Asian Roads 014 Idiot on red light

[chang1]

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

When approaching traffic lights, its a safe assumption that scores of vehicles will jump the lights a number of seconds after the light has turned red... 

... When riding my motorcycle its a safe assumption that a car will turn across my path...  I don't know they will, but I assume they might...

 

All par for the course in Thailand... 

 

In this case...  we don't know the bike jumped the light and can only judge on experience and probability given our experience. Without further proof we can only speculate.

 

I'd speculate that the bike went through a red light. I speculate that it was too late for the car to stop at the lights as it changed to amber. I can see the car cut across the bike. 

 

If this were 'car on car' one car turns right, another coming towards him jumps the light they collide... 50/50...  50% blame on the vehicle jumping the light, 50% blame on the vehicle committed to turning right when the road was not 100% clear and he assumed the bike would stop for the light. 

 

Just because a motorcycle was involved I don't think fault is diminished for jumping the light (if it could be proven). 

 

What about turning left??? - the amount of times I am about to turn left and have to emergency brake for the motorcycle riding down the pavement and across my path, or the motorcycle cutting up my inside.... On both occasions the road is not 100% clear to make the maneuver... however, IMO the motorcycle would clearly be 100% to blame in these scenarios...

 

Thus, It could be argued that in jumping the lights (if the motorcycle actually did jump the lights) that the motorcycle is primarily to blame... 

 

All in all, this is an interesting debate on the varying options of road users.... 

The size of the vehicles makes no difference to the blame ratio. I would say the car was 100% at fault by not giving way but gave away 20% as it looks like the bike probably did go through a red light. Which means the car driver would not be expecting him to keep going (although it was obvious he would in this case).

As for the left turn, it is much more clear cut. The vehicles under taking, going against the flow or riding on the pavement are, as you say, 100% in the wrong and to be blamed for any collisions they cause.

Don't know if my opinions would hold up in court especially in LOS. I like watching YouTube car crash videos and working out what the causes are - usually Russians driving way too fast in snow.

It would be interesting to see how the insurance companies would look at these situations, as they will get to decide who pays far more often than courts do.

 

[chang1]

steve73 - I do not do much driving in LOS and have never seen a flashing red + Amber. Is this a new signal or just rarely used? Does it mean stop before proceeding with caution, give way or just be more cautious than a flashing Amber says you should be?

Edit - sorry I see you meant flashing red and flashing amber on different lights and not on the same light.

Edited October 1, 2018 by chang1

[stevenl]

10 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Op entered the junction on an Amber light, which means, stop if safe to do so. 

It may not have been save to stop so sharply, so I don't think the Op is in the wrong for entering the junction. 

 

The Op passed across oncomming traffic. Here, the Op is in the wrong and turned when the road was not clear to do so. 

 

The Motorcycle jumped the red light. Or, rather, from the video and having familiarity with such junctions the lights are synchronized. 

 

I think its a fair assumption that the Motorcycle jumped the lights.

 

 

As with the majority of accidents here, two people in the wrong have caused an accident. 

 

Pretty much par for the course here... the op did nothing excessive or terrible, he'd getting a hard time for a traffic blunder...  IMO responsibility for the accident is 50/50.

 

 

 

 

 

If that is the case, to get really technical, you are not allowed to enter an intersection if you can not immediately clear it.

Yes, even though he bikerider jumped the light, Op will still be found at fault.

[stevenl]

Quote

What about turning left??? - the amount of times I am about to turn left and have to emergency brake for the motorcycle riding down the pavement and across my path, or the motorcycle cutting up my inside.... On both occasions the road is not 100% clear to make the maneuver... however, IMO the motorcycle would clearly be 100% to blame in these scenarios...

If riding on the pavement or against traffic you're right, motorbike at fault. However if undertaking, what motorbikes are supposed to do, you're to blame. Either make sure nobody is there or move all the way to the left to make it impossible for anyone to be there.

[DinoSabanovic]

Alright, I will now add one more thing because it's getting out of hand. Motorbike driver admitted the mistake of running through the red when I met him few seconds after. We both went separate ways after that and share 50/50 blame. Personally I think it's more his fault but I didn't study traffic law.

[Just Weird]

54 minutes ago, DinoSabanovic said:

Alright, I will now add one more thing because it's getting out of hand. Motorbike driver admitted the mistake of running through the red when I met him few seconds after. We both went separate ways after that and share 50/50 blame. Personally I think it's more his fault but I didn't study traffic law.

Lucky he didn't notice you going through on the amber or he may not have been so happy to admit it!

[HHTel]

1 hour ago, DinoSabanovic said:

but I didn't study traffic law.

Mmmm.  I did.  That's how I managed to get a licence.  Doesn't all drivers need to know traffic laws in order to pass a driving test?  (not in Thailand I admit but that's another talking point)

[DinoSabanovic]

30 minutes ago, HHTel said:

Mmmm.  I did.  That's how I managed to get a licence.  Doesn't all drivers need to know traffic laws in order to pass a driving test?  (not in Thailand I admit but that's another talking point)

Don't pretend you don't know what I mean. I'll tell you anyway. I do have both licences for Thailand and Europe and allot of you here are similar. By not studying traffic law I mean that I'm not a lawyer and I cannot judge correctly in some situations like many others. That is why asked for an opinion. That is all.

 

I found my answer, thank you very much. Best regards. 

[HHTel]

6 hours ago, DinoSabanovic said:

Don't pretend you don't know what I mean. I'll tell you anyway. I do have both licences for Thailand and Europe and allot of you here are similar. By not studying traffic law I mean that I'm not a lawyer and I cannot judge correctly in some situations like many others. That is why asked for an opinion. That is all.

 

I found my answer, thank you very much. Best regards. 

Aw come on.  I'm talking basic highway code here, such as turning right off a main road.  Nothing that requires a couple of years study at a law school.  50 questions are taken in the UK theory test taken from a database of thousands.  You are required to pass 86% before moving on.  I would bet that your situation is well covered in these tests.

[greenmonkey]

9 hours ago, DinoSabanovic said:

Alright, I will now add one more thing because it's getting out of hand. Motorbike driver admitted the mistake of running through the red when I met him few seconds after. We both went separate ways after that and share 50/50 blame. Personally I think it's more his fault but I didn't study traffic law.

Holy c@#p OP you still don't get it yet!!! You keep focusing on the technicalities of the incident. It doesn't matter that he ran the red, it doesn't matter that he accepted fault. The point is you clearly saw him do all these things and clearly saw him coming but still decided to make your manouver when infact you should have stopped and let him go!!!! The point is this - If you see something unfolding (whether it is right or wrong) and you have the opportunity to take evasive action then it is your responsibility to do it!!!!!! You chose not to, and that is why people are putting the blame on you.

[greenmonkey]

40 minutes ago, greenmonkey said:

Holy c@#p OP you still don't get it yet!!! You keep focusing on the technicalities of the incident. It doesn't matter that he ran the red, it doesn't matter that he accepted fault. The point is you clearly saw him do all these things and clearly saw him coming but still decided to make your manouver when infact you should have stopped and let him go!!!! The point is this - If you see something unfolding (whether it is right or wrong) and you have the opportunity to take evasive action then it is your responsibility to do it!!!!!! You chose not to, and that is why people are putting the blame on you.

btw, i just watched the video again and you keep stating that the bike goes thru a red. But it only changes to red at the very second he is level with it (and we are talking milliseconds here). And whether it was red or wasn't red it doesn't matter - he had right of way and you should have let him through.

[tifino]

 

it would have been safer to stop dead, and let the bikiego...

... but then give him a good hoot from your horn a s he's passing,

then hope he doesn't do a Uturn, to shoot you!

[richard_smith237]

14 hours ago, stevenl said:

If that is the case, to get really technical, you are not allowed to enter an intersection if you can not immediately clear it.

Yes, even though he bikerider jumped the light, Op will still be found at fault.

 

Being technical, that would be a 'box' junction with a big yellow cross through it. 

 

I guess what you are implying is that the car should not have cross the 'threshold' into the junction unless he was 100% sure that no traffic was going to jump the red light... In which case he could never be 100% sure of clearing the junction, which kind of makes it a little difficult to drive anywhere. 

 

I think you may be implying something else that you are not supposed to enter a junction potentially blocking other cars unless your exit is clear. Again, quite often very difficult in queuing traffic and and in Thailand this failure to only enter a junction if the exit is clear is more often than not the cause of gridlock in Thailand. As always, there is a common sense balance.... but none of this is the issue in this case... the exit is obviously clear until the path of the car is obstructed by a motorcycle jumping (unproven) a red light. 

 

[chang1]

On ‎10‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 4:23 AM, stevenl said:

If riding on the pavement or against traffic you're right, motorbike at fault. However if undertaking, what motorbikes are supposed to do, you're to blame. Either make sure nobody is there or move all the way to the left to make it impossible for anyone to be there.

 

"However if undertaking, what motorbikes are supposed to do"

Certainly not the case in the UK and I am surprised it is in LOS. This is suicidal, so maybe partly explains the high death toll. I know it is done all the time which I thought was just bad riding.

Who has right of way? You make it sound like, if there is a long line of bikes undertaking you have to stop and block the road until they have all passed before turning left. I do not see other vehicles doing that, they just push their way through forcing the bikes behind to stop.

 

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, chang1 said:

 

"However if undertaking, what motorbikes are supposed to do"

Certainly not the case in the UK and I am surprised it is in LOS. This is suicidal, so maybe partly explains the high death toll. I know it is done all the time which I thought was just bad riding.

Who has right of way? You make it sound like, if there is a long line of bikes undertaking you have to stop and block the road until they have all passed before turning left. I do not see other vehicles doing that, they just push their way through forcing the bikes behind to stop.

 

 

Undertaking is illegal - bikes are not supposed to do this. 

As you mention, it is especially dangerous to undertake traffic on the inside lane. 

 

I ignored stevenl's point on this as it was pretty obvious he was wrong - Motorcycles are not 'supposed to be undertaking cars which are in the left most lane'.....

[chang1]

Thanks Richard for confirming that. I presume he means Thai people think  they are supposed to do that, as there is often an extra lane on the left just for them. Obviously they are wrong about both of these.

Edited October 3, 2018 by chang1

[stevenl]

On 10/2/2018 at 11:25 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

Undertaking is illegal - bikes are not supposed to do this. 

As you mention, it is especially dangerous to undertake traffic on the inside lane. 

 

I ignored stevenl's point on this as it was pretty obvious he was wrong - Motorcycles are not 'supposed to be undertaking cars which are in the left most lane'.....

Undertaking is legal in Thailand.

Officially bikes are not allowed on the fast lane and required to undertake.

[HHTel]

2 hours ago, stevenl said:

Undertaking is legal in Thailand.

Officially bikes are not allowed on the fast lane and required to undertake.

Section 45 of the Land Traffic Act states that it's illegal to 'undertake'.

[chang1]

6 hours ago, stevenl said:

Undertaking is legal in Thailand.

Officially bikes are not allowed on the fast lane and required to undertake.

What is the fast lane? 

On UK 3 lane motorways HGVs cannot use the right hand (fast) lane but still can't undertake. Undertaking on normal Thai roads using the hard shoulder is extremely dangerous, even if there are no junctions. It's done all the time but even if it is legal, it is still a foolish thing to do. 

[jackdd]

2 minutes ago, chang1 said:

It's done all the time but even if it is legal

Driving on the hard shoulder is illegal in Thailand, even if you see it all the time

[MJKT2014]

Both drivers at fault in the o/p video. No way should the m/cy driver pass the red light, but no way should the op turn into the m/cy path when he's driving so fast. Defensive driving not being practiced here. Where I stay upcountry its a given that red lights are ran by up to 5 seconds by locals and all Thais know it and wait for the law breakers to clear rather than risk an accident.

[HHTel]

6 hours ago, jackdd said:

Driving on the hard shoulder is illegal in Thailand, even if you see it all the time

Motorbikes can drive on the hard shoulder in some provinces when signed to do so.  In fact in some regions the sign says that motorbikes MUST drive on the shoulder.

[richard_smith237]

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

Undertaking is legal in Thailand.

Officially bikes are not allowed on the fast lane and required to undertake.

 

Correct & Incorrect....  Undertaking is legal in Thailand, but only on a road with two or more traffic lanes in the same direction. 

This is only legal when the vehicle being undertaken is in the right hand lane. 

It is illegal to undertake a vehicle which is in the left most lane.

 

Additionally, there is no law which states bikes are not allowed in the fast lane (right most lane), this is a commonly used ploy to fine motorists on Sukhumvit Road in Bangkok, however, there is no law preventing motorcycles from being in the right hand lane when passing other vehicles. 

 

Motorcycles are commonly misinformed by the BiB at checkpoints wishing to make fast tea money that they have to drive on the left most lane, which is true. But this law applies to every vehicle. Unfortunately, the BiB use this to scam motorcyclists. 

 

 

All the information is in Section 44 of the Land Traffic Act (1979).

 

 

 

[HHTel]

23 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Correct & Incorrect....  Undertaking is legal in Thailand, but only on a road with two or more traffic lanes in the same direction. 

This is only legal when the vehicle being undertaken is in the right hand lane. 

It is illegal to undertake a vehicle which is in the left most lane.

 

Additionally, there is no law which states bikes are not allowed in the fast lane (right most lane), this is a commonly used ploy to fine motorists on Sukhumvit Road in Bangkok, however, there is no law preventing motorcycles from being in the right hand lane when passing other vehicles. 

 

Motorcycles are commonly misinformed by the BiB at checkpoints wishing to make fast tea money that they have to drive on the left most lane, which is true. But this law applies to every vehicle. Unfortunately, the BiB use this to scam motorcyclists. 

 

 

All the information is in Section 44 of the Land Traffic Act (1979).

 

 

 

I understand your confusion regarding Section 44 and something I've tackled with the police.  Section 35 states:

 

"The driver of a truck, passenger transport conveyance, or motorcycle driving on the road which is divided into two or more lanes in the same direction, or a bus lane is specifically provided in the left hand side, must drive in the ultimate left lane or the lane next to bus lane, as the case may be."

 

The section you refer to means that - if there are two lanes of traffic in the same direction going at different speeds then if the nearside lane is going faster than the lane to the right, then undertaking is accepted.  It doesn't excuse someone hogging the outer lane when left hand lanes are clear.

 

I think it's a case of 'lost in translation'.

 

 

Lost in translation.

[chang1]

6 hours ago, MJKT2014 said:

Both drivers at fault in the o/p video. No way should the m/cy driver pass the red light, but no way should the op turn into the m/cy path when he's driving so fast. Defensive driving not being practiced here. Where I stay upcountry its a given that red lights are ran by up to 5 seconds by locals and all Thais know it and wait for the law breakers to clear rather than risk an accident.

How do you know the light was red when the bike went through? With only the video and what the driver alleges to go by, you don't and neither did the car driver When he drove into him. 

[chang1]

9 minutes ago, HHTel said:

It doesn't excuse someone hogging the outer lane when left hand lanes are clear.

It seams if you are in a car it does.

Under taking on a 2 lane road is not so bad as vehicles should not turn left from the right hand lane. Although I am glad it is illegal in the UK. This kind of under taking is quite well understood it's the (dangerous) use of the hard shoulder by bikes to under take that needs clarifying. Should a slow truck move onto the hard shoulder to give room for bikes to pass without having to go into the right hand lane, leave it clear for the bike to under take or are bikes stuck behind the truck? Then same question for roads with one lane each way.

[chang1]

On 10/1/2018 at 5:28 PM, greenmonkey said:

btw, i just watched the video again and you keep stating that the bike goes thru a red. But it only changes to red at the very second he is level with it (and we are talking milliseconds here). And whether it was red or wasn't red it doesn't matter - he had right of way and you should have let him through.

I agree but as there aren't any stop lines visible it is hard to tell. On the other hand his light may have turned red a few seconds earlier to allow cars to turn right so the junction is clear for the other lanes traffic to go through.

Edited October 4, 2018 by chang1

[stevenl]

15 hours ago, HHTel said:

Section 45 of the Land Traffic Act states that it's illegal to 'undertake'.

Not if it is a 4-lane road. Please read the whole thing and don't cherry pick.

[stevenl]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Correct & Incorrect....  Undertaking is legal in Thailand, but only on a road with two or more traffic lanes in the same direction. 

This is only legal when the vehicle being undertaken is in the right hand lane. 

It is illegal to undertake a vehicle which is in the left most lane.

 

Additionally, there is no law which states bikes are not allowed in the fast lane (right most lane), this is a commonly used ploy to fine motorists on Sukhumvit Road in Bangkok, however, there is no law preventing motorcycles from being in the right hand lane when passing other vehicles. 

 

Motorcycles are commonly misinformed by the BiB at checkpoints wishing to make fast tea money that they have to drive on the left most lane, which is true. But this law applies to every vehicle. Unfortunately, the BiB use this to scam motorcyclists. 

 

 

All the information is in Section 44 of the Land Traffic Act (1979).

 

 

 

Correct and incorrect.

 

Undertaking for cars you're correct, motorbikes not.

[jackdd]

5 hours ago, HHTel said:

Motorbikes can drive on the hard shoulder in some provinces when signed to do so.  In fact in some regions the sign says that motorbikes MUST drive on the shoulder.

Which sign should this be? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road_signs_in_Thailand

If you mean the blue "keep left" sign this does obviously mean to keep to the left lane which is meant for driving, not drive on the hard shoulder (because this is illegal as mentioned already), and it's just a recommendation and not a must anyway