watcharacters]

1 hour ago, joeyg said:

However the one in the rear of a rear end collision is always at fault...

 

 

I learned long ago to say false on a true or false test if the question was   "always".

 

 

I'd welcome a wager on that.   Always?       R U sure?

[Lungstib]

1 hour ago, joeyg said:

5 hours ago, Lungstib said:

I once ran my m'bike into the rear of a pick-up (no damage)  when he suddenly stopped at a green light suspecting a fast approaching car wasn't going to stop at his red light. One aware Thai driver who knew the dangers. That was 25 years ago. 

However the one in the rear of a rear end collision is always at fault...

Yes, completely caught by surprise. After a 2 minute wait away we went when the light turned green. I looked in my mirror to see if it was safe to go pass the slow pick-up and as I did he suddenly stopped. My fault but nothing more than a smear of rubber on his back bumper.

[nikmar]

1 hour ago, joeyg said:

That's why I gave up driving here.  It scares the s$$t out of me.  And I was a driving/riding enthusiast!

 

Yep. Me too. I remember driving in Saudi and thinking that I would be ok to drive anywhere after that. then I came to BKK.

 

Best left to the missis, I only react when she does her lippy in the rearview.

[starky]

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Written by someone who in attempting to follow his own advice would either recognize the practicalities of driving here and thus prove his comment above somewhat hypocritical or make very little progress in traffic. 

 

The idea that the vehicle behind is automatically at fault in a rear-end collision is flawed - someone cutting you up and slamming on the brakes is a perfect example. Sometimes, defensive driving cannot protect you from the insane maneuvers some carry out. 

 

On Thailand's roads, those who have experience and understand the practicalities of driving here have had to adapt somewhat. A balance is often necessary to make progress in traffic vs the risk of driving in close proximity to others will little knowledge or road safety and little training. 

 

 

Maybe you can't recognise idiots on the roads, I can and I give them a wide berth whats hypocritical about that? What is telling is your statement " making very little progress in traffic" which tells me all I need to know. Go play race and chase with the Thais champ I will get there when I get there safe and sound thanks. You can also jump off your those who understand driving in Thailand high horse. I've been driving on the roads here for 20 years without incident, how about you?

[starky]

5 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 

 

I learned long ago to say false on a true or false test if the question was   "always".

 

 

I'd welcome a wager on that.   Always?       R U sure?

Yep ...how much you wanna bet?

[starky]

5 hours ago, joeyg said:

Another outburst like that you will be held in contempt!!! 

He says no point taking over the thread but he still keeps going on and on and on and on about it. Simple fact is you hit someone up the arse itz your fault.

[richard_smith237]

18 minutes ago, starky said:

Maybe you can't recognise idiots on the roads, I can and I give them a wide berth whats hypocritical about that? What is telling is your statement " making very little progress in traffic" which tells me all I need to know. Go play race and chase with the Thais champ I will get there when I get there safe and sound thanks. You can also jump off your those who understand driving in Thailand high horse. I've been driving on the roads here for 20 years without incident, how about you?

Also 20 years... 3 incidents (2 of them stationary in a car park)...  

 

The point on 'little progress'... If I were to leave the legal 5m (according to Thai code), someone would always jump in that gap... drive like that and no progress would be made until the roads were empty - I thought that was pretty clear to understand.... hardly 'race and chase'...  

 

No 'high horse'... but it is pretty obvious to anyone who has driven here any time (or spend any time here in traffic as a passenger) that a certain 'assertive' manner needs to be adopted to achieve any progress in traffic.... 

[starky]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Also 20 years... 3 incidents (2 of them stationary in a car park)...  

 

The point on 'little progress'... If I were to leave the legal 5m (according to Thai code), someone would always jump in that gap... drive like that and no progress would be made until the roads were empty - I thought that was pretty clear to understand.... hardly 'race and chase'...  

 

No 'high horse'... but it is pretty obvious to anyone who has driven here any time (or spend any time here in traffic as a passenger) that a certain 'assertive' manner needs to be adopted to achieve any progress in traffic.... 

OK mate you win, your right, happy? This is the problem with this forum people trying to railroad you into believing that their opinion is more valid than your own. Fyckks sake

Edited April 3, 2018 by starky

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, starky said:

OK mate you win, your right, happy?

No one needs to win, we're not 5 years old... we can just understand each others opinions, all part and parcel of learning about those around us. 

 

In this case - much of our opinion would overlap in a polite face to face discussion, however, on an internet forum its not so easy to articulate a point without it being misunderstood or distorted in some manner or form...