Is it not illegal in Thai to make a uturn soo close to a bridge

Sent from my LDN-LX2 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

1 hour ago, Asquith Production said:

With the weight of 4 people the main weight would have been on the rear wheel which would  mean the front end would have been very light and reduced the braking efficiency of the front brake which is the main stopping brake.

I would say that 2 farang people would easily outweigt 4 slim Thai teenagers. And when you apply the brakes, weight is moving forwards...

bike driver 100% at fault,never pass a car with a right turn signal on the right side when you drive a bike.it is not only about you are right or not but it is about it is bigger than you,you have to be cleaver,use your brain

its this shit that made me give up on sukumvit

18 minutes ago, pierrenoel said:

bike driver 100% at fault,never pass a car with a right turn signal on the right side when you drive a bike.it is not only about you are right or not but it is about it is bigger than you,you have to be cleaver,use your brain

you havnt got a clue, the bike had the right of way since he was in that lane already

6 hours ago, Pilotman said:

looked like he turned right in front of the bike. Not unusual here.  The bike may have been going too fast, but he should have taken that into consideration. 

All 5 fuctioning on low intelligence. 

2 hours ago, Just Weird said:

Perhaps it was more appropriate for the bike rider to have taken his speed into consideration!

no, the car had the obligation to wait until the lane he wanted to cut into was clear, its called right of way

6 hours ago, PingRoundTheWorld said:

 

 

I don't understand you guys blaming the Fortuner - he slowed down for about 10 seconds before making the U-turn

so what ? he didnt wait for his turn to use that lane,

he cut them off, the bike had the right of way

6 hours ago, transam said:

Kids on the bike must have been blind. No sign of braking, with 4 onboard that may have been difficult...

The overloaded bike should have taken that into consideration when a signal in front of them was evident..

you dont get it, the car can signal all he want,

but he is still obligated to give way

to the bike that are already occupying that lane

Trumps fault

A small motorbike is made to support 2 people at a weight of 120 kilo ..  4 people would be around 200 kilo which means an overloaded bike would require a much longer braking distance  .... 

I've never seen a well-driven Fortuner.

7 hours ago, transam said:

Kids on the bike must have been blind. No sign of braking, with 4 onboard that may have been difficult...

The overloaded bike should have taken that into consideration when a signal in front of them was evident..

That is bull sh.t saying he should have taken into consideration that they were going fast, it looked like they were getting ready to overtake, how can the in control biker have good vision with 1 at least sat in front of him, this is reminiscent of the fatality last week of the female  killed with 3 up at 5 am after slamming into a parked can.

Is there a law regarding how many can travel on a motorbike other than the common sense law ? 

8 hours ago, gmac said:

Nice manoeuvre, not a marked u-turn, excessively dangerous and stupid (they are even when marked anyway) and that bike wasn't travelling all that fast so the Fortuner driver couldn't have looked behind (or didn't care - which is just as likely) before starting his murderous turn.

It was traveling too fast to stop or undercut to the left.

1 hour ago, brokenbone said:

you havnt got a clue, the bike had the right of way since he was in that lane already

The bike was on the wrong side of the road. The road was a two-way, unless the car the Fortuna driver let past first was on the wrong side of the road.

4 up on a bike is illegal...  The bike should never have been there. 

 

The bike, overloaded was unable to respond to the developing road conditions ahead, the rider of the bike should be held accountable for braking the law. 

 

Was the bike also speeding and thus further contributed to the accident by riding too fast for the developing road conditions ahead?

 

The driver of the Fortuner made a U-Turn with out ensuing the road was 100% clear and thus also at fault.

2 hours ago, Vacuum said:

I would say that 2 farang people would easily outweigt 4 slim Thai teenagers. And when you apply the brakes, weight is moving forwards...

Indeed

LUCKY kids!

 

If you look CAREFULLY, you will see that a car had JUST passed going in the opposite direction, EXACTLY where the bike slammed into the fortuner!

 

If they hadn't slammed into the almost stationary fortuner, a car going in the opposite direction (at speed) would have resulted in 4 instant fatalities, IMO.

9 hours ago, gmac said:

Nice manoeuvre, not a marked u-turn, excessively dangerous and stupid (they are even when marked anyway) and that bike wasn't travelling all that fast so the Fortuner driver couldn't have looked behind (or didn't care - which is just as likely) before starting his murderous turn.

This might not have been a good place for a u-turn, but if there had been a soi and the car would have turned into the soi, he would have done exactly the same. So assuming that his brake lights were working and he used his turn signal, what he did was ok and the motorbike is at fault.

 

I had something similar to this happen once. A nice straight street, just some dirt roads going off left and right going to some farms.

An old pickup in front, was driving slowly, maybe 50km/h. I didn't expect much, just assumed that this is his normal speed. I was going to overtake him, when i suddenly noticed that he is getting oddly slow (no brake lights), and then just made a right turn (no turn signal). Luckily i wasn't too fast and could still brake in time. If i had gone a bit faster i had crashed into him. Since then i'm always very sceptical with this kind of cars.

Four on a bike, going to fast, no helmets but the car driver caused this.

13 hours ago, brokenbone said:

you dont get it, the car can signal all he want,

but he is still obligated to give way

to the bike that are already occupying that lane

You are so wrong, so many times. You flatly don't understand right of way. Right of way applies when everybody is in their own lane. As soon as you leave your lane, as the bike did, he gives up right of way. The bike was driving the wrong direction in the opposite lane. It is his job to insure his own safety.

22 hours ago, transam said:

"Wasn't traveling all that fast"......"Murderous turn"...........????

I assume you drive a Fortuner and thought his action was perfectly reasonablele.

1 minute ago, gmac said:

I assume you drive a Fortuner and thought his action was perfectly reasonablele.

No I don't drive a Fortuner, but I have passed a driving test for m/cycle, car and heavy goods vehicles, though I never passed a test for my boat......????

22 hours ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Bike should have been on the left hand side of the car.

I was always stressed when driving the car that some kid on a bike with 3 others would do just that. They pull onto the road without looking, ride one handed, chat with their passengers, play with a phone etc. Seems to me that they think they are invulnerable, instead of fragile creatures easily smashed if they don't ride carefully. I was always being passed by some maniac on a bike driving way in excess of the speed limit without even a helmet, though a helmet is of little use in a high speed collision.

 

BTW, since when did Thai drivers consider anything except themselves? I've driven enough miles on Thai roads to understand that I had to assume all Thai drivers were out to kill me and drive accordingly.

The onus, IMO, was on the bike driver ( as the vulnerable party with 3 other people to keep safe ) to consider what the car was going to do.

In Utopia, no one dies in road accidents, but LOS is far from Utopia.

'Bike should have been on left hand side of car'?  I don't think so, the Fortuner appeared to be slowing which would indicate that he would pull into the left and stop, the bike perfectly reasonably went to overtake on the correct right hand side and was blocked by the Fortuner performing it's thoughtless u-turn!

 

Wherever the 'onus' fell, the collision would not have occurred if the Fortuner driver had not performed an illegal(?) turn.

Why do they insist on passing to the right when car in front is signalling to make a right turn? Also four on a bike, is that the standard for Thailand? 

56 minutes ago, gmac said:

he Fortuner appeared to be slowing which would indicate that he would pull into the left and stop, the bike perfectly reasonably went to overtake on the correct right hand side

It's quite funny that you are trying to attribute thinking and logic to a bunch of idiot teenagers - there was none there. Any sane experienced driver would've slowed down as soon as they saw brake lights. The bike was hundreds of meters behind when they Fortuner began slowing down. 100% their fault. They need to be taken off the road until they learn to drive properly.

 

Would be interesting to know if the bike driver even had a license. Very unlikely.

23 hours ago, holy cow cm said:

...but even if illegal, the U-turn looked safe enough

Been here too long post of the day award goes to...

18 hours ago, Moonlover said:

Evidence? or more TVF hyperbole?

Just a logical educated guess MORON

1 hour ago, fullcave said:

Why do they insist on passing to the right when car in front is signalling to make a right turn?

Because they can.

 

1 hour ago, fullcave said:

Also four on a bike, is that the standard for Thailand? 

Minimum standard. Six-up is optimum.

3 minutes ago, MaxLee said:

Just a logical educated guess MORON

Wow! Even more TVF hyperbole.