Having a Car Accident in Thailand - My Experience

[stevenl]

15 hours ago, off road pat said:

You didn't read the whole story did you ??? " after completing the U-Turn a Pickup crashed into me from the back. "

I read the whole story.

He made the U-turn, so he is to blame, as admitted as well. Did you miss that part of the story?

 

Alternative is the U-turn had nothing to do with the accident.

[evadgib]

Further to point 6 in the OP; U turns will presumably be covered by CCTV.

HTH

[HAKAPALITA]

11 hours ago, ericthai said:

I've had two accidents in Thailand over the years. One was my fault the second the others guys fault. Both times nobody was hurt.  Police didn't do anything, no tickets nothing. I called the insurance company they came and took care of everything. I was never even asked for my license. However I always have 1st class insurance.

Thats how it works for most except posters it seems.

[Rawairat]

Dashcams are becoming essential, I also carry a spare SD card to swap out just in case. Had an accident where the other guy lost control coming at me on a wet road, luckily nobody was hurt. He denied driving at first and then denied having insurance, so it did not look good. Next morning when he sobered up enough to pass a breathalyzer he remembered he had insurance, 2 class. Good for me as my truck will get repaired, the down side is I have no transport for 6 months, a replacement chassis was required, takes time apparently. 

Spoke with his Asia Insurance rep and got a positive response asking for an initial 2 months car rental and he gave another 2 months whilst the truck is actually being repaired. Nothing whilst you wait for parts and the repair shop to start working, and only B500 a day. 

Hopefully next month I should have my truck back, "fully repaired" and some restitution for car rental, but it has still cost me. Never tried to chase up the driver for the balance as his car was fairly old and I was surprised he had insurance! 

I will consider myself lucky if things work out without costing me too much more.

[richard_smith237]

10 hours ago, whaleboneman said:

Can you quote the law that states foreigners must have 1st class insurance to drive here? Or are you making up "facts".

 

He's not quoting a fact, just stating his opinion...  It's not law that foreigners have 1st class insurance... But for many, myself included, it's considered essential and without it someone is opening themself up to the potential of having to pay for costly damages beyond what their compulsory insurance (Por-ror-bor) covers. 

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

I read the whole story.

He made the U-turn, so he is to blame, as admitted as well. Did you miss that part of the story?

 

Alternative is the U-turn had nothing to do with the accident.

I imagine that had the roles been reversed some posters may suggest that it was the Ops fault as he was travelling too fast and couldn't slow down enough to avoid the U-Turnung car (after it had u turned and was travelling straight).

 

IMO: The driver of following car which rear ended the Op ia at fault.

While the Op may also be complicit in the root cause of the accident, the speed of the following car which rear ended the Op, or the drivers lack of attention is the main fault. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by richard_smith237

[mogandave]

I imagine that had the roles been reversed some posters may suggest that it was the Ops fault as he was travelling too fast and couldn't slow down enough to avoid the pickup (after it had u turned and was travelling straight).
 
IMO: The driver of following car which rear ended the Op ia at fault.
While the Op may also be complicit in the root cause of the accident, the speed of the following car which rear ended the Op, or the drivers lack of attention is the main fault. 

Making a u-turn in front of someone and because are not able to slam the brakes on quickly enough makes it their fault?

[richard_smith237]

20 minutes ago, mogandave said:

 

Making a u-turn in front of someone and because are not able to slam the brakes on quickly enough makes it their fault?

 

The Op points out that u-turn was complete, he was in lane and driving up to speed. 

The pickup could not avoid him, thus, the pickup may have been travelling too fast or just wasn't paying enough attention. 

 

It happens frequently here at U-Turns: drivers flash their lights and speed up to intimidate the u-turning car into waiting. I'm.not suggesting this happened here. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if the Op has completed his turn and was in his lane then there 'should' have been plenty of time for the following car to slow and take avoiding action if he was paying full attention or wasnt travelling too fast. 

 

That said, without video footage of the incident it's difficult to tell. 

 

If the Op was hit on his side, I suspect everyone would agree 100% the Ops fault. But in this case the speed of the vehicle which hit the Ops car and/or inattention may also have been a factor.  

[jackdd]

OP said he completed the U-Turn, then got hit. Imho it depends on how long ago he completed the U-Turn before he got hit. I would say if the U-Turn was completed since at least 5 seconds it's the other drivers fault.

[55Jay]

If I survive but am injured, my next concern is getting thrown into the back of one of those "Rescue Units".  Better than nothing, I guess. 

 

Turn on CC for English sub-titles.

 

 

[stevenl]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

I imagine that had the roles been reversed some posters may suggest that it was the Ops fault as he was travelling too fast and couldn't slow down enough to avoid the U-Turnung car (after it had u turned and was travelling straight).

 

IMO: The driver of following car which rear ended the Op ia at fault.

While the Op may also be complicit in the root cause of the accident, the speed of the following car which rear ended the Op, or the drivers lack of attention is the main fault. 

Legally: no. Car making a U-turn, or coming onto a main street, has to make sure the road is clear and he can safely merge.

 

The car hitting the back may get fined for speeding, but nothing more.

 

Now if he had merged already and was driving along with other traffic the U-turn is immaterial, and only confusing the issue.

Edited May 14, 2018 by stevenl

[Dogmatix]

On 5/13/2018 at 12:40 PM, richard_smith237 said:

Lots of good advice so far in this thread...?

 

Especially having a good and trusted lawyer on hand. Recommendations for such a lawyer (knowledgable in RTA's) would also be very useful. 

 

My input: if you are sure you are correct, refuse (politely) to accept blame. The BiB may switch the decision to the other party just for ease of process (path of least resistance), or they'll just claim 50/50 in which case you are not (may not) be liable for any further damages etc

 

In this situation: if having made the U-Turn and travelling straight (i.e. Truly rear ended), the other vehicle is travelling too fast and at fault - Op could have pushed this issue instead of caving. 

Additionally, riding in the back of a pickup is illegal (although widely accepted) and the insurance will (I think) state the number of seats (persons insured). Thus, anyone over this is riding at the sole responsibility of the pickup driver.

 

Of course, people will just point out that the decision is down to the Police, but the policemsn who attends the scene (or at the station) do not have the final say and you can disagree (politely), the decision will get pushed up the chain. 

 

When I disagreed with the decision that an accident was 100% my fault (accident with an uninsured minivan on a bus route - whose owner came in and made a pay off) the decision was pushed up to the chain and to another station (transport police I think) who quickly decided 50/50 which I accepted and the other party could not claim compensation against me for his 'fake' injury.

 

I was very stubborn, but also very cslm. The Police were polite with me throughout.

 

 

I had this experience once when a pair of drunks on a motorbike drove into the side of my car, trying to overtake when I was  turning right after clearly indicating.  Relatively small damage was done to both vehicles and a few cuts and bruises to the two drunks  who were stinking of alcohol but weren't breathalysed, as  the BiB at the scene must have seen it as a clear cut case cut case of DWW (driving while white). After a couple of hours of childish BS at the cop shop from the police captain along the lines of you must pay because you velly lich falang him poor Thai man & etc, he got bored and suddenly decided it was the motor cylist's fault and tried to extort money from him instead.   In the end he got nothing from anyone and decided to go home empty handed and let everyone go at 2.00a.m.  At one point I got fed up and was going to leave without saying anything when he went outside for a cigarette break.  But he came back into his office and caught me rifling through his drawer to recover my driving licence - no can, no can LOL. 

Edited May 14, 2018 by Dogmatix

[stevenl]

6 minutes ago, Dogmatix said:

 

I had this experience once when a pair of drunks on a motorbike drove into the side of my car, trying to overtake when I was  turning right after clearly indicating.  Relatively small damage was done to both vehicles and a few cuts and bruises to the two drunks  who were stinking of alcohol but weren't breathalysed, as  the BiB at the scene must have seen it as a clear cut case cut case of DWW (driving while white). After a couple of hours of childish BS at the cop shop from the police captain along the lines of you must pay because you velly lich falang him poor Thai man & etc, he got bored and suddenly decided it was the motor cylist's fault and tried to extort money from him instead.   In the end he got nothing from anyone and decided to go home empty handed and let everyone go at 2.00a.m.  At one point I got fed up and was going to leave without saying anything when he went outside for a cigarette break.  But he came back into his office and caught me rifling through his drawer to recover my driving licence - no can, no can LOL. 

Off topic.

 

Good you were indicating, but still you were turning right while being overtaken. So yes, you're at fault. Clear case of Turning While Being Overtaken, TWBO.

[mogandave]

The Op points out that u-turn was complete, he was in lane and driving up to speed. 
The pickup could not avoid him, thus, the pickup may have been travelling too fast or just wasn't paying enough attention. 
 
It happens frequently here at U-Turns: drivers flash their lights and speed up to intimidate the u-turning car into waiting. I'm.not suggesting this happened here. 
 
What I am suggesting is that if the Op has completed his turn and was in his lane then there 'should' have been plenty of time for the following car to slow and take avoiding action if he was paying full attention or wasnt travelling too fast. 
 
That said, without video footage of the incident it's difficult to tell. 
 
If the Op was hit on his side, I suspect everyone would agree 100% the Ops fault. But in this case the speed of the vehicle which hit the Ops car and/or inattention may also have been a factor.  

Yes, the Op is very careful to point that out, yet somehow I imagine the other driver sees it differently.

The way I understand it, one should be able to compete their u-turn and get up to speed without interfering with oncoming traffic, and while that may not always be possible, if one is not able to judge the speed of oncoming traffic, IMHO, they have no business driving.

In the US we have s rule that the last one that had an opportunity to avoid the accident is at fault. So it is assumed that when a slow-driving a-hole whips in front of you, you slow to avoid the accident...

In practice, this can almost never be determined, much less proven.

[grkt]

23 hours ago, grkt said:

So just like the local idiots you made a u-turn without thinking that you are on the fast lane and without reaching top speed quickly ?

Or also like the local idiots you made a u-turn and crossed 3 lanes instead of staying ont the most right lane where you just u-turned ?

These people will never know anything but I expect foreigners to know more.

When I u-turn I keep left and reach 100 in 4 seconds to reduce the chances that one of those idiots hit me in the back.

 

 

 

 

Thank you, no reply means that you confirmed.

 

 

[grkt]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The Op points out that u-turn was complete, he was in lane and driving up to speed. 

The pickup could not avoid him, thus, the pickup may have been travelling too fast or just wasn't paying enough attention. 

 

It happens frequently here at U-Turns: drivers flash their lights and speed up to intimidate the u-turning car into waiting. I'm.not suggesting this happened here. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if the Op has completed his turn and was in his lane then there 'should' have been plenty of time for the following car to slow and take avoiding action if he was paying full attention or wasnt travelling too fast. 

 

That said, without video footage of the incident it's difficult to tell. 

 

If the Op was hit on his side, I suspect everyone would agree 100% the Ops fault. But in this case the speed of the vehicle which hit the Ops car and/or inattention may also have been a factor.  

 

Accidents happen when the one who uturned is at low speed, just as most people driving in this country do.

After a uturn you should be at 80 as fast as possible because you are on the fastest lane !

 

 

 

[aussieinphuket]

my experience about 5 years ago.

 

doesnt help that i drive a mercedes ML350 Cdi....

 

anyway it was 6pm still day light. i was doing a turn at lights and had right of way but as usual a bunch of muslim ladies

in kamala in phuket on motorbikes was coming the other direction and disobeyed the traffic lights i was in no rush so not to scare them i decided not to turn , let them go and then i would do my turn on a green light. 

 

there was 2 lanes to go straight but i was in the right to turn, everything 100pct correct.

 

sitting waiting 3 idiots (they were burmese) on a motorbike, no helmets, no license, no insurance, doing about 80 klms

saw traffic and decided to overtake but go dont the middle between the traffic and there i was sitting in broad daylight,

obviously brakes didnt stop them, one idiot came through my drivers window covering me in glass and cutting my face all superficial fortunately. the other 2 looked dead but got up and ran off.

 

thais came out an helped and accident was actually outside a doctors office/surgery.. i went in the cleaned me up while the police were called.... the guy walks in and starts demanding stuff, in white t-shirt. i told him i am not discussing with anyone i dont know and who are you i am the head of police in kamala, still told him the same my insurance man i have known who does all our insurances and other issues in Phuket arrived.

 

the blamed me immediately, big car, farang etc... i didnt get mad just laughed and said we will come to your station tomorrow morning to discuss.

 

next morning about 200 people outside police station, his employer and friends and so-called family. 

 

went to meeting they demanding 500,000 thb my representative laughed we said if that is the case you take me to court and we will go from there... every idiot had their hand out, didnt get emotional was told to leave the meeting and i did and went and played golf... who going to pay for the damage to mercedes ....etc etc

 

anyway it went on for months, police calling i go to meetings they of course threatened deportation i wished them luck and we happy to go to court. just a lot of idol threatens and waste of time..

 

eventually the insurance company paid for repairs to the motorbike and some of his hospital costs. they had no work visas, no motorbike licenses, no helmets, 3 on a bike, what more can i say...

 

it eventually all went away, then i get a call to come to the police station to get my license back, i already got a new one, the head of police then starts telling me he my friend and i should give him money.... my representative and i listen for a little while and then we say thank you for your help but we are leaving now. end of story no more no less. he didnt get anything out of us. 

 

i think some people here immediately get to scared about the whole situation ... stand your ground unless obviously you kill someone, but i know a guy that was drunk (farang) and killed 2 people on motorbikes within 6 months and paid the family about 200/250k each and nothing went further and still living in thailand... 

 

maybe this gives people some hope..

 

we also had an issue with a local neighbour who took us to court for defamation it was a load of bullshit but we had to defend ourselves he wanted a lot of money for it t go away about 1 mill thb, fine take me to court i would rather spend all the money on legal fees then give to you, we did, he paid a lot for lawyers also, judges laughed and through it out, trust the legal system here it does work, dont listen to all these thais that love to say they have a friend and of you pay they can help etc.... good lawyer and trust the courts..

 

have a nice weekend i keep smiling everytime of think of these things....

 

 

 

 

[tweedledee2]

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

The Op points out that u-turn was complete, he was in lane and driving up to speed. 

The pickup could not avoid him, thus, the pickup may have been travelling too fast or just wasn't paying enough attention. 

 

It happens frequently here at U-Turns: drivers flash their lights and speed up to intimidate the u-turning car into waiting. I'm.not suggesting this happened here. 

 

What I am suggesting is that if the Op has completed his turn and was in his lane then there 'should' have been plenty of time for the following car to slow and take avoiding action if he was paying full attention or wasnt travelling too fast. 

 

That said, without video footage of the incident it's difficult to tell. 

 

If the Op was hit on his side, I suspect everyone would agree 100% the Ops fault. But in this case the speed of the vehicle which hit the Ops car and/or inattention may also have been a factor.  

You and I must have read different posts. Nowhere in the OP's original posts does it say anything about his speed. He said he made a U-turn and after completing it was hit from behind. When I negotiate a U-turn on a multi-lane road I always allow enough time and distance from oncoming vehicles to pull into the left lane. I find it hard to believe that while using the U-turn lane he was able to make a legal U-turn that ended with his vehicle being in the right side lane. The vehicle's turning radius would make this impossible. 

[mogandave]

You and I must have read different posts. Nowhere in the OP's original posts does it say anything about his speed. He said he made a U-turn and after completing it was hit from behind. When I negotiate a U-turn on a multi-lane road I always allow enough time and distance from oncoming vehicles to pull into the left lane. I find it hard to believe that while using the U-turn lane he was able to make a legal U-turn that ended with his vehicle being in the right side lane. The vehicle's turning radius would make this impossible. 

Not if it was a divided highway..

[catman20]

On 5/14/2018 at 4:55 AM, bandito said:

First off, you're wrong on all counts.

It's got nothing to do with being a Farang of Thai.

I drive a car here on a daily basis for over 40 years.

You have an accident the police will come especially when there are wounded etc.

I had some accidents and got paid on the spot with help from the police.

No I did'nt have to bribe the police.

The car who crashes in your car in the back is always at fault even in Thailand.

Also all cars involved will be brought or towed to the police station and remain there until the insurances have sorted it out.

At the station there will be an inquiry (IN THAI) which will be written down (IN THAI) and which you have to sign.

You have to provide a translator, I use my wife.

If you accept that you were at fault and pay damages then the police will do nothing.

Also the quilty party will be fined for obstruction of traffic.

I guess you were an easy hit for all Thais involved.

Did you have a Thai speaking person with you or were you driving alone.

Driving to the police yourself?

agree with you.

[HampiK]

I think it is interesting to read.

 

if it was his fault or not in my opinion only depends how long he finished his U-turn before the other car hit him from behind.

 

But yes, that so many not follow the rules here is sometimes very annoying. But for that so many not follow the rules I am always surprised that not more accidents happen. There are still many at least are looking to avoid

[HAKAPALITA]

Just buy a Dashcam like i did , for something to do.Dont keep justifying it as essential please.!.Sounds like my Son justifyin all the fancy wheels n junk he buys.. likely death prevails without all the crap hangin on his Jazz.[emoji86]


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[burner2014]

On 14/05/2018 at 4:55 AM, bandito said:

First off, you're wrong on all counts.

It's got nothing to do with being a Farang of Thai.

I drive a car here on a daily basis for over 40 years.

You have an accident the police will come especially when there are wounded etc.

I had some accidents and got paid on the spot with help from the police.

No I did'nt have to bribe the police.

The car who crashes in your car in the back is always at fault even in Thailand.

Also all cars involved will be brought or towed to the police station and remain there until the insurances have sorted it out.

At the station there will be an inquiry (IN THAI) which will be written down (IN THAI) and which you have to sign.

You have to provide a translator, I use my wife.

If you accept that you were at fault and pay damages then the police will do nothing.

Also the quilty party will be fined for obstruction of traffic.

I guess you were an easy hit for all Thais involved.

Did you have a Thai speaking person with you or were you driving alone.

Driving to the police yourself?

Far away from the reality I saw and experienced  sorry.  But thanks for sharing your experience 

[burner2014]

Thanks for all the comments.

Let me clear some things up:

 

1. According to the law after you make a U-turn and you get hit (even if completed) it's your fault.  You have to be at least 100-200 meter away after the U-Turn completion so it isn't counted anymore as a U-Turn.  

 

2.  When you get hit from the back,  you ask yourself was the driver speeding. But hey you can't tell that anymore because everything happens quite fast.  There was no police checking the car like in European countries .   So yeah he could have been to fast, but I can't proof that.   In the end you end up paying the police 1000 thb to check both cars and reporting it.  Can't say if they checked the speed or not.

 

3. Dashcams are nice, but you need also one in the back of your car.  I bet 99% here have one only in the front as I have. Can't see the car crashing in my back on the dashcam at all before or during the accident.

 

4.  Most important, thanks to all people sharing experience and advices for stuff happened AFTER the accident.  They got the post right :)  . My focus is not on right or wrong about that U-Turn, I accepted that I was wrong according to the law.  Still I find it very interesting how fast the finger is pointed towards the farang in my personal case. (can't speak for other cases) 

 

What happens after an accident?

What should you do after an accident?

What about defamation?  How do Thai's rule about pickups and people in the back of a pickup?
How can you protect yourself before an accident?

 

... that are the main points I wanted to emphasize and discuss :) 

 

[richard_smith237]

14 minutes ago, burner2014 said:

Thanks for all the comments.

Let me clear some things up:

 

1. According to the law after you make a U-turn and you get hit (even if completed) it's your fault.  You have to be at least 100-200 meter away after the U-Turn completion so it isn't counted anymore as a U-Turn.  

 

 

 

This is very interesting...   100-200 meters... so which one is it? 100m or 200m... the reason I ask is that the range makes it a little vague.

 

Its always annoying when someone asks for a quote - Thai law etc - but in this case it would be useful: Thus, was this information / Law gained from a legal document, or, was it the Policeman at the scene who quoted this 100-200 meters from the U-Turn?

Edited May 15, 2018 by richard_smith237

[mogandave]

 
This is very interesting...   100-200 meters... so which one is it? 100m or 200m... the reason I ask is that the range makes it a little vague.
 
Its always annoying when someone asks for a quote - Thai law etc - but in this case it would be useful: Thus, was this information / Law gained from a legal document, or, was it the Policeman at the scene who quoted this 100-200 meters from the U-Turn?

The dash cam would make it pretty clear wat the distance from the intersection was.

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, mogandave said:

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 
This is very interesting...   100-200 meters... so which one is it? 100m or 200m... the reason I ask is that the range makes it a little vague.
 
Its always annoying when someone asks for a quote - Thai law etc - but in this case it would be useful: Thus, was this information / Law gained from a legal document, or, was it the Policeman at the scene who quoted this 100-200 meters from the U-Turn?

The dash cam would make it pretty clear wat the distance from the intersection was.

 

 

Yep... But is there actually a law which states 'that an accident which occurs within XXXm of a U-Turn is the fault of the driver of the vehicle executing the U-turn' ?.... and if so, is it 100m or 200m... 

 

This is the information I was after, if it exists (i.e. a link to the Thai highway code and section which contains this). 

[burner2014]

Richard I don't know that is what the Police and Insurance officer told me (my insurance officer).  So I don't know any law where this is written :) .  As the problem was solved paying a small penalty for me I didn't research further on this.

 

[mogandave]

Richard I don't know that is what the Police and Insurance officer told me (my insurance officer).  So I don't know any law where this is written :) .  As the problem was solved paying a small penalty for me I didn't research further on this.
 

Do you were just making that up...

Thought so.

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, mogandave said:

5 hours ago, burner2014 said:

Richard I don't know that is what the Police and Insurance officer told me (my insurance officer).  So I don't know any law where this is written :) .  As the problem was solved paying a small penalty for me I didn't research further on this.
 

Do you were just making that up...

Thought so.

 

 

I suspect they [BiB & Insurance] were just making it up to bring the issue to a speedy resolution. 

Nevertheless, if the Op is satisfied with the result and there are no further issues, then the issue is closed out I guess. 

 

Its definitely something to be aware of... the quoted 'made up law'...  and equally so the ignorance or disregard of laws broken (such the other vehicle  being ridden / driven without licence and insurance etc)