Our first traffic accident, just what is the law?

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Stop the nonsense.  If they have insurance, they turn it over to their insurance company and let them deal with it.  That's why we have insurance.

I wouldn't leave it solely up to the Insurance... They may also be lazy and just accept full blame and walk away. Accepting blame for an accident has the potential to leave you open to further proceedings and compensation claims. 

 

In the example provided by the Op this would seem the case, where the 'insurance guy' was of no help whatsoever, just rocked up, accepted blame and wanted to move on as quickly as possible... This has not helped the Op (and his Wife) at all. 

 

Everyone tells you that your insurance guy is always on your side - thats just a Myth, the insurance guy is on his own side and wants the fastest resolution, a lot depends on their work ethic. 

The Policeman is also on his own side and wants the easiest resolution for himself, he doesn't care about the others, again, mileage may vary depending on the Policeman's work ethic. 

 

The only thing you can do is follow proceedings and make sure you are satisfied with the outcome without bending over and taking unnecessary blame. 

 

 

[4675636b596f75]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

I wouldn't leave it solely up to the Insurance... They may also be lazy and just accept full blame and walk away. Accepting blame for an accident has the potential to leave you open to further proceedings and compensation claims. 

 

In the example provided by the Op this would seem the case, where the 'insurance guy' was of no help whatsoever, just rocked up, accepted blame and wanted to move on as quickly as possible... This has not helped the Op (and his Wife) at all. 

 

Everyone tells you that your insurance guy is always on your side - thats just a Myth, the insurance guy is on his own side and wants the fastest resolution, a lot depends on their work ethic. 

The Policeman is also on his own side and wants the easiest resolution for himself, he doesn't care about the others, again, mileage may vary depending on the Policeman's work ethic. 

 

The only thing you can do is follow proceedings and make sure you are satisfied with the outcome without bending over and taking unnecessary blame. 

 

 

Everyone has a story.  Blah blah blah.  The cops will get you because you are white ... blah blah blah ... the insurance company won't be any good ... blah blah blah

 

Did it ever occur to you that the insurance company has a stake in paying out as little as possible?  

 

Blah blah blah

 

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Everyone has a story.  Blah blah blah.  The cops will get you because you are white ... blah blah blah ... the insurance company won't be any good ... blah blah blah

 

Did it ever occur to you that the insurance company has a stake in paying out as little as possible?  

 

Blah blah blah

 

 

You haven't been here very long have you?

 

The work ethic of many people is highly variable, especially in Thailand - you may get the claims guy who cares greatly for the company, or you may get the guy who just wants to get home as quickly as possible.

 

I guess not much beyond blah blah occurs to you... 

 

 

 

[evadgib]

5 hours ago, rwill said:

A dash cam in this case would not have shown anything.

Audio would at least confirm the car was indicating (& see my earlier comment re 2nd dashcam covering the rear).

[MeePeeMai]

26 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

 

Did it ever occur to you that the insurance company has a stake in paying out as little as possible?  

 

 

Hence their recommendation that you NEVER, EVER ADMIT GUILT .... at all (not even a small percentage).

 

Admitting guilt on scene (or at the police station) reduces the insurance companies "leverage" in paying out a claim to second or third parties. 

 

Even in the USA you are advised by your insurance company (and your employer) not to ever admit guilt at the scene or otherwise.  Police Departments and Fire Departments in the USA train all employees to never admit guilt after an accident (no matter the circumstances) because of possible and pending litigation issues especially if department vehicles are "self-insured" by the city, state or county (as most are).  This is why they have lawyers, you do not admit to anything.

 

For example, if the other driver had no license, an expired license, had been drinking, had drugs in his or her system, had no license plates or expired tax or no insurance (any or all of those mentioned above) .... and you were to admit fault or guilt in the accident (not knowing the other driver's status), this could seriously affect not only your insurance companies leverage in negotiations, but also the final outcome in court (should it go that far).

 

If you are involved in a fatality, just imagine the possible ramifications should you accept or admit guilt at the scene.

 

The only time to admit guilt is standing before a judge, next to your attorney (prior to your sentencing), to get your (guaranteed) prison term "halved" (as is standard practice here in the LOS).  Otherwise just roll the dice and pray a helluva lot!

[4675636b596f75]

29 minutes ago, MeePeeMai said:

Hence their recommendation that you NEVER, EVER ADMIT GUILT .... at all (not even a small percentage).

  

You got it.  You call your insurance company and let them deal with the police.  NEVER talk to police, not here or there.

[4675636b596f75]

47 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You haven't been here very long have you?

You didn't comprehend much, did you?

 

It's their money.  If they want to give it away, up to them.  You don't negotiate anything, that's what you pay your insurance company to do.

[champers]

1 hour ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

Stop the nonsense.  If they have insurance, they turn it over to their insurance company and let them deal with it.  That's why we have insurance.

He has paid 3K Baht. Did you miss that part?

[4675636b596f75]

6 minutes ago, champers said:

He has paid 3K Baht. Did you miss that part?

It doesn't matter what he did.  He should have involved his insurance company.  They would have shielded him.

[champers]

21 minutes ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

It doesn't matter what he did.  He should have involved his insurance company.  They would have shielded him.

It does matter what he did. The police asked him for 3K and he paid. The Thai motorcyclist was not asked for any sum.

[brokenbone]

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I can't see in anyway whatsoever that your Wife could have been at fault.

 

i beg to differ, its very plausible the bike was taking over,

and the car then right when the bikes front wheel

was up there with the cars back wheel, the car decided to cut off the biker, at which time there was nothing to do.

this exact shit has happened to me twice,

in one case the driver flipped on the signal in the same second he cut me off, in the other case the woman didnt bother with signal at all

[ianezy0]

But I was brought up to believe that all women are bad drivers!

its obvious to me where the blame lays ????

[snowgard]

What said the insurance guy? Or you not called they?

 

[richard_smith237]

18 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

18 hours ago, champers said:

He has paid 3K Baht. Did you miss that part?

It doesn't matter what he did.  He should have involved his insurance company.  They would have shielded him.

 

You're commenting without following what the Op has written... 

 

The Insurance company clearly hasn't sheilded the Ops Wife. 

She is also facing a charge of Reckless Driving (I think).

 

On 4/19/2019 at 7:10 PM, Orton Rd said:

was not very impressed with the insurance man, seemed just to go along with anything the cops and the boss of the bike man said

 

Hence you can't blindly trust what your insurance company will do. You can't just call them and walk away while they deal with who's at fault - You need to ensure you are satisfied with the outcome, you also need to sign the insurance documents. 

[Orton Rd]

17 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i beg to differ, its very plausible the bike was taking over,

and the car then right when the bikes front wheel

was up there with the cars back wheel, the car decided to cut off the biker, at which time there was nothing to do.

this exact shit has happened to me twice,

in one case the driver flipped on the signal in the same second he cut me off, in the other case the woman didnt bother with signal at all

The thai highway code states they drive on the left except for overtaking when it is safe and legal, it also says no overtaking another vehicle within 30 metres of  junction. If he was overtaking he would have been in the middle of the road and would have been guilty as almost at the junction.

I am suspicious that as soon as the cop turned up the boss of the bike driver collared him in a huddle, maybe an offer he could not refuse. laws mean nothing here.

[Orton Rd]

16 hours ago, snowgard said:

What said the insurance guy? Or you not called they?

 

He was useless went along with everything the cops and opposition said, offered no advice to us. Not a great asset to his company.

[richard_smith237]

17 hours ago, brokenbone said:

i beg to differ, its very plausible the bike was taking over,

and the car then right when the bikes front wheel

was up there with the cars back wheel, the car decided to cut off the biker, at which time there was nothing to do.

this exact shit has happened to me twice,

in one case the driver flipped on the signal in the same second he cut me off, in the other case the woman didnt bother with signal at all

 

You mean overtaking through a junction? Bike is still at fault.

(its also a pretty daft thing to do).

 

Thats covered in the LTA 

 

Section 46 (400-1000B)
[The driver shall not overtake another vehicle when:

1. driving up a slope, bridge or curve, except where there is a traffic sign permitting overtaking

2. within a distance of 30m from a pedestrian crossing, junction, circle (rotary) or railroad crossing

 

 

 

[Orton Rd]

19 hours ago, 4675636b596f75 said:

You got it.  You call your insurance company and let them deal with the police.  NEVER talk to police, not here or there.

How can you not talk to the Police, they have you and the car at the station and say if you don't sign guilty go to court and they will keep the car for weeks on end. Lesser of two evils is to agree and get out.

[richard_smith237]

20 hours ago, evadgib said:

Audio would at least confirm the car was indicating (& see my earlier comment re 2nd dashcam covering the rear).

 

Footage from a Dash Cam (fwd and Rear facing) would have also identified the bike either a) driving on the wrong side of the road, or b) coming up behind the car to over take. 

 

Either way - its quite clear that the bike was in the wrong. The Op and his Wife have been taken advantage of by a lazy policeman who doesn't know the traffic law. 

[Tongjaw]

On 4/19/2019 at 7:10 PM, Orton Rd said:

As we admitted guilt we had to pay the full 3k, was not very impressed with the insurance man, seemed just to go along with anything the cops and the boss of the bike man said. Come to think of it same happened to sister in law who is a headmistress locally. She took it to court and actually lost, bit of a gamble as so unpredicable.

Mrs just gone to see the bugger on the bike in Hospital 'have to' apparently, not me. He'll probably be expecting wais and fruit!

Why did you admit guilt if your adamant it wasn't the fault of your wife? You should have waited until your insurance man turned up.

[KhaoYai]

Many will disagree but I would not have accepted the cops 'decision' and let it go to court - it probably wouldn't have.  There are many scenarios in which we are told that as foreigners, we automatically lose - divorces, accidents...............all sort of things.  However, if I know I'm in the right I stand up for myself.

 

I had a problem with a large hospital that basically lied to me in order to get me to pay my wife's bill.  When the lie came to light later (following a divorce), I went to a lawyer. He told me I had no chance of beating the hospital as they had the money to pay for top lawyers with influence - even less chance as a foreigner.  I stood my ground and continued with the case on my own. The hospital backed down and settled before the matter got to court.

 

Don't simply back down in these cases - stand your ground. Despite my experience with the lawyer, I would have used one in your case. A decent lawyer will stand up to the cops and you should see their attitude change when they are faced with someone who knows the law and speaks their language.

[brokenbone]

3 hours ago, Orton Rd said:

The thai highway code states they drive on the left except for overtaking when it is safe and legal, it also says no overtaking another vehicle within 30 metres of  junction. If he was overtaking he would have been in the middle of the road and would have been guilty as almost at the junction.

I am suspicious that as soon as the cop turned up the boss of the bike driver collared him in a huddle, maybe an offer he could not refuse. laws mean nothing here.

if it was illegal to take over whenever a sidetrack is in 30 meter vicinity, it would never be possible to take over

anywhere around built up areas, the junction has to refer to

a crossing or traffic light

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, brokenbone said:

if it was illegal to take over whenever a sidetrack is in 30 meter vicinity, it would never be possible to take over

anywhere around built up areas, the junction has to refer to

a crossing or traffic light

 

 

What do you mean 'IF it was illegal.....'  it IS illegal to over take within 30m of a junction. 

You should not be overtaking in a built up area.

 

Would you over take in the a village or town in the UK ?

 

That its more common here doesn't make it acceptable, it just makes it more common, as with a lot of the LTA laws which are broken on a daily basis and hence the high accident rate. 

[Orton Rd]

I downloaded the 1979 Thai traffic act in English from a link on this site. Worth keeping on your phone for reference. I wonder how many Police have read it! think it's section 46, no overtaking within 30 meters of a zebra crossing, junction, circle (rotary) or railroad crossing 60 metres if foggy or rain or dust prevent good visibility, or as seems to be the case up to you as the cop probably does not know the law.

[myshem]

These stories are funny, how can any car driver to whom it happens not also feel guilty ? Are you too old ? Bad eyes ? What else ? It never happened that I didn't see any motorbike coming from far away and trying to overtake me when I was about to turn right.

When it happens both car and bike are wrong ! Whatever is the law, car should have seen the bike, because there is no situation when a bike cannot be seen. Any other explanation is pure BS and lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, myshem said:

These stories are funny, how can any car driver to whom it happens not also feel guilty ? Are you too old ? Bad eyes ? What else ? It never happened that I didn't see any motorbike coming from far away and trying to overtake me when I was about to turn right.

When it happens both car and bike are wrong ! Whatever is the law, car should have seen the bike, because there is no situation when a bike cannot be seen. Any other explanation is pure BS and lie.

 

 

I don't think anyone involved in an accident where someone else is hurt doesn't feel guilty - that would be inhuman. However, when the accident is clearly the other party's fault, they are the ones responsible. 

 

 

With regards to the rest of your comment... Yes, BS is quite apt, but in regard to your comments, your mirrors don't have blind spots, you shoulder check every time, even for motorcyclists going the wrong way on the wrong side of the road? - Yes, of course you do... Because 'it never happened that you didn't see any motorbike'... you must be the epitome of driving perfection, a legend in your own lunchtime...

 

 

 

[brokenbone]

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

What do you mean 'IF it was illegal.....'  it IS illegal to over take within 30m of a junction. 

You should not be overtaking in a built up area.

 

Would you over take in the a village or town in the UK ?

 

That its more common here doesn't make it acceptable, it just makes it more common, as with a lot of the LTA laws which are broken on a daily basis and hence the high accident rate. 

yes i took over in villages for as long as it wasnt a hazard signal someone intended to turn, worked like a charm

since nobody would leave signal on out of laziness, but all would signal

in advance prior to turn, and none would cut a lane occupied.

 

you are wrong, this is just a side track,

the car should have been arsed to signal

well prior to turn, and should have looked in the mirror if someone was behind intending or already busy taking over.

the odds are very strong the bike was already in overtake lane when the car decided to cut him off.

 

there is also no difference from home or here, as you can see driving on any

road in pattaya, lets say you drive on 2nd rd,

people take over every minute in spite

of all the endless sidetracks

[brokenbone]

4 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

, even for motorcyclists going the wrong way on the wrong side of the road?

no, the bike was taking over in the right lane in the right direction, it would have worked as the law intended if 1] the car

had either signal in advance its intention so the bike could take over on the other side

or 2] if the car had seen the lane it intended to cross was

already occupied, and simply wait for its turn

 

4 way crossings has additional rules that apply,

i.e no overtaking in vicinity

[Orton Rd]

5 hours ago, myshem said:

These stories are funny, how can any car driver to whom it happens not also feel guilty ? Are you too old ? Bad eyes ? What else ? It never happened that I didn't see any motorbike coming from far away and trying to overtake me when I was about to turn right.

When it happens both car and bike are wrong ! Whatever is the law, car should have seen the bike, because there is no situation when a bike cannot be seen. Any other explanation is pure BS and lie.

 

 

 

 

 

 

He was not overtaking, he was travelling at speed on the wrong side of the road, according to the law he was wrong, according to the Police he was not. What next if you hit a pedestrian who runs out into the road it's the cars fault as well?

[Orton Rd]

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

no, the bike was taking over in the right lane in the right direction, it would have worked as the law intended if 1] the car

had either signal in advance its intention so the bike could take over on the other side

or 2] if the car had seen the lane it intended to cross was

already occupied, and simply wait for its turn

 

4 way crossings has additional rules that apply,

i.e no overtaking in vicinity

He admitted in hospital he was not overtaking, that was obvious because he was too far over, he was travelling on the wrong side of the road, why who knows. He said he did not see the car so how could he have been overtaking anyway. I think he may have been looking at his phone.