Old Brit Accused Of Driving Drunk, Killing Rayong Girl

[Kieran00001]

12 minutes ago, robblok said:

In general people with no insurance are bad people as they usually don't have the money to pay out when there is an accident. Now there might be a small section that does have the finances but its harder to get money from them then to get it from an insurance company.

 

Also if the person dies your claim is gone. So all in all I would not call them good people as they make it harder for others. I also believe insurance is mandatory. 

 

I have no idea what percentage of uninsured drivers have or do not have the money, however I agree that someone who drives without both insurance and the money is bad, what I cannot fathom is what made the OP a bad person considering they did have the money.  As for the claim being gone if the person dies, it isn't in my country, you can claim off their estate, I don't know about Thailand though.

[giddyup]

1 minute ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The point is the OP said they did have the money.

I'm talking generally. You are far more likely to be involved in an accident with an unlicenced, uninsured Thai than you are a falang.

[Kieran00001]

Just now, giddyup said:

I'm talking generally. You are far more likely to be involved in an accident with an unlicenced, uninsured Thai than you are a falang.

 

But we were talking specifically about what made the OP a bad person in the view of the poster who I was replying to.

[robblok]

Just now, Kieran00001 said:

 

I have no idea what percentage of uninsured drivers have or do not have the money, however I agree that someone who drives without both insurance and the money is bad, what I cannot fathom is what made the OP a bad person considering they did have the money.  As for the claim being gone if the person dies, it isn't in my country, you can claim off their estate, I don't know about Thailand though.

Yes but this all complicates things a lot for the person claiming, why should someone who has a claim have a hard time because the other party did not insure properly. 

 

However if the other party has plenty of money and pays the claim fast there is no problem. 

[transam]

7 minutes ago, giddyup said:

That only covers a basic payment to people who are injured doesn't it? It's compulsory, but only if you bother to pay road tax.

Correct, then the claimant with the help of the BiB work to claim monies..

[giddyup]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

Correct, then the claimant with the help of the BiB work to claim monies..

Fine if the driver bothers to pay road tax, but there are thousands that don't. If you are unlucky enough to be hit by someone who doesn't pay road tax, good luck trying to get one satang out of them.

[transam]

7 minutes ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

But we were talking specifically about what made the OP a bad person in the view of the poster who I was replying to.

The bloke in this case knows in his country he must have a license and insurance to use a ride on the road..

He also knows why...But he chose to flout stuff in LOS, he is an idiot...

[Kieran00001]

2 minutes ago, transam said:

The bloke in this case knows in his country he must have a license and insurance to use a ride on the road..

He also knows why...But he chose to flout stuff in LOS, he is an idiot...

 

Perhaps, but I don't call idiots bad people.

[prestburypark]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

What you have not explained is how you have come to the conclusion that people who drive without insurance are "bad people", could you explain that to me because all I can see is that they are taking a risk with their own finances rather than that of an insurance companies, and if they have the money then what could possibly be bad about taking that risk? 

That's a lame argument, firstly it is consciously disregarding the law and holding it in contempt , along with all the road users and the public that you are driving amongst. It is an "I know better than the law, therefore I will do as I like"  attitude.

 

If you(?) are so financially secure, obtaining insurance is not a hardship and cements you into the social contract that kinda runs society, some things are pretty immutable and whilst a bit lower down the scale than not killing or stealing it would be really good to think that right minded people ( that one is driving amidst) cover the basics in case of the worst happening. 

 

That is not even going to the area of fault and liability and blame and self interest that self funding would bring.

No brainer really.

[giddyup]

5 minutes ago, transam said:

The bloke in this case knows in his country he must have a license and insurance to use a ride on the road..

He also knows why...But he chose to flout stuff in LOS, he is an idiot...

There are people who flout the law in Australia as well. If you are unemployed, driving an unregistered car and have an accident, there isn't much anyone can do to get you to pay damages. The same people rack up thousands in parking and traffic fines. You can't get blood from a stone.

[Cheops]

5 minutes ago, transam said:

The bloke in this case knows in his country he must have a license and insurance to use a ride on the road..

He also knows why...But he chose to flout stuff in LOS, he is an idiot...

Yes, I was indeed an idiot  and should made the Thai DL, however as stated it was just a financial risk, which certainly doesn't make me a bad guy as some others think.

[transam]

4 minutes ago, giddyup said:

There are people who flout the law in Australia as well. If you are unemployed, driving an unregistered car and have an accident, there isn't much anyone can do to get you to pay damages. The same people rack up thousands in parking and traffic fines. You can't get blood from a stone.

In the UK if you cause death via dangerous/drunk driving you get jail time..I would suggest anyone being sent to prison is looked at as a "bad" person too...

[Cheops]

7 minutes ago, prestburypark said:

That's a lame argument, firstly it is consciously disregarding the law and holding it in contempt , along with all the road users and the public that you are driving amongst. It is an "I know better than the law, therefore I will do as I like"  attitude.

 

If you(?) are so financially secure, obtaining insurance is not a hardship and cements you into the social contract that kinda runs society, some things are pretty immutable and whilst a bit lower down the scale than not killing or stealing it would be really good to think that right minded people ( that one is driving amidst) cover the basics in case of the worst happening. 

 

That is not even going to the area of fault and liability and blame and self interest that self funding would bring.

No brainer really.

This was 13 years ago and I was fully insured and the Thai insurer was fine with my Dutch DL.

That's why I (indeed maybe stupid) didn't bother too much with making a Thai DL, since also the police didn't have any issues back then.

[giddyup]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

In the UK if you cause death via dangerous/drunk driving you get jail time..I would suggest anyone being sent to prison is looked at as a "bad" person too...

They would in Australia as well, but I'm talking about fender benders, not fatalities. They don't send you to jail if you drive an unregistered, uninsured vehicle and you don't hold a licence, if they do it would be for a couple of weeks.

[Kieran00001]

4 minutes ago, prestburypark said:

That's a lame argument, firstly it is consciously disregarding the law and holding it in contempt , along with all the road users and the public that you are driving amongst. It is an "I know better than the law, therefore I will do as I like"  attitude.

 

If you(?) are so financially secure, obtaining insurance is not a hardship and cements you into the social contract that kinda runs society, some things are pretty immutable and whilst a bit lower down the scale than not killing or stealing it would be really good to think that right minded people ( that one is driving amidst) cover the basics in case of the worst happening. 

 

That is not even going to the area of fault and liability and blame and self interest that self funding would bring.

No brainer really.

 

If you had bothered to follow the conversation before jumping in then you would have seen that my argument was not against driving with insurance, it was about whether or not the OP in the conversation was being rightfully called a bad person for having driven in the past without insurance but with adequate funds if they had of had one.

 

Consciously disregarding a law that is only made to ensure that there is adequate finance in the event of an accident is hardly an argument if the person in question does have the money, nothing about knowing better than the law, just actually understanding the purpose and function of the law, either it applies or it doesn't, and this one really doesn't need to apply to those who have the money, it is designed for those who don't.

 

Your following statement is moot as the OP did have the money, so really they were not only further down the line than a murderer or a thief but not even on the same line, they did no harm at all, they caused no accidents and if they had of done then they could have paid, so the basics were covered.

 

Fault, liability and blame are a matter for the police and are unaffected by levels of insurance cover.

[prestburypark]

9 minutes ago, Cheops said:

This was 13 years ago and I was fully insured and the Thai insurer was fine with my Dutch DL.

That's why I (indeed maybe stupid) didn't bother too much with making a Thai DL, since also the police didn't have any issues back then.

I wasn't being specific to yourself, just the self-insurance idea. Lets hope that none of us ever need to claim .

[Cheops]

6 hours ago, stanleycoin said:

Like i said it's all about attitude.

Nice try to excuse yourself.  just like many foreigners do,  and the Thai's do.

 

Hate to brake your illusion,   but people who drive on the roads with out a licence are bad people,  your part of problem here.

Its all about attitude,  wonder what else.  you may have done, with your attitude on the roads over here.

 

If it walks like a duck, Quacks like a duck, it's probably a Duck

 

There are no bad Dutch drivers or riders in Thailand.  

 

 

Have a nice day 

Yes, I drive a few km/h above the max speed sometimes, like 95 iso 90, so I'm real bad guy 

 

"There are no bad Dutch drivers or riders in Thailand."

I didn't wrote that. Better find some reading glasses.

I wrote that all Dutch people are at least capable, since the Dutch driving exams are very very strict.

[transam]

1 minute ago, Cheops said:

It all started with me answering a question about not having a Thai DL on which another guy jumped (I guess he likes to attack others whenever he gets the chance!).

Anyway, the whole insurance discussion can be dropped, since even if the Brit had a Thai DL and was fully insured, the insurance will pay zero, since he was drunk!

 

And no matter what you may find, Kieran00001 is right. Even 1st class insurance pays peanuts in case you have an accident and you are at fault of causing death or injury (but not begin drunk etc.), the insurance company, the police and the family of the victims work together to let you pay (both Thai and foreigners). They will try to not pay anything, even if they need to do so following the insurance policy. I've seen some examples from Thai friends.

First class insurance is designed to take control of claims from all directions...

[BobBKK]

15 hours ago, Cheops said:

I guess you didn't understand my point. My point is that the accident happened, because the Brit was drunk, period! NOT because of the Thai driver.

There is totally no need to spread some gossip based on your 'view' of Thais.

Yes, I know that quite a lot of Thai drink and drive, but also a lot don't!

 

FYI, I don't drink and drive and I have no problem if people get lenghty jail terms when driving under influence.

Even if they don't kill someone they should go to jail in my opinion, since you knowingly engage in an activity which can end in loss of life.

I hope this guy will spend a reasonable time in jail (equal to a vehicular manslaughter term)!

You don't know that you assume it because you READ it. Were you there?  have you seen the forensic reports?  I remember you said something like this to another poster you are biased, xenophobic and love your own opinion too much. The Thais will say 'because the Brit was drunk' even if the Thai could hardly walk and if you don't get this very BASIC thing here then you might be going senile. 

[Cheops]

13 minutes ago, BobBKK said:

You don't know that you assume it because you READ it. Were you there?  have you seen the forensic reports?  I remember you said something like this to another poster you are biased, xenophobic and love your own opinion too much. The Thais will say 'because the Brit was drunk' even if the Thai could hardly walk and if you don't get this very BASIC thing here then you might be going senile. 

 

I think you are senile already. It was clearly stated by the press that the Brit "tested positive for intoxication". Furthermore he confessed, so why are you trying to bash the Thai driver? Do you get a kick out of it as some posters like to bash Thai people or something?

[Italian guy]

On 6/8/2018 at 1:28 PM, Khuai Lek said:

These peoples thinks they are kings of the night, put them behind the bar for life time or hang them... 

But can't coz he is farang..

Farangs have no special privileges here. The opposite is true.

 

I'm sure he will get what he deserves. A life is a life, it doesn't matter the nationality, even more so when it's a child's life! 

 

I'm the father of two little girls and I really feel for that family! 

 

RIP little angel... 

[BobBKK]

32 minutes ago, Cheops said:

 

I think you are senile already. It was clearly stated by the press that the Brit "tested positive for intoxication". Furthermore he confessed, so why are you trying to bash the Thai driver? Do you get a kick out of it as some posters like to bash Thai people or something?

You live here yet you don't know Thais and Thailand. You argue with half of TVF what's your issue?  The Brit will take the fall EVEN if the Thai was stinking drunk - get it?

[oldlakey]

10 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

If you had bothered to follow the conversation before jumping in then you would have seen that my argument was not against driving with insurance, it was about whether or not the OP in the conversation was being rightfully called a bad person for having driven in the past without insurance but with adequate funds if they had of had one.

 

Consciously disregarding a law that is only made to ensure that there is adequate finance in the event of an accident is hardly an argument if the person in question does have the money, nothing about knowing better than the law, just actually understanding the purpose and function of the law, either it applies or it doesn't, and this one really doesn't need to apply to those who have the money, it is designed for those who don't.

 

Your following statement is moot as the OP did have the money, so really they were not only further down the line than a murderer or a thief but not even on the same line, they did no harm at all, they caused no accidents and if they had of done then they could have paid, so the basics were covered.

 

Fault, liability and blame are a matter for the police and are unaffected by levels of insurance cover.

Anybody who drives without insurance is a irresponsible scumbag 

The statement that I have money to pay a claim makes it OK is childish to say the least

 

[metisdead]

Posts containing over sized, intrusive and insulting emojis have disappeared from this topic. 

[Cheops]

11 hours ago, BobBKK said:

You live here yet you don't know Thais and Thailand. You argue with half of TVF what's your issue?  The Brit will take the fall EVEN if the Thai was stinking drunk - get it?

Gosh, you need to get the last word or something? You don't get it do you? Let me spell it out 1 more time for you: The Brit was at fault. It was proven AND he confessed. End of story. No need to try to discredit the Thai family who lost their daughter to this scumbag. You try to turn the guilt away from the Brit? Why? Maybe you are a Brit? The story should not mention any nationality. It should mention that a guy who was drunk fell asleep while driving his car and killed a girl after hitting the other car. If they wrote the story like this you wouldn't say that the driver of the car who got hit was drunk. But now it concerns a Brit you try to shift the blame. Despicable

 

About me not knowing Thais (according you). I know a lot of Thais, I have a lot of Thai friends and I speak Thai as well. I work on a daily base with a lot of Thais and we have regular a party from work. There are not so many people who drink and drive and it is getting less. This is in Bangkok. I'm sure in the country side it's different.

 

Anyway, all this doesn't matter, since the Brit is guilty. I will not write any more posts in this thread, so rest me to say enjoy your time in Thailand. 

[Kieran00001]

8 hours ago, oldlakey said:

Anybody who drives without insurance is a irresponsible scumbag 

The statement that I have money to pay a claim makes it OK is childish to say the least

 

 

Insurance is a piece of paper that says that the money is there to pay a claim, those who have the money have no reason for insurance.

[stanleycoin]

19 hours ago, Cheops said:

Yes, I drive a few km/h above the max speed sometimes, like 95 iso 90, so I'm real bad guy 

 

"There are no bad Dutch drivers or riders in Thailand."

I didn't wrote that. Better find some reading glasses.

I wrote that all Dutch people are at least capable, since the Dutch driving exams are very very strict.

Yes,   your correct,  you did not write that.

( There are no bad Dutch drivers or riders in Thailand )

I do apologize.

It was the other idiot 

 

 

[transam]

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Insurance is a piece of paper that says that the money is there to pay a claim, those who have the money have no reason for insurance.

So why do very rich people, that we "know" are very rich people in farangland, still have to have motor insurance...?

[Kieran00001]

1 hour ago, transam said:

So why do very rich people, that we "know" are very rich people in farangland, still have to have motor insurance...?

 

It is the law, nothing else, there is no moral involved.

[BobBKK]

8 hours ago, Cheops said:

Gosh, you need to get the last word or something? You don't get it do you? Let me spell it out 1 more time for you: The Brit was at fault. It was proven AND he confessed. End of story. No need to try to discredit the Thai family who lost their daughter to this scumbag. You try to turn the guilt away from the Brit? Why? Maybe you are a Brit? The story should not mention any nationality. It should mention that a guy who was drunk fell asleep while driving his car and killed a girl after hitting the other car. If they wrote the story like this you wouldn't say that the driver of the car who got hit was drunk. But now it concerns a Brit you try to shift the blame. Despicable

 

About me not knowing Thais (according you). I know a lot of Thais, I have a lot of Thai friends and I speak Thai as well. I work on a daily base with a lot of Thais and we have regular a party from work. There are not so many people who drink and drive and it is getting less. This is in Bangkok. I'm sure in the country side it's different.

 

Anyway, all this doesn't matter, since the Brit is guilty. I will not write any more posts in this thread, so rest me to say enjoy your time in Thailand. 

Not at all I am against drink driving by anybody and I posted that several times. But I know Thais and I know they favour Thais you might think they love you but they tolerate you. Have a nice day.