atlastaname Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlastaname Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chownah Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Police are gods here....they can make up their own laws whenever they want.....this is the proof.....they carry guns....you don't....better give them a high wai next time you see one or you might find that you have broken HIS law.....I think its great that the kid can drive safely and its even better that in Thailand the police can make up their own laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuiJens Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. Get real! read what you are writting, some of you are 's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlastaname Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. Get real! read what you are writting, some of you are 's Instead of throwing insults its a shame you couldn't be bothered to spend a minute or two saying why you think i'm wrong You "one-liner" people are great at rubbishing anyone you don't agree with but NEVER back it up with substance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuiJens Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 (edited) My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. Get real! read what you are writting, some of you are 's Instead of throwing insults its a shame you couldn't be bothered to spend a minute or two saying why you think i'm wrong You "one-liner" people are great at rubbishing anyone you don't agree with but NEVER back it up with substance You sound like its a novel you're writting, were it all ends like in fairy tails. TIT, wake up! If you let 1 10 year old drive, then you have to allow all 10 year olds to drive, and what would happen!!!! Edited March 30, 2007 by SamuiJens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Instead of throwing insults its a shame you couldn't be bothered to spend a minute or two saying why you think i'm wrong too easy , aka good for the goose is good for the gander now if you want all 10 yr olds on the road .................................... you see , who gets to decide who can and who can't , thanxs for playing mid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlastaname Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. Get real! read what you are writting, some of you are 's Instead of throwing insults its a shame you couldn't be bothered to spend a minute or two saying why you think i'm wrong You "one-liner" people are great at rubbishing anyone you don't agree with but NEVER back it up with substance You sound like its a novel you're writting, were it all ends like in fairy tails. TIT, wake up! If you let 1 10 year old drive, then you have to allow all 10 year olds to drive, and what would happen!!!! Well thats just the point .. none of us know what would happen. I'm not saying all 10 year olds should drive , just that this one is and the world, when i last checked , is still spinning. The great thing about Thailand is that it refuses to conform to what us westerners regard as "acceptable" . They make their own laws up on the hoof and if you break one of them , well there's usually a (expensive) way out. After living in the Police State formerly known as the UK all my life , i find Thailands more flexible approach to the law most refreshing. But seriously ... all i'm saying is reading some of the above posts about this 1 10 year old driving , i feel that a few of you have fallen off the lorry in your rush to condemn it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 your unfamilar with the term quit whilst your able ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 This discussion is just sooooo.... Kipling. (As in "East is East, and West is West, and ne'er the twain shall meet"). The policeman's way of thinking goes:"The boy has shown he is responsible and capable, so there is no good reason to stop him. And plenty of good reasons to encourage him". The Western way of thinking goes: "Our elected representatives have made a law. So that law must be obeyed, no matter that it lets some irresponsible, incapable people loose with lethal machinery once they are 17 and can bullshit a driving examiner for half-an-hour, and prevents some responsible, capable people from driving even locally, because of the figures on their birth certificate.". But East and West have met. And, in fact, a big part of the West has let the East take nearly all its manufacturing industry off its hands and is beginning to suffer therefrom. And another effect is that there are a lot of Westerners who see a part of the East as being a better place for living in than the one that they come from in the West---and then get a hissy fit because it thinks a bit differently. Globalisation, where is thine sting?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jasreeve17 Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 Martin; why then did the Thais bother to make the driving laws? Or have policemen? (so that the policeman could see "plenty of good ways to encourage him" to break the law?) & these Thai laws are being broken because the Westerners lost some manufacturing? The Lunatics have taken over the asylum, even though they are well read and make interesting (yet crazy) philisophical points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. Typical hippie nonsense that thinks putting the child and everyone else on the road in danger is far less of a crime than saying "no" would be. When we were young and our parents did something for our own good we all thought with our ten year old minds "When I grow up I'm going to let my kids do whatever they want". Most of us grew out of it and realized over time that our parents had only kept us from doing something stupid or dangerous. Unfortunately a few remained in that ten year old mindset and became adults without a lick of common sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sriracha john Posted March 30, 2007 Share Posted March 30, 2007 But East and West have met. Indeed they have... here the Eastern 10 year old learns what happens when he meets a Western bus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andook Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 A 10 yo kid would have a tough time manipulating the pedals whilst trying to see over the steering wheel for a start. Plus kids don't really have a sense of danger like adults do. He doesn't have insurance also. What's to recommend here...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdhm Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. I am sure we supporters of reason, protection of the public and children's own safety, respect for a countries laws all thank you for your compliments "atlastaname" . Did anobody here say we obey every law and always have - I don't think so. You are putting words into our mouths. I would think virtually every driver IN THE WORLD has driven faster than a legal speed limit at some time in their life times. BUT we know when we have come to a 'bridge too far" situation. If people all take the law into their hands coz they disagree then we have Anarchy. You prefer that do you to some stupid laws???. At least I (and others) give our reasons (whether for or against the issue being discussed) for our view points and not purely published a "put down" in support of an opinion like you have. Looks like you either do not agree with any of my past logic or you did not understand the points I have made. I wish to ask. If a 10 year old with no insurance comes off the road and hits a member of one of his "supporters" and seriously hurts or kills them, are you telling me it will not go though all your minds "what was a 10 year old doing being allowed to drive a van in the first place. I was wrong to think it was OK. Maybe had he been an adult with more experience, had passed his driving test to prove at least a certain level of proficiency my family member may still be alive or not harmed" Well, TOO LATE!!!! to see the light then. Do supporters of the 10 year not think ALL the rest of us (AND THEMSELVES) have a right to know that the drivers on the roads have proved at least a minimum standard of driving competency in an official driving test and are legally permitted to drive like others with Driving licenses living in Thailand and that should an unfortunate accident occur a driver has VALID insurance to will help pay for our bills. Atlastaname, are you only concerned about one 10 year old's rights (that do not exist in logic or law). "Long live the nanny state" if it separates me and my family from those who agree to anything "whatever the cost or risk to others who disagree with them". As with all things there should to be a reasonable balance and in my opinion (and millions of others I am sure) "a 10 year old driving a Van on public roads with no insurance and no proven driving proficiency is not "Balanced reasoning" nor is it responsible policing and parenting. I don't blame the child as he is only 10 (even if mature for his age). Children will always try to do what they like even if unsafe, if adults let them do so. To those who say TIT may I remind you that Thailand says this is ILLEGAL (because it is considered dangerous and risky and felt that a child of 10 is NOT old enough to drive on public roads Another "My God , don't you people go on !!" for you "atlastaname" . I doubt God would agree with you either. Isn't Jesus reported to have said something like "give unto Caesar what is Caesar's". Same, Same here, namely respect, support and obey the laws of Thailand if you are living here whether you be Farang, Foreigner or Thai (that applies to the 10 year old, his parents and and the "turning a blind eye" policeman (who taking a salary for enforcing Thia laws and protecting people with the Laws of the Land intended to keep all people safer. Regards from "Nanny Dave" (hmmmm... maybe I don't qualify to be a nanny, coz I only drink diet colas (not Horlicks) ) Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southwest19 Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. What a daft argument maybe you should be in bed by 10pm with your Horlicks. Next you will be advocating motorbikes without hemets which is something you have obviously done before and received a nasty head injury! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdhm Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. What a daft argument maybe you should be in bed by 10pm with your Horlicks. Next you will be advocating motorbikes without hemets which is something you have obviously done before and received a nasty head injury! I agree 100% with you southwest19 . How on Earth can anybody cater for fate as suggested above OR give it any credibility. Whatever next. I other this Equally crazy scenario and logic: Had the drug runner not been drug running at the time he may have been like an ordinary person and been going home in a minibus, that just happened to be in the wrong place when the plane just happenned to crash land right on to the minbus and killed him. So (by your logic) if he was stopped from drug running you would be responsible for his death ehhhh So yes atlastaname lets take YOUR scenario at face value. He may have lived but how many accidents and deaths MAY he cause which I suggest is statistically MUCH more likely than your scenario of him getting killed on a mini bus. But anyway atlastaname. Maybe I should thank you too. If I was not still at home replying to you, I MAY have been going into Khon Kaen where I MAY have been killed walking across the road by a 10 year Van driver who MAY have been helping his dad with deliveries at the time. BUT Luckily I am still alive and at home writing this message . Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamuiJens Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 NOW I understand this is the TV of Thailand for expats! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlastaname Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 My thanks to gdhm (Dave) for taking the time to write a very readable reply with good arguement set out very logically. Dave i'm not neccessarily disagreeing with you , i just think that some posters go waaayyyy overboard with their condemnation of some of the Thai practises. We all know the police in LOS are far more amenable to a bit of flexibility than our lot in the UK , and just because this one allowed a 10 year old to do a bit of local driving , the morallists here are screaming the house down. I bet more people have been injured or killed in the last month by adult drivers than by kid ones ... definately true , you all know it . All i'm saying is its not the most serious thing in the world like some here would have you believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cdnvic Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 (edited) I bet more people have been injured or killed in the last month by adult drivers than by kid ones ... definately true , you all know it . Oh my god, that's the most poorly thought out comebacks I've seen in ages. It's because adults probably outnumber children behind the wheel. I haven't counted lately, but I'm quite sure of this. Edited March 31, 2007 by cdnvic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 give some people enough rope ............................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlastaname Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 cdnvic doesn't know tongue in cheek when he sees it.!! Mid .. thanks for the well reasoned and constructive post ....you've surpassed yourself ... 5 words this time !! very in depth analysis. At least gdhm Dave bothered. Oh well ... you all carry on beating yourselves up over this driver .. wonder how many he's killed today ?? Trouble with some adults is they just cannot get on with their lives without concerning themselves with what others are doing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlastaname Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 My God , don't you people go on !! Chances are he will never have an accident in his life . You ought to all go off and form your own nanny-state country where everyone obeys every law no matter how daft , and you are all in bed with your horlicks by 10pm. cavalier attitude to an unknown child's life ......................... How do any of you know that anyone will be killed as a result of his driving ....you don't. How about this scenario.....he is stopped from driving because the Police Chief sees these posts on Thai Visa and so goes to get a bus home and is killed when the bus subsequently crashes. So your bleating may have killed him . Unlikely yes .. but possible . Just as its possible he may never kill anyone. What a daft argument maybe you should be in bed by 10pm with your Horlicks. Next you will be advocating motorbikes without hemets which is something you have obviously done before and received a nasty head injury! No i am not advocating that ..HOWEVER what i would say is that people should be given the facts and then if they CHOOSE to not wear a helmet then in the end they risk injury or worse. Adults should not be told what to do by other adults , just advised what is best for them . If they decide to ignore it who are you to tell other adults what they MUST do? A few years ago hardly anyone wore a helmet in LOS even though they knew the risks , just like back in the 1960's no-one in the UK wore a seatbelt. Now they are TOLD they MUST .. why?? give them the facts and let them choose. That is what a free country is all about ..choice. Not adults like the posters here who can't get on with their lives without butting into others lives and telling them how to live... 1960's England was a lovely free country , not the controlled Police State it is now. And thanks for the concern Southwest but i have all my marbles and i bet i keep them a lot longer than most here do . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 five words wasted ................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atlastaname Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 five words wasted ................................. You just go from strength to strength with your posts don't you Mid ??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 Instead of throwing insults its a shame you couldn't be bothered to spend a minute or two saying why you think i'm wrong too easy , aka good for the goose is good for the gander now if you want all 10 yr olds on the road .................................... you see , who gets to decide who can and who can't , thanxs for playing mid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Martin Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 This topic seems to be bringing out a clear division of views on how communities should rum themselves. At the risk of oversimplifying: we have the authoritarian-collectivist viewpoint v. the tolerant- individualistic viewpoint, and we have the rural v. the citified, and we have the oldest generation (who can remember a less 'developed' age) v. the younger generations (who have yet to develop some personality traits that tend to only come with age---if they come at all). Although I am not Jewish, a line of the Talmud comes to mind: "We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are." For myself, I see here a policeman (who I don't know), in a small town (which I don't know) that serves a rural area (probably not dissimilar from this one which I do know), making a decision about a matter (which it is presumably within the bounds of the discretion that he is employed to exercise) concerning a child (who I don't know). It seems to me that a responsible policeman, who knows the boy,has judged that the boy is capable and responsible, and in the circumstances of the locality it is reasonable that he allows the boy to drive the van. It cheers me to think that all (young, middle-aged, and old) in that community have been reminded that what matters about driving is whether or not it is done capably and responsibly. I do agree that the circumstances of city life are vastly different and the appropriate response to a request for a 10-year-old to be allowed to drive would be the opposite. Also I am aware that citified life does seem to bring about authoritarianism and it is necessary that this be opposed by those who live in circumstances where the authoritarians' blanket rules are inappropriate. Give that policeman a medal!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gdhm Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 This topic seems to be bringing out a clear division of views on how communities should rum themselves.At the risk of oversimplifying: we have the authoritarian-collectivist viewpoint v. the tolerant- individualistic viewpoint, and we have the rural v. the citified, and we have the oldest generation (who can remember a less 'developed' age) v. the younger generations (who have yet to develop some personality traits that tend to only come with age---if they come at all). Although I am not Jewish, a line of the Talmud comes to mind: "We don't see things as they are; we see things as we are." For myself, I see here a policeman (who I don't know), in a small town (which I don't know) that serves a rural area (probably not dissimilar from this one which I do know), making a decision about a matter (which it is presumably within the bounds of the discretion that he is employed to exercise) concerning a child (who I don't know). It seems to me that a responsible policeman, who knows the boy,has judged that the boy is capable and responsible, and in the circumstances of the locality it is reasonable that he allows the boy to drive the van. It cheers me to think that all (young, middle-aged, and old) in that community have been reminded that what matters about driving is whether or not it is done capably and responsibly. I do agree that the circumstances of city life are vastly different and the appropriate response to a request for a 10-year-old to be allowed to drive would be the opposite. Also I am aware that citified life does seem to bring about authoritarianism and it is necessary that this be opposed by those who live in circumstances where the authoritarians' blanket rules are inappropriate. Give that policeman a medal!! Martin, it is good you have laid out your reasoning and I thank you for that, but I feel you are way off on some your assumptions. There is nothing in Thailand Law or most countries laws that says "here is the minimum sage limit to driving a Van or car BUT any individual Policeman or Police station can judge whether this can be reduced based on their personal opinion. Therefore to do so is Illegal and wrong. Can you imagine the extent of favouritism, corruption, bribery, blackmail that would go on if individual policemen had to powers to agree to the waiving of the Law (IN ANY COUNTRY). Examples of pressure to a policemen I am the Villager mayor I am your best friend My wife is your wifes best friend Your son goes to MY school I own the only petrol station around for miles I am a councillor or MP I could go on forever. This is why "Laws of the Land" seldom permit individual discretion especially for police and law enforcers. Martin you said "It cheers me to think that all (young, middle-aged, and old) in that community have been reminded that what matters about driving is whether or not it is done capably and responsibly". And from one perspective I agree with you, and I can see and applaud where you are coming from BUT I have to say to you IT SCARES THE hel_l OUT OF ME if individuals/police could take the law into their own hand and override laws that were put in place in the belief they protect us. Sorry but once again, I must point out that the boy cannot possibly have ANY insurance cover if he hits anybody, damages others property or even his dad's Van. THAT ALONE says the police and village are VERY WRONG and in my opinion IRRESPONSIBLE (one or two probably criminal in their actions under Thai Law) In THIS situation they are playing with the protection and safety of all around without insurance. Accidents DO happen as we are human (not robots). INSURANCE is intended to relieve the damage somewhat. Martin, Best friend of a Policeman says to him I want to allow my on to drive on the quiet local roads please can you give him permission. "OK as you are my best friend!" the policemen says. Would the police be easily able to say No. I do not think your son is up to the task". Solution never put the law enforcers in that individual impossible position I do not believe that My (or others) thinking the law is correct to not allow a 10 year old to drive (no matter how mature and small and quiet the roads are) makes us automatically "authoritarian-collectivist". Of course some of us may be MAY BE but support of NOT allowing people to break the minimum driving age limit does not prove that. As a supporter of Democratic changes to laws that are considered daft by people, I do not accept that my belief a 10 year old driving a Van makes me "authoritarian-collectivist viewpoint " I consider it puts me in the "Responsible adult/parent/citizen/law abiding Group". If a person decides to buy and use cocaine and I said it is illegal and wrong (except prescribed by doctors) would you describe me as an "authoritarian-collectivist viewpoint". Wearing of crash helmets. I personally know/KNEW of 10 people (one or 2 friends) who died or were maimed for life where the hospital put the death, or degree of damage, directly down to the NON wearing of a crash helmet. It had been widely proven crash helmets are desirable. I can appreciate the views of those (with this issue) they should have the right to choose whether to wear a helmet provided if they do drive without helmets and get badly hurt due to their ill considered judgement then I trust they will pay 100% of their hospital bills rather than (as in the UK being treated for free). Maybe everybody should have the right to carry guns and knives. I know some countries you legally can but I come from the UK that does not permit either. When I lived there I personally felt much safer as a result than if it was permitted. Many people in the UK feel the same (some don't) but a "authoritarian-collectivist viewpoint" has little or nothing to do with views EITHER WAY in my humble opinion. I agree with compulsory seat belts as well, as once again it has been proven Worldwide by experts and tests that on balance they save thousands of more lives each year than the rare freak accident where they are contributory factor to death/or injury. Maybe countries should allow each person to decide if they are too drunk to drive or not. After all we all know large bodies people can drink more than smaller bodied people, that men are less affected than women (drinking the same amount of alcohol), and some people are better at coping with alcohol than others. NO!. I believe reasonable people elected to make decisions for the people have to make decisions for the people based on tests, findings, science, judgement and reasonableness. If they are wrong, the people can elect other people (in democratic countries). But I doubt anybody will reverse the laws on crash helmets, drink driving or reduce the minimum age for driving. I remind people that the elderly are also restricted in many countries with more frequent and more extensive medical tests etc. I believe some countries also have a maximum age limit to drive (not 100% sure on this one but I have been told that is the case). Therefore this is not an anti young or anti rights issue, its an issue of whether it is felt a driver is (on balance) reasonably believed to be safe/ proficient if allowed to drive taking many factors into consideration including th safety of the general public, neighbours AND the driver. A final observation. We who are fortunate to be from well educated and well informed backgrounds are nowhere near in the World's majority, UNFORTUNATELY. Therefore many of the world's citizens who exercise their own personal judgement are making judgement on very restricted information (mostly though no fault of their own). For instance, If the Thai people all knew exactly how many died in their towns or cities in a given year due to Road Traffic related accidents . If the people of Khon Kane knew that in a survey year 81% of admissions were Road Traffic Accidents then I bet there would be more seat belts and CERTAINLY more crash helmets worn by choice armed with this added knowledge. I myself, was unaware of the degree of the dangers of driving in Thailand (statistically and observation supported) until I looked up the statistics and articles on the subject and having now witnessed the driving here during the 11 months I have lived in Khon Kaen Kind Regards, Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mid Posted April 1, 2007 Share Posted April 1, 2007 in a nutshell if it's ok for the policeman it's ok for the immigration officer ................................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now