International Driverslicence.

[jackdd]

8 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"I think the insurance companies who quote the 90 days got their lawyers to look into it"?

 

That does not explain why some (big) insurers here will pay on claims submitted by foreign licence holders without any question about how long they have been in the country.  I know, I've been paid out by Viriyah on 4 occasions showing only a UK licence.

Good argument ?

[Just Weird]

4 hours ago, transam said:

We like to give information here to keep folk "safe" from the BiB and hassle with insurance claims.

You can use your home license for 90 days, after that a LOS license is required. The RAC advise to use an IDP backup..

 

"You can use your home license for 90 days, after that a LOS license is required".

That may be true but the issue is who says that?  Apart from Thaivisa members, no one who carries any authority, it seems.

 

UK licences, regardless of how long the user has been in the country, generally (and in my case, specifically, four times) do not cause problems with claims because insurers do not ask how long the claimant has been in the country.

[Fruit Trader]

Just now, Kwasaki said:

It was a joke and the best advice whatever your situation is about driving in Thailand has been given. 

Mine was a joke too and now I am looking for the Thai version of the 1949 document we must all follow. ?

[Just Weird]

34 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Yeah well l'll show that to the local police I know and also the highway police and get them to confirm it. ?

...if your local police and Highway Police "that you know" (!) can read English but English translations of the law cannot trump the actual Thai law so it's irrelevant.

Edited June 16, 2018 by Just Weird

[Kwasaki]

8 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"I think the insurance companies who quote the 90 days got their lawyers to look into it"?

 

That does not explain why some (big) insurers here will pay on claims submitted by foreign licence holders without any question about how long they have been in the country.  I know, I've been paid out by Viriyah on 4 occasions showing only a UK licence.

Many a insurance is paid without showing a DL it's the vehicle that's insured.

With No.1 insurance I've never shown anything they deal with it once they have a police report or if you make a claim on unknown damage to your vehicle.

[Just Weird]

7 minutes ago, transam said:

Hmmm, 4 occasions.....Did you ever pass a driving test...?   

Yes.

 

One claim was after an uninsured driver rear-ended me on the Bangkok-Chonburi motorway.

Another was for my car being hit, damaging the entire offside the length of the car while parked on Jomtien beach road.

Another was because it was severely keyed in a car park and had to be resprayed.

Another was after the bumper was damaged in a car park by something unknown.

 

 

[Kwasaki]

14 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

"You can use your home license for 90 days, after that a LOS license is required".

That may be true but the issue is who says that?  Apart from Thaivisa members, no one who carries any authority, it seems.

 

UK licences, regardless of how long the user has been in the country, generally (and in my case, specifically, four times) do not cause problems with claims because insurers do not ask how long the claimant has been in the country.

Advice is usually based on what's best, Thai law comes into play when a serious accident happens and then it will be what is reasonable to expect. 

 

https://www.tripadvisor.com/Travel-g293915-c133830/Thailand:Driving.License.Requirements.html

[Just Weird]

7 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Many a insurance is paid without showing a DL it's the vehicle that's insured.

With No.1 insurance I've never shown anything they deal with it once they have a police report or if you make a claim on unknown damage to your vehicle.

Really?  Doesn't the insured vehicle, in theory, have to be driven by a licenced driver?  Why is there an ongoing discussion about possibly not being covered with a foreign licence after the mysterious 90 days?  

 

I've had to show my (UK) licence for every claim.

[Kwasaki]

1 minute ago, Just Weird said:

Really?  Doesn't the insured vehicle, in theory, have to be driven by a licenced driver?

No.

 

3 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Why is there an ongoing discussion about possibly not being covered with a foreign licence after the mysterious 90 days?

Because some insurance cover by insurers of No.1 insurance and certain policy covers may state it.

 

Again it's the vehicle that's insured with or without a driver having a driving licence.

 

And there's this :-

If No.1 insurance is bought with name drivers only if someone not named drives it will only be covered by CTPL.

 

A uninsured vehicle may not have CTPL insurance if no road disc.

Usually these days I find our DLT when renewing CTPL the road disc is dated the same.

With No.1 insurance or other 2nd class insurance cover if there's no CTPL it's void.

 

23 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

I've had to show my (UK) licence for every claim

Maybe because you have the additional private insurance which required you to do so.

If claimed on CTPL it would be a separate charge if the person has no licence.  

[Fruit Trader]

41 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Really?  Doesn't the insured vehicle, in theory, have to be driven by a licenced driver?  Why is there an ongoing discussion about possibly not being covered with a foreign licence after the mysterious 90 days?  

 

I've had to show my (UK) licence for every claim.

Called insurance rep and asked if ok for me to loan a truck which has class 1 insurance to a German guy for 6 months. He said the insurance is ok if they have a valid German licence because it is on the licence office exchange list and also pointed out the importance of this should a claim go into a court . I guess that means they accept any licence that can be used to obtain a Thai licence without taking a test. I personally would want something in writing to be sure.

 

Called the highway police service number and got transferred to a duty officer who was not prepared to say much beyond a licence must be valid under current law. Suggest I call central office on Monday to find out more. I think that speaks volumes.

[Kwasaki]

10 minutes ago, Fruit Trader said:

a truck which has class 1 insurance

That's the main thing and DL's.

CTPL it don't matter.

 

[Just Weird]

9 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

No.

 

Because some insurance cover by insurers of No.1 insurance and certain policy covers may state it.

 

Again it's the vehicle that's insured with or without a driver having a driving licence. 

Which insurers state that?   No good saying that some, may!  how about some specifics?

 

Regardless of the vehicle being insured, and that's something that we all know if we insure vehicles in Thailand, the insurers do require the drivers to be licenced!

[jvs]

10 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Which insurers state that?   No good saying that some, may!  how about some specifics?

 

Regardless of the vehicle being insured, and that's something that we all know if we insure vehicles in Thailand, the insurers do require the drivers to be licenced!

Yes and it is also illegal to operate a vehicle without a DL.

[Kwasaki]

10 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Which insurers state that?   No good saying that some, may!  how about some specifics?

See again surely you know in dealings with insurance companies taking out motor policies they can differ in cover in the small print as usually said and most people only find out when a claim is made, that's why best to ask questions of your insurer. 

 

10 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Regardless of the vehicle being insured, and that's something that we all know if we insure vehicles in Thailand, the insurers do require the drivers to be licenced!

Not the case with CTPL that's why in Thailand it's know as a compulsory insurance.

[Kwasaki]

49 minutes ago, jvs said:

Yes and it is also illegal to operate a vehicle without a DL.

Another western thought brought to bear in Thailand.

Vehicle still insured if it has CTPL. 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Kwasaki

[jackdd]

27 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Another western thought brought to bear in Thailand.

Vehicle still insured if it has CTPL. 

Even if you are covered by CTPL (30k THB will get you what in a serious accident?) driving without license is still illegal

[Kwasaki]

8 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Even if you are covered by CTPL (30k THB will get you what in a serious accident?) driving without license is still illegal

Correct there's also 80,000k & 300,000k coverage.

Driving without a DL is illegal obvious but a separate charge.

[Just Weird]

3 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

See again surely you know in dealings with insurance companies taking out motor policies they can differ in cover in the small print as usually said and most people only find out when a claim is made, that's why best to ask questions of your insurer. 

 

Not the case with CTPL that's why in Thailand it's know as a compulsory insurance.

Well, considering that you have dealing with insurers and you brought up the point how about you naming just one of those companies, eh?

 

You really think that the providers of compulsory insurance do not require drivers to be licenced?  Really?  Which ones are happy covering unlicenced drivers, then. How about just one example?

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Well, considering that you have dealing with insurers and you brought up the point how about you naming just one of those companies, eh?

 

You really think that the providers of compulsory insurance do not require drivers to be licenced?  Really?  Which ones are happy covering unlicenced drivers, then. How about just one example?

Many web sites state requirements and what is the best way to protect yourself in Thailand if the proverbial stuff hits the fan.

 

I give up with you we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I'm sorry for you along with some others here with post statements in short you and they completely misunderstand the insurance position in Thailand.

If you do not agree with my advice then find a solution to any discrepancies you have with regards to insurance in Thailand yourself.

[jvs]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Many web sites state requirements and what is the best way to protect yourself in Thailand if the proverbial stuff hits the fan.

 

I give up with you we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I'm sorry for you along with some others here with post statements in short you and they completely misunderstand the insurance position in Thailand.

If you do not agree with my advice then find a solution to any discrepancies you have with regards to insurance in Thailand yourself.

Well you see it your way,nothing wrong with that but the issue here is drivers license.If insurance companies will pay if you have an accident and you do not have a DL that is just fine.However by law you are required to have a DL to operate a vehicle.

If you are in an accident and you do not have a DL the Police may still want to talk to you about that.If i was in an accident and found out the other party has no license i could argue he is in the wrong ?If i remember correctly there was talk not long ago about insurance no longer covering you in case of driving under the influense.Lets not get things all mixed up and confusing altough i might have just done that.

[Fruit Trader]

1 hour ago, Kwasaki said:

Many web sites state requirements and what is the best way to protect yourself in Thailand if the proverbial stuff hits the fan.

I am beginning to think you might be correct or at least part of the way.

 

I asked the wife's friend who works at an insurance broker in Chonburi how an insurance company would handle a claim where an escaped circus chimp drove off in someone's car and hit another vehicle. She said they would pay third party damage only. Further questions revealed they would also pay third party damage if an unlicensed human were driving.

 

As the famous saying goes - "Thailand not same your country"

 

[jackdd]

7 minutes ago, Fruit Trader said:

I asked the wife's friend who works at an insurance broker in Chonburi how an insurance company would handle a claim where an escaped circus chimp drove off in someone's car and hit another vehicle. She said they would pay third party damage only. Further questions revealed they would also pay third party damage if an unlicensed human were driving. 

 

As the famous saying goes - "Thailand not same your country"

Actually i think that's how it is handled in most countries. At least in Germany it is like this as well.

But the insurance company would then take the driver without license in regress because of negligence

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, jvs said:

If insurance companies will pay if you have an accident and you do not have a DL that is just fine.

Well that's where the CTPL insurance part comes in covering 3rd parties.

Voluntary insurance like No.1 or first class / 2nd class etc wouldn't pay up.

 

 

Edited June 17, 2018 by Kwasaki

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, Fruit Trader said:

I am beginning to think you might be correct or at least part of the way.

 

I asked the wife's friend who works at an insurance broker in Chonburi how an insurance company would handle a claim where an escaped circus chimp drove off in someone's car and hit another vehicle. She said they would pay third party damage only. Further questions revealed they would also pay third party damage if an unlicensed human were driving.

 

As the famous saying goes - "Thailand not same your country"

 

 

Correct as I believe the payment to third parties would be covered by CTPL not the voluntary insurance as as I understand it.

 

Even if you have first class voluntary insurance you still need to have CTPL as well.

[Kwasaki]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

Actually i think that's how it is handled in most countries

Not in UK, it is a serious offence, no DL no insurance cover, which some can end up in prison for

[Just Weird]

6 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Many web sites state requirements and what is the best way to protect yourself in Thailand if the proverbial stuff hits the fan.

 

I give up with you we will just have to agree to disagree.

 

I'm sorry for you along with some others here with post statements in short you and they completely misunderstand the insurance position in Thailand.

If you do not agree with my advice then find a solution to any discrepancies you have with regards to insurance in Thailand yourself.

You give up with me because you cannot justify your incorrect claim.  You started this by stating categorically that many insurers do not require a driving licence to be shown in order to process a claim.  I maintain that that is wrong because I know that it is.    I asked you to back up your "advice", as you now call it, and you cannot come up with just one insurer that is happy not to require sight of the driver's licence.  QED.

 

I do not misunderstand the insurance companies' position, it is you who is misrepresenting it and there is no need for me to "find a solution to any discrepancies" as the only "solution" to the discrepancies is for you to back up your incorrect claim with just one insurer's name.

[Kwasaki]

11 hours ago, Just Weird said:

You started this by stating categorically that many insurers do not require a driving licence to be shown in order to process a claim.  I maintain that that is wrong because I know that it is.  

I give up with you because whatever advice or information I have experienced in my time here you disagree with.

If you believe I'm wrong fine go with what you know. 

 

I have had 3 claims on insurance companies over the years and only the 1 incident that wasn't my fault asked for a copy of my Thai DL.

[phutoie2]

15 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Correct as I believe the payment to third parties would be covered by CTPL not the voluntary insurance as as I understand it.

 

Even if you have first class voluntary insurance you still need to have CTPL as well.

Yes the C stands for, compulsory, you need CPTL (por lor bor) to tax vehicles at the PLTO's, they are not interested in other type of insurance you may have. As far as I know the PLB covers medical, expenses, loss of limbs, death, funeral expenses etc, not damage to vehicles, property etc, that's where your other insurances come in.  

 

The premium for  motorcycle CPTL is only 300 Baht so your not going to get much cover.

My friends daughter was recently involved in a motorcycle fall, she was the pillion passenger, her friend was riding. The Police were involved, neither girls had licences. My friend , his wife and daughter had to go to the local Police station, for bollicking and 400 Baht fine for letting the other girl ride the mo-cy with no licence. The CPTL paid the hospital expenses/bill for girl riding the bike, my friends daughter did not require treatment.

 

[Kwasaki]

12 hours ago, Just Weird said:

I do not misunderstand the insurance companies' position, it is you who is misrepresenting it and there is no need for me to "find a solution to any discrepancies" as the only "solution" to the discrepancies is for you to back up your incorrect claim with just one insurer's name.

From what you post I would say you do misunderstand Thai insurance companies and the CTPL involvement in claims.

 I use to deal with UK ones so found it strange at first.

 

We've had 2 claims on the Viriyah insurance company over the years 1 on a Vigo and 1 on a Yaris and 1 more that was dealt with by Viriyah in an accident involving the Yaris that wasn't our fault, that was the only time that an insurance company of the other party has asked for a copy of my Thai DL at the repair body-shop.

The funny thing about that is my son was driving the Yaris at the time.

 

We have a truck & car 3 m/c's insured they are all insured in my wife's name who only has m/c DL.

[off road pat]

On 6/15/2018 at 10:53 AM, Peterw42 said:

OP, you probably need to clarify a couple of things. Was your friend driving on an international driving permit (IDP) issued in home country "and" home license, They go together.

As others have said, there is no such thing as an international drivers license, only an IDP, that accompanies your home license. You still cannot drive using only an IDP, its a document that accompanies your license.

Your friend would have been invalid for one of the following reasons

 

He had a bogus International driving license, from a bogus website etc, He had no license.

 

He was driving on only an IDP.  without the license it is supposed to accompany.

 

He was still driving on home license and IDP and not a tourist any-more (90 Days).

Ok, The person I talked to was a tourist with a valid International drivers licence, I have no info if it was accompanied with his national drivers licence? but I guess so. He had a accident and lost the court case because the Judge said that his international drivers licence was not valid in Thailand. He assured me it was a genuine recently obtained DL. and valid !!!