Video: Woman driver "definitely to blame" after death of TV host and store manager in Chiang Mai

[mikosan]

In my opinion the blame lies with the Toyota driver, however, the CRV driver should have checked his mirrors before turning right and then the accident would have been avoided.  Simple.

[kannot]

10 hours ago, No1 said:

@kcpattayaThe Honda CRV was in the correct lane for turning right. The black Toyota was passing on an orange or yellow marked shoulder where nobody is allowed to drive (yet everyone does). Now some people might think it is smart to use the orange marked shoulder for a right turn. That might be the case although illegal. But going straight on a shoulder when left of it is a lane for turning left, is outright stupid and we have seen the consequences

Open Google Street View to find out for yourself.

Oh... and here how it was in a caption of Street View in 2011 (Toyota driver would have been right to turn right but not to go straight)

like  most road markings here often totally worn away.

[pokerface1]

18 hours ago, South said:

The driver of the black Toyota was in a lane with orange chevrons across it, positioning her in a non-existent lane. Was she queue jumping as she was obviously attempting to go straight on?

Your right about having the chevrons in that lane how ever there is a u turn permitted indicator which is painted over the chevrons ( out of the picture) just to add to the confusion. I saw another pic of the site where the accident occurred. So you can be in that lane for a u turn only, not going straight ahead like she did causing the death of to guys. Only in Thailand ????

[superal]

14 hours ago, Leef said:

Barrier was pathetically weak. 

Exactly and had it been fit for purpose there would almost certainly no loss of life and we would not be discussing this post . Never mind the motorists and pointing fingers at who was to blame because I think that the authority who manage the highways are equally as guilty and clearly failed to provide the correct collision barriers . They would be in the sxxt in the western world but TIT so forget it , just another accident and a normal day .

[hotchilli]

A couple of things, yes the Toyota appears to be in the far outside strip which is chevroned off

obviously trying to get ahead by over-taking, and definitely in the wrong place for going straight through the junction.

The CRV obviously never checked to make sure it was clear to turn right and if you look closely never indicated a turn move!!

Both idiot drivers for different reasons and paid the penalty..

should the Toyota driver be found guilty for being in an outside chevroned off area trying to go straight and thus causing the accident, a definite yes!!

[somchaiq]

Only that the most right lane is not a lane for driving. It is filled with yellow lines. Just seen at Thai TV News. This means the CRV driver was in the most right lane and the arrows on the road showing that this lane is for straight and right turning traffic.

I can't agree with that...the CRV driver  should have seen the vehicle in the right most lane
and should have been in the right most lane to make the turn...not cut across the other lane.
 

Sent from my POCOPHONE F1 using Tapatalk

[Derek B]

19 hours ago, Phuketshrew said:

Can anyone familiar with this intersection clarify? I an earlier report I read that the left most lane was for U Turning and the one next was for a right turn. If the CRV was in the correct lane to turn right and the Toyota was barrelin up the inside but intending to go straight on then she was clearly in the wrong. I don't understand why the CRV driver did not take evasive action. Surely the natural reaction would have been to veer to the left and keep going straight on?

In Chiang Mai it is the norm to ignore solid line road markings at turn arounds about the moat. Now the authorities are placing red & white plastic barriers to enforce the road markings. In the UK the insurance company of the Toyota would most likely not pay out as the collision was avoidable due to the CRV driver turning without due care & attention although the CRV was well into the turn & the Toyota driver should of seen this & braked sooner or harder. The Toyota driver was driving in a prohited lane but that action alone does not warrant the charges levied by the police. The barrier was weaken by the Toyota & failed with the CRV's impact. In short bad road planning & poor crash barrier construction contributed to the loss of life.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Derek B
Reviewed video again after reading other comments & photos.

[Derek B]

13 hours ago, trainman34014 said:

You can paint all the lines any colour you want and the arrows pointing in any directions you want but Thai rules apply in every situation, I.E....''I'm going there'' and i don't care where anyone else is going !

Exactly..........................so we have to live with it & drive defensively as some Thais do.

Edited January 5, 2019 by Derek B
typo

[StevieAus]

20 hours ago, usacb500biker said:

1,000,000'S  of THAI"S have no Drivers LIC...  45,000 ticketed in one DAY..  For no helmet... Good job  R T P....

The problem is that after issuing the ticket they allow them to drive away with no licence, no helmet and even no insurance and from articles I have read most of the fines go unpaid.

Only one solution impound the vehicle.

[Eloquent pilgrim]

My wife took this screenshot from a Police news release. The police say the CRV was in the correct lane for turning right, and that the Toyota driver was 100% in the wrong for queue jumping and going straight on; they make no mention of being able to make a U turn from the prohibited lane, but it was obviously a tragic mistake to be going straight ahead.

Two mysteries remain, as others have alluded to, firstly, why did the CRV not manage to brake sufficiently given that the impact of the collision alone did not appear enough to send it into the canal, and secondly, why did the CRV driver, who being Thai would know that people often drive in prohibited lanes, not check the mirror before turning.

 

It's not much use having been in the right, when your lying on a mortuary slab with a DOA tag tied to your toe …. RIP both, and condolences to all friends and families

[Baerboxer]

20 hours ago, terminatorchiangmai said:

The crv was cutting corners , but the other car was driving way to fast to make a u turn anyway

 

People here always seem to cut corners - swing out to turn left, cut across to turn right. Either they don't know how to turn a steering wheel properly or just too lazy!

 

People also seem to like to "get in front" by whatever means, especially at U-Turns or any lane blockages. If the report on TV is correct the CRV would not have expected anyone to be shooting up on the right-hand side, trying to cut in-front and go straight. That car was in a non existent lane and rather than stop and wait to move to a correct lane chose to accelerate and try and make the other car give way to her. See that a lot too. For whatever reason the CRV didn't and they collided. See that regularly too. Why the CRV didn't swerve left or break after the collision - no idea.

 

As far as the police will be concerned, the other car was at fault, period. AFAIK there is no duty to actually avoid an accident here if someone else is in the wrong i.e. if they hit you, are cutting in, in the wrong lane, squeezing by on either inside or outside hard shoulder, etc etc. As long as you can blame the other driver, then the attitude is "all is good"!

[Briggsy]

14 hours ago, unamazedloso said:

i wondered why there is no real campaign to fix the road tolls.

Because the people in any sort of position to fix it and there are many (police, Land Transport officials, government ministers) are all in sinecures and thus they have 2 primary roles.

1. To recoup the financial outlay to obtain the sinecure multiple times so they can enjoy at the very least a middle class lifestyle.

2. To ensure they do not upset anyone, (superiors, VIPs) who could remove them from their position and their income stream.

In addition all Thai public bodies are very reluctant to liaise with one another and very hostile to any sort of independent oversight or measurement of their performance.

 

So, you can see there is no incentive to reduce the carnage and there are major obstacles to achieving it even if the will was there, which it isn't.

 

There are 2 ways I can foresee in the next few decades a positive change could occur. Self-driving vehicles or colonial rule. Come back to me in 25 years and we will look at the situation again.

[masuk]

19 hours ago, Leef said:

Barrier was pathetically weak. 

Maybe more concrete lane dividers, and as others have said, the bridge barriers were way to weak.

[sharktooth]

I always wondered what those chevroned lines were for on Canal Road as everyone seems to ignore them, apart from me obviously. 

[nsimmons]

Hi guys,

I too thought it was the SUV at fault. I can't speak or read Thai, so had it slowly

translated into English, and checked. Firstly the car going strait was not in a lane.

You cant see it on the vid, but that is the "break down pull over " "lane" and is painted

with yellow lines (we can't. The car driver has been charged and there is little doubt as to

blame.

 

NS

[Samuel Smith]

That whole road is a design cluster<deleted>. Locals can't navigate the curves & stay in lane.  Road markings are ambiguous & why have a right side hard shoulder?  Just asking to be driven in.

[Medicine Man]

The only solution to stop this happening again is to remove the yellow hatched area and open the lane such that all traffic turning right or making a u turn have to use that lane. If the CRV had been in that lane this would never have happened. There are lots of spurious yellow hatched areas springing up in Chiang Mai that are ill thought out and so ambiguous such that most people ignore them. The authorities need to take some responsibility  and re-engineer this junction as a matter of urgency before a repeat of this accident. 

[Foexie]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 5:57 AM, johng said:

I can't agree with that...the CRV driver  should have seen the vehicle in the right most lane

and should have been in the right most lane to make the turn...not cut across the other lane.

 

The black car wasn't driving on a real lane. You can see that the left lane is smaller then the one the suv and other cars are driving on. I agree the suv could have seen the other car but this one did need to let the suv go first.

 

I also not understands why the suv couldn't stop on time. They weren't driving that fast. And even if they couldn't stop they should go straight to avoid the barriers and fall.

[dinsdale]

Seat belts save lives. This would be a non-story had they been wearing them which I'm assuming they weren't. Definitely a survivable impact if strapped in.????

[travelman6]

I don't know what diving school the police went to, but the driver of the SUV is definitely at fault.

[BradWilkins]

On 1/5/2019 at 1:24 PM, Eloquent pilgrim said:

My wife took this screenshot from a Police news release. The police say the CRV was in the correct lane for turning right, and that the Toyota driver was 100% in the wrong for queue jumping and going straight on; they make no mention of being able to make a U turn from the prohibited lane, but it was obviously a tragic mistake to be going straight ahead.

Two mysteries remain, as others have alluded to, firstly, why did the CRV not manage to brake sufficiently given that the impact of the collision alone did not appear enough to send it into the canal, and secondly, why did the CRV driver, who being Thai would know that people often drive in prohibited lanes, not check the mirror before turning.

 

It's not much use having been in the right, when your lying on a mortuary slab with a DOA tag tied to your toe …. RIP both, and condolences to all friends and families

As the Honda was hit from behind there was very little time to react, and you would not expect a car to be travelling at high speed on the shoulder going straight ahead coming up to a cross street on your inside.

[moontang]

The majority of fault is with the black car, but visibility is poor in an SUV, and requires use of side mirrors.  The black car was not in a lane, but perhaps could have made a u turn from it...it may have even been accelerating to overtake the SUV and get in a lane...turn signal by SUV might have prevented it....I can hit the turn signal with my hand still on the wheel (even one handed, but once you are in the turn it is much more difficult....SUVs are often the epitome of selfish people..heavy window tint, no signals, no checking blind spots.  A friend bought his wife a Pathfinder SUV....she told me she wanted the Accord back, because the Pathfinder was terrible to drive on errands and to park.  

 

CM municipality is poorly managed, might be laziness, corruption or both, but I have seen some very urgent tuff go unattended in that exact Tessaban...garbage and rats in front of the same restaurants every night for years... horrific pedestrian conditions jeopardizing some very bright CMU students, and a sidewalk sinkhole that claimed numerous victims....all preventable.

[BradWilkins]

29 minutes ago, moontang said:

The majority of fault is with the black car, but visibility is poor in an SUV, and requires use of side mirrors.  The black car was not in a lane, but perhaps could have made a u turn from it...it may have even been accelerating to overtake the SUV and get in a lane...turn signal by SUV might have prevented it....I can hit the turn signal with my hand still on the wheel (even one handed, but once you are in the turn it is much more difficult....SUVs are often the epitome of selfish people..heavy window tint, no signals, no checking blind spots.  A friend bought his wife a Pathfinder SUV....she told me she wanted the Accord back, because the Pathfinder was terrible to drive on errands and to park.  

 

CM municipality is poorly managed, might be laziness, corruption or both, but I have seen some very urgent tuff go unattended in that exact Tessaban...garbage and rats in front of the same restaurants every night for years... horrific pedestrian conditions jeopardizing some very bright CMU students, and a sidewalk sinkhole that claimed numerous victims....all preventable.

The Honda was in no way at fault it was the black car 100%. And people saying the crash barrier was not strong enough is ridiculous, the barrier was on the side street and not put there to stop a front on impact. 

[roo860]

The Honda was in no way at fault it was the black car 100%. And people saying the crash barrier was not strong enough is ridiculous, the barrier was on the side street and not put there to stop a front on impact. 

Any barrier that is installed should be of a strength and hight to resist a certain level of impact. The barrier that was there is purely for ornamental purpose. I live in this area.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[moontang]

1 hour ago, BradWilkins said:

The Honda was in no way at fault it was the black car 100%. And people saying the crash barrier was not strong enough is ridiculous, the barrier was on the side street and not put there to stop a front on impact. 

There is a good chance a turn signal would have prevented the crash, but the other car was engaging in reckless driving.  I recall a crash, where a kid was driving about 75 mph in a 25 zone....a young lady failed to come to a complete stop, and was T-boned.  There was quite a lot of litigation, and even an appeal..the reckless punk caused the crash, but if only the female had been obeying the law it wouldn't have happened.

[whatsupdoc]

20 hours ago, travelman6 said:

I don't know what diving school the police went to, but the driver of the SUV is definitely at fault.

It is not entirely clear to me why the police in Chiang Mai would need a Scuba course...

 

And if you think the SUV driver was definitely at fault it is not a recommendation for the driving school you went to yourself.

[cnx355]

On ‎1‎/‎4‎/‎2019 at 12:49 PM, Phuketshrew said:

Can anyone familiar with this intersection clarify? I an earlier report I read that the left most lane was for U Turning and the one next was for a right turn. If the CRV was in the correct lane to turn right and the Toyota was barrelin up the inside but intending to go straight on then she was clearly in the wrong. I don't understand why the CRV driver did not take evasive action. Surely the natural reaction would have been to veer to the left and keep going straight on?

Yes, I use this road and there are a few area were the right lane are barrelled with  yellow lines to indicate you could  not use them, Usually near  U-turn zone. But a lot of drivers use them to overtake and go faster.

 

They should be closed with concrete to avoid this type of accident.but this is Thailand.

[mommysboy]

Yes the black car seems at fault, but am I the only one wondering why the driver in the silver car didn't appear to brake?

[kannot]

On 1/5/2019 at 10:17 AM, Baerboxer said:

just too lazy!

easy

[kannot]

16 hours ago, moontang said:

There is a good chance a turn signal would have prevented the crash

nah, never  seen a  country with SO MANY indicators  left on , driver oblivious