10-year-old 'allowed To Drive Locally'

[gdhm]

in a nutshell if it's ok for the policeman it's ok for the immigration officer .................................

Mid, you have just raised a valid point I was very tempted to raise last time, but thought I had covered enough ground, but now you have raised it .

How many of those on the ThaiVisa Forum (who are in favour of freedom of individual interpretation and NOT abiding by the rules 100% as laid down) have walked frustrated and maybe angry from an Immigration Bureau office or Thai Embassy having taken with them exactly ALL the official requirements as laid down in the Immigration Bureau Rules and Regulations only to have been told "but this office (or I) require extra items (when their seems no reason or concern to justify the extra requirement).

I would suggest (by the number of threads we read, and our OWN personal experiences a huge number of us.

I wonder if those that advocate a liberal approach to rules, think that when they have to make a new several hours journey to and back from their "local' immigration with some unexpected new requirement that only that office or Officer seems to need.

I'll bet anything, that their attitude changes to "how can we be expected to comply with requirements when each office/officer has different requirements to the officially laid down list of requirements.

Well I put it to the Liberals. "Live by the Sword, die by the Sword". You cannot have it always. Either you accept all the laws and rules - like them or not (until they are changed ) or you do not, but you cannot justifiably complain when they are not abided by people, police and officials when it adversely affects YOU as a consequence.

I would suggest everybody hates too rigid, inflexible and demanding rules, regulations and laws BUT THERE IS ONE BIG PLUS if people and officials follow them to the letter "Everybody knows exactly where they stand, what they can do and what they cannot and what will happen if they are caught transgressing.

Regards, Dave

[atlastaname]

in a nutshell if it's ok for the policeman it's ok for the immigration officer .................................

Mid , when are your posts not "in a nutshell"?

Dave, you DO make some great points and you have tackled most bits well , although when you say you agree with compulsory wearing of seatbelts , you don't say why it cannot be left to the individual to decide based on the facts . Why should you , an adult , tell another adult he/she MUST wear a seatbelt. Everyone knows it makes sense (and BTW i have driven for 31 years and always wear a seatbelt even before they became compulsory in the UK) , so why not leave it up to them to decide.

Mind you , that arguement could be used for drugtakers too. Give them the education and then let them decide , thats my way. But then i manage to live my life without telling other people what to do. Most people can't do that.

[meemiathai]

although when you say you agree with compulsory wearing of seatbelts , you don't say why it cannot be left to the individual to decide based on the facts . Why should you , an adult , tell another adult he/she MUST wear a seatbelt. Everyone knows it makes sense (and BTW i have driven for 31 years and always wear a seatbelt even before they became compulsory in the UK) , so why not leave it up to them to decide.

It is because if there is an accident, the body might fly off from the car and hit/kill some pedestrians. I thought this was easy to understand?

What I don't understand is who other people are they going to harm if toddlers don't wear helmets when they learn to walk?

[MrSnrang]

You act like a mature child wouldn't be able to navigate rural roads...

They're rural roads for ######'s sake!

I know of 12-year-olds that have been in SLK's and other powerful cars in the CITY!

It's a half-half separation.

Half are idiots who don't know a clutch from a turn signal who just go fast and hit whatever is in their way. The other half drives responsibly, watches everything on the road, and abide by the rules of the road. Police ignore them because what doesn't hurt them isn't any of their business.

The stupid ones, however, are caught and made to wait in the police station while their busy parents have to rush to get them and pay a reasonable fine.

[gdhm]

although when you say you agree with compulsory wearing of seatbelts , you don't say why it cannot be left to the individual to decide based on the facts . Why should you , an adult , tell another adult he/she MUST wear a seatbelt. Everyone knows it makes sense (and BTW i have driven for 31 years and always wear a seatbelt even before they became compulsory in the UK) , so why not leave it up to them to decide.

It is because if there is an accident, the body might fly off from the car and hit/kill some pedestrians. I thought this was easy to understand?

What I don't understand is who other people are they going to harm if toddlers don't wear helmets when they learn to walk?

meemaithai. Very good.

Atlastaname. Good question. 6 answers come to mind (first two from a 'human' perspective )

1) if a person is hurt or killed by NOT wearing a seat belt (it would be their choice) unlike those they left behind in their thoughtlessness (family, friends, dependents on their income and/or emotionally etc.).

2) If a person was the cause of an accident (be it human error or act of God) would that person sooner think "at least the others involved walked away" as against livings with their deaths/serious injuries on the person's conscious for the rest of their life (even if told the failure to wear seat belts had a lot to do with the injuries or death I do not feel it would relieve the misery much).

These first 2 whilst being a personal matter of choice could suggest that not wearing a seat belt when able to (unless there is a medical reason not to do so) is also somewhat selfish and unthinking as others could suffer your decision on "right of choice" needlessly.

-------

3). Reduction of hospital and medical bills due to the proven effectiveness of wearing seat belts.

4) If a driver's insurance includes personal accident cover (for passenger as well) then the insurance companies would have bigger claims if there was choice not to wear seat belts and that would cause all of us increased insurance premiums.

5) Law of the Land (where it is the law of the land)

6) If the seat belt locks (as it should) that may help keep the driver at the wheel and able to have a degree of control in a serious situation. Also seat belts would stop passengers being thrown into the driver whilst trying to control the car.

These reasons (good or not) are why I wear a seat belt (and ask my passengers to do so when in my car - even if not mandatory). I would hate any passenger I am driving, to have possible added injury because I allowed them not to wear a seat belt in my car. The freedom of choice is "if my passengers are unhappy to protect themselves whilst in my care and car, then they can elect not get in my car".

My motives are nothing to do with control or obeying the law (although I respect that) but a genuine belief that when in my car I should do everything reasonable to protect my passengers and I DO believe that "Seatbelts Save Lives" and reduce the severity of injuries on a huge number of occasions.

Kindest Regards

Dave

[meemiathai]

I constantly worry about myself exhaling too much carbon dioxide thus harming the planet. I thought of killing myself but yes it is right that it will harm family, friends, dependents on my income. I am in such constant anxiety how not to bother my surroundings due to my existence that I sometimes wonder if I need medication. But then I dare not go to the psychiatrists fearing that it will cost tax-payers money. Anyone can teach me how not to be selfish in any way?

What is the point of wearing a seatbelt if one is going to drive at 200 km/h with his eyes closed?

Or should there also be a law governing the number of times that one is allowed to blink per minute whilst driving?

[gdhm]

You act like a mature child wouldn't be able to navigate rural roads...

They're rural roads for ######'s sake!

I know of 12-year-olds that have been in SLK's and other powerful cars in the CITY!

It's a half-half separation.

Half are idiots who don't know a clutch from a turn signal who just go fast and hit whatever is in their way. The other half drives responsibly, watches everything on the road, and abide by the rules of the road. Police ignore them because what doesn't hurt them isn't any of their business.

The stupid ones, however, are caught and made to wait in the police station while their busy parents have to rush to get them and pay a reasonable fine.

I understand why you feel that Rural roads are relatively safe. However, please may I offer the following why maybe they are still quite dangerous:

1) They may be less used and have less traffic, BUT then they are often less well maintained,

2) Rural/village roads often have more visibility problems due to their narrowness, closeness of walls, trees, bushes, bends and "blind bends".

3) You are more likely to meet a very slow moving vehicle (a tractor for instance) AND be tempted to overtake at the earliest opportunity. These opportunities can be few and far between on narrow windy rural roads and we all know drivers will take greater risks to get past (rather than follow a slow vehicle for kilometres).

4)if drivers don't expect so much traffic/any traffic then OFTEN they relax TOO much and can more easily lose concentration and be taken by surprise.

5) In Thailand there are likely to be young children playing on or very near village roads

6) Finding Farm animals on rural roads is normal and much more probable than on City roads or Highways.

You mention the "Rules of the Road". These rules (Called "Highway Code" from where I came from) usually include

not drinking alcohol

being legally eligible to drive,

medically fit etc.

If all my opinions fail to convince others then I repeat YET AGAIN

10 Year olds do NOT HAVE ANY INSURANCE to protect others IF they are unfortunate to have an accident.

How many of us have been involved in a car accident, who also consider ourselves normally good drivers and yet OUR insurance has paid out for some of the damage as the blame was partly down to us, or 100% down to us OT blame could not be conclusively proven between two or more vehicles/drivers

"To err is human" Nobody is perfect including this 10 year old.

INSURANCE tries to relieve the suffering to others when we drivers err.

The child has NO INSURANCE

Please, I ask all those who feel a 10 year old should be able to drive if he is considered responsible etc.

Do you seriously agree it is OK to drive WITHOUT ANY INSURANCE whatsoever.

SURELY NOT!!

I pray the boy does not hurt himself or others. That is the most important thing here.

If he does I hope the parents are prosecuted to the full AND any policemen (in the know) that failed to uphold the law they are sworn and paid to enforce.

Of course all that will be too little too, too late for any victims.

All those who still support the boy's "freedom of choice" rights (he has no moral or legal ones as far as I can see) will be pleased to know this is my last message on this subject.

With this LAST response I rest my case.

You ALL (whatever your views) will probably "breathe a sigh HUGE of relief"

Kindest Regards to everybody (for AND against)

Dave

[gdhm]

I constantly worry about myself exhaling too much carbon dioxide thus harming the planet. I thought of killing myself but yes it is right that it will harm family, friends, dependents on my income. I am in such constant anxiety how not to bother my surroundings due to my existence that I sometimes wonder if I need medication. But then I dare not go to the psychiatrists fearing that it will cost tax-payers money. Anyone can teach me how not to be selfish in any way?

What is the point of wearing a seatbelt if one is going to drive at 200 km/h with his eyes closed?

Or should there also be a law governing the number of times that one is allowed to blink per minute whilst driving?

OK, I lied, ONE last word

Touché.

I cannot and (would not wish to) disagree with you.

You are quite correct. Where do you draw the line with considering or worrying about others?

I honestly do not know. I suspect it down to individual conscious, beliefs, thickness of skin and not watching or reading too much bad news in/on the media

Best wishes,

Dave

[Cuban]

10 year old: "Dad, when can I drive the car?"

Dad: "When you can pay for fuel and change a flat tyre."

[atlastaname]

I don't really have much else to add to what i have already said but i did want to post this just to thank Dave for his copious replies .... the man has made the effort you have to give him that. And he has almost swayed me into thinking maybe he's right about compulsory wearing of seatbelts. So well done Dave.

However back to the original topic, i still remain unconvinced about the HUGE rumpus this 10 year old has caused. All those who posted about him having no insurance , well hardly anyone in Thailand does so that arguement at least is out the window. So whilst you can all keep yourselves awake tonight fretting about it , i will sleep soundly.

[gdhm]

I don't really have much else to add to what i have already said but i did want to post this just to thank Dave for his copious replies .... the man has made the effort you have to give him that. And he has almost swayed me into thinking maybe he's right about compulsory wearing of seatbelts. So well done Dave.

However back to the original topic, i still remain unconvinced about the HUGE rumpus this 10 year old has caused. All those who posted about him having no insurance , well hardly anyone in Thailand does so that argument at least is out the window. So whilst you can all keep yourselves awake tonight fretting about it , i will sleep soundly.

Pleasant dreams "Atlastaname".

I appreciate your kind consideration of my views, even if you disagree with some of them. That's Freedom of speech and thought. Long may it Last

I must admit I hadn't considered the numbers of Thais driving around without Insurance (should have made an intelligent guess though ).

Judging how relaxed this Society is (charming and endearing much of the time, but also very frustrating at other times) I think it best I don't think or consider too much or I'd never get on my motorbike as I am already worried about the standard of reckless driving by the majority that I have seen to date in Khon Kaen (compared to UK).

Kindest Regards

Dave

[Martin]

"....I don't think or consider too much...."

Dammit, Carruthers, the man's gone native. Damned shame, what?

[Scott]

Many of the laws concerning driving are done by gov'ts to protect the entire population. There are always down sides to every law. The state/nation has a vested interest in keeping it's citizens alive and well. Regardless of where you live, it is a huge burden on society (even if it is just your family taking care of an injured person and is, therefore, unable to work). So they pass laws that are meant to protect all of us.

Ten year olds can't drive well and cars aren't built to accommodate their size. Rural roads are amongst the most poorly maintained and dangerous in the world. I grew up in a rural area and we had plenty of accidents. Heavy vehicles driving on dirt/gravel roads cause deep ruts. Along comes a car, driving fast, but not too fast, hits the rut and flips in the ditch.

Thailand would do better by passing the laws it needs and then enforcing them. If they want to let 10 year olds drive, so be it. I will know that and I will adjust my driving accordingly, just like I have to now because of bicycles on major roads at night without reflectors or lights.

[gdhm]

"....I don't think or consider too much...."

Dammit, Carruthers, the man's gone native. Damned shame, what?

.... but on the other hand....... (OH NO!!! they all say )

Regards, Dave

[Martin]

"Thailand would do better by passing the laws it needs and then enforcing them. If they want to let 10 year olds drive, so be it...."

It seems to me that Thailand has just about got it right. Their "enforcement" is much more nuanced than the authoritarian enforcement of the West.

Up where I live, the law is 'enforced' very appropriately. 10-year-olds are allowed to ride motorbikes along the country roads till they get to town. Then they have to park up and go on the bus on the highway to their schools in the city.

But there is always something more to learn about TiT.

I met a new situation this week.

I have always thought that being caught speeding and having to pay money was a punishment.

But as I toddled happily along Highway 2 at the normal 125 kph, I was waved in and, amid a load of banter, handed over my 200 baht.

When the one who was doing the clerking, at the table that they had set up in the bus shelter, gave me my receipt, I said that I was going to leave it with them. 200 baht was bad enough, but a load of earache on top, if She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed came across the receipt didn't bear thinking about.

The senior one then, quite seriously, explained that I ought to take the receipt, and only dump it just before I got home, because I could show it if I got stopped again that day and it would save me paying twice.

So it appears that I wasn't paying a fine, but purchasing my day's permit-to-speed!

[gdhm]

"Thailand would do better by passing the laws it needs and then enforcing them. If they want to let 10 year olds drive, so be it...."

It seems to me that Thailand has just about got it right. Their "enforcement" is much more nuanced than the authoritarian enforcement of the West.

Up where I live, the law is 'enforced' very appropriately. 10-year-olds are allowed to ride motorbikes along the country roads till they get to town. Then they have to park up and go on the bus on the highway to their schools in the city.

But there is always something more to learn about TiT.

I met a new situation this week.

I have always thought that being caught speeding and having to pay money was a punishment.

But as I toddled happily along Highway 2 at the normal 125 kph, I was waved in and, amid a load of banter, handed over my 200 baht.

When the one who was doing the clerking, at the table that they had set up in the bus shelter, gave me my receipt, I said that I was going to leave it with them. 200 baht was bad enough, but a load of earache on top, if She-Who-Must-Be-Obeyed came across the receipt didn't bear thinking about.

The senior one then, quite seriously, explained that I ought to take the receipt, and only dump it just before I got home, because I could show it if I got stopped again that day and it would save me paying twice.

So it appears that I wasn't paying a fine, but purchasing my day's permit-to-speed!

I must admit Thailand's speed limits on Highways and some roads do seem a bit low for the size of the roads or road conditions.

---

It always amuses me that those that agree with abiding by Laws of the Land (whether liked or not) are accused of nanny state supporters, authoritarian, anti freedom of choice etc. etc.

Forgive me for suggesting that most of those that agree with flouting the Law and with police deliberately turning a blind eye are the same people that wish to break them (and usually DO).

I would love to see statistics of how many accidents occur when Road Laws have been broken, compared to when they are not. Logic says they should be higher but such a survey would give us a balance on the need of some/all/levels of some of the Road laws.

I do not driver a car in Thailand yet and yes of course I sped in the past (like most drivers) - be it not by much when in UK and Spain at times so I am not being "holier than thou" about this.

For me IF ONE child driving illegally under age on anything gets killed, injured, hurts or kills another then it was NOT appropriate and someone has suffered because of INappropriate actions .

Another thought comes to mind as well regarding the safety of children using bikes . The bike may be mostly quite small and low powered, but so are most 10 year olds in Thailand AND the bikes in many cases are not THAT light. If a bike slid and fell on top of a 10 year old would he/she have the strength to lift it off? Judging by the weight of my Nouvo I cannot believe most would.

IMHO a lack of respect or obedience to Laws is the slippery step toward anarchy -where do you start to obey them - Each person exercising freedom of choice will have their own views (and bias). As they say, "From acorns oak trees grow".

There are a lot of laws in Thailand, UK and Spain I do not like, BUT I do not consider I have the right, or it is correct to ignore them just because it suits me to do so.

I suspect most violate many roads laws here especially helmets and speeding (especially Farangs) coz the fines are extremely cheap compared to the much higher fines in the West often accompanied with points on the licence and eventual loss of license.

As I said I have sped when I had a car in the past and suspect I will not be perfect when I get one here. Of course if I do speed in the future I will consider it reasonable and safe to do so (I am an experienced driver).

But then I have to say that I am sure ALL who have sped and had an accident thought the same before their accident. So my thinking is flawed as "Speed does kill" and less speed usually results in much lesser injuries or deaths (scientifically proven facts Worldwide)

I suppose people will NEVER agree on this issue. I suppose there is ONE certain fact. Those who break the Laws of The Land can have NO excuses IF they get caught or and are punished under the Law for doing so (whether they feel the Laws fair or not)

Regards, Dave

[meemiathai]

Dave, I suppose you have broken one of your own laws already to have posted again. (just joking)

It always amuses me that those that agree with abiding by Laws of the Land (whether liked or not) are accused of nanny state supporters, authoritarian, anti freedom of choice etc. etc.

I think complaining about a law is a completely different thing from complaining having to abide by a law.

I suppose if the government in the UK one day decides to make a law enforcing people to do 10 push-ups every 5 mins when they are walking in the streets coz they think it is good for their peoples' health, would you think they would have more grounds in opposing it and accusing it a nanny state government?

There is no model answer as to how life should be lived. My belief then is that there should be as much freedom as possible in order to live a meaningful life. And that is the direction human beings should be heading towards if they want to advance. Therefore my humble opinion would be, to make laws that would allow as much freedom as possible as long as such freedom does not interfere with other peoples' freedom. Of course it would be very difficult to draw the line. Also laws must be as realistic as possible to suit each country. It annoys me a lot to see everywhere in the world that there are lots of hypocritical laws that could never be enforced.

Forgive me for suggesting that most of those that agree with flouting the Law and with police deliberately turning a blind eye are the same people that wish to break them (and usually DO).

Forgive me too for saying that I have to disagree with you. Anyone will break a law as long as it is in their favour and think they could get away with it. Me too. I do try my best though not to gain on other peoples' expense.

IMHO a lack of respect or obedience to Laws is the slippery step toward anarchy -where do you start to obey them - Each person exercising freedom of choice will have their own views (and bias). As they say, "From acorns oak trees grow".

I will agree with this if you say this in a first world country where the spirit of law is above everything. Where most people are used to abide by laws. Where laws are comparatively efficiently enforced.

But we all know how laws are enforced in thailand, don't we? So to argue that it is wrong to let a 10 year old boy to drive just because it is against the law does not give one a very strong point, does it? It is like talking about weight when there is no gravity. It is like talking about murder when you are in a war zone. Is it?

You can hold a much stronger arguement if you simply just think that a 10 year in no way is going to drive a car safely enough. (I have no idea though what the word "enough" means)

It is their country, and if it is their decision to think it is sensible enough to let this kid drive, then let it be. It really doesn't surprise me in the least. And I am with the policeman's decision. I really can't see how more dangerous it is to let him drive than to let a drunk adult drive.

One more example(forgive me for my long and winding post), people might think that it is dangerous for an 8 yr old kid to play with a spear. But if I am with my wife in an African jungle and an 8 yr old kid from a tribe accidentally put his spear through my wife's heart, should I be complaining about them letting an 8 yr old kid use a spear or should I be thinking of it as an unlucky accident that we just happen to be there?

Thanks for your posts anyway, Dave.

Best regards.

[Scott]

The whole situation is about enforcement of a law. I've lived and worked in lots of countries that don't have laws regulating things we are used to in western countries. That's not a problem. As far as I am concerned, the problem is when there is a law and there is selective enforcement or no enforcement--especially if it is a law that has the potential to have an impact on people's lives.

When I first came to Thailand there was no law about the drinking age. If you had the money and could sit at the table, you could drink. It didn't seem like a big problem because the vast majority of people had all they could do to feed themselves, so young people drinking wasn't a big problem. Over time, people got more money and kids had the money to buy alcohol, which they did. Now they have laws about it because it was having a negative impact on others.

Most of the laws about driving are the same. My parents never took any driving lessons. They just applied and were given a license. By the time I was old enough to drive (12 at that time in a rural area), I had to take this sort of a joke of a test. Now the laws are much stricter--and for the better I might add.

If the country wants to let 8 year olds drive, fine. Just pass the law and let the rest of us know, so when I am trying to pass that person ahead of me, I have a good idea he might not be able to reach the pedals!

However, lets not selectively enforce the law. It's scary when a policeman says "because he's a good kid, I'll let him drive."

[gdhm]

Dave, I suppose you have broken one of your own laws already to have posted again. (just joking)

You are correct and I usually DO follow what I say, but this debate whether in agreement with my views or not, is interesting and new thoughts raised and I got tempted.

my quote

"Forgive me for suggesting that most of those that agree with flouting the Law and with police deliberately turning a blind eye are the same people that wish to break them (and usually DO)".

your quote

"Forgive me too for saying that I have to disagree with you. Anyone will break a law as long as it is in their favour and think they could get away with it. Me too. I do try my best though not to gain on other peoples' expense".

I am sorry but I do not agree with this and this time I speak personally. I have had opportunities in the past to gain (or continue to gain) Incapacity benefits/unemployment benefits and earn a tiny bit of pocket money whilst doing so. Believe it or not I have turned down those opportunities or done the favour for free rather than accept cash (even though inadequate and with a rising mortgage bill) and cheat. I definitely could have got away with it and concealed it. I just felt it morally wrong and that when in times of trouble IF I expect the states help (be it woefully insufficient) I should accept the States rules regarding its help.

Maybe it was my mothers' fault (now deceased). She raised 3 children as widow from the age of 24 and she had a loving but VERY honest and law abiding ideals and it was passed down to her kids.

I DO agree with you that most law benders do try to draw the line at doing so where others are adversely affected.

Don't get me wrong I have sped at times, copied CDs for my personal use, but I can also say I have never parked on a yellow band (no waiting) in my life. I accept my values may be more "by the rules" than most but that is me be it for better or worse.

Yes many times I have said "why do I worry and obey everything when so many others do not and get away with it and sometimes have things easier as a result.

But once again that is me. and I have to live by what I believe in and that can have a comfortable conscious over. Having said that I do not expect others to share my views (provided their different approaches are not illegal AND adversely affect me as a result).

I worked in insurance (be it life insurance) but I do know the added misery that can happen when uninsured accidents occur. In fact my car was pranged by a car without insurance. Guy said to me I have no insurance its quite small damage I am sure its not worth your while to go after me and he drove off.

He was correct of course. BUT it cost me 300 GBP (Or loss of my no claims discount). What I was thinking about his failure to comply by the Law and have insurance cannot be repeated. All I know is I was the innocent in a parked car and I suffered due to HIS non compliance with the Law. He probably thought IF I claimed under my insurance nobody would be hurt (as most people think) but it is too easy to forget "No claims discount being lost and higher premium next time, AND that less insurance paid for, the HIGHER the premiums for those that do pay for insurance.

My brother works for UK VAT. He says the number of people who have said to him "it hurts nobody if I get away with some income tax and VAT evasion. My brother always reminds them. Multiply that unpaid tax by 100,000s and see how much revenue the country loses. Then ask yourself why taxation increases almost every budget. You may be OK (maybe what you get away with balances out with increased taxes but what about the poor, pensioners etc. who bear some of the extra taxes in some cases and did not evade tax.

Still that's life I am sure we have all had a"cash in hand" job done for us (me too).

There are many laws I like and more I do not. For instance I hate the number of road cameras on roads in the UK. OK part of me doesn't not want to be caught and fined if I err over the speed limit. BUT what really infuriates me, is they are there supposedly to slow traffic in accident risk areas BUT we in the UK ALL know a huge number are situated on safe stretches of road where councils and police know drivers tend to speed (with the lower risk of speed based accidents and the real MOTIVE for THESE placements is income (be it for good reasons or not) it is abuse of the laws for what the cameras are mandated to be there for. Of course if you do not speed you don't get caught - can't win can you?

I am very happy Thailand is less oppressive than the UK with its laws. On the other hand it is more oppressive in areas. Activities of Bar-girls are OK to turn a blind eye, BUT VCDs showing a man holding a gun or knife to someone is often pixelated out (sometimes a cigarette is pixelated out) and nearly always parts of the female anatomy are.

PLEASE I THINK. Are we adults or not?

There are strong Laws in Thailand with regard to disrespect to Royalty and the King (seldom found in other countries and certainly not in the UK - as our Royalty well knows)

Let us not think Thailand is totally relaxed. Sometimes its the other way around (not usually though, I admit). At times I do not understand Thailand's logic of what is OK or not. Maybe that is one of Thailand's charms (and frustrations) its different TIT .

Regards, Dave

I WILL keep my promise this time not to continue

(Dave's Law amended by act of Parliament and always subject my personal interpretation and amendment without notice)

Just like Thai driving Laws and enforcement, I suppose

Edited April 5, 2007 by gdhm

[meemiathai]

No, don't keep your promise please. Why made this law at the very first place? Why made this unnecessary law saying that you can't post again? Can hardly see the reason behind it. Cancel that law. Let us read more.

[meemiathai]

It is not of much difference between to speed and to gain (or continue to gain) Incapacity benefits/unemployment benefits and earn a tiny bit of pocket money whilst doing so. It is just that you don't badly need that money at that time whilst you thought you badly needed to speed and assuming that is of no harm to others at that moment.

What if you had an accident while speeding and hurt someone? It could be because of that extra 10km/h or it could be not. Who knows?

Edited April 5, 2007 by meemiathai

[meemiathai]

When there are enough people in the UK that think it is important to respect the laws, then the whole country will.

On the contrary, when there are enough people in thailand not to care about strictly enforcing laws, then the whole country won't. We really can't change anything, can we?

Don't you agree that it is indeed this chaotic way of life in thailand that has played an important part in attracting a lot of farangs? It pumps out the adrenaline, doesn't it? We can't have both, can we?

[gdhm]

It is not of much difference between to speed and to gain (or continue to gain) Incapacity benefits/unemployment benefits and earn a tiny bit of pocket money whilst doing so. It is just that you don't badly need that money at that time whilst you thought you badly needed to speed and assuming that is of no harm to others at that moment.

What if you had an accident while speeding and hurt someone? It could be because of that extra 10km/h or it could be not. Who knows?

BUT I DID need the money desperately, meemiathai. That is why I had to sell my house in the UK and decided to buy a cheaper house in Spain with the balance from the sale after the mortgage and outstanding payments were made (lucky for me London house prices).

Just could not do it. My best friend was screaming at me about being "so bloody correct when everybody else would consider it a minor transgression and most are doing it, rightly or not. Do you want to lose your house and everything? AGHHHHH!!!!".

Still could not do it.

Mind you I might consider murder of my 1st Thai wife of 3 months unremitting money grabbing, lying, obsession with gold and clothes and sightseeing, violence, drinking, screaming episodes in public places and attempted extortion etc. etc. etc. - ONLY JOKING about the murder - rest is 100% true unfortunately

(my fault I VERY Naively thought most Thai ladies (not in certain tourist towns) were loving, homely and moral people and as I had never visited Thailand before married in haste and BOY did I learn my lesson fast and hard. As I said VERY NAIVE and VERY STUPID when it comes to love and associated trust

Regards, Dave

[Thanh-BKK]

Just recently in the "Bangkok Post":

10 year old girl saved busload of students from accident when bus driver fainted. Aparently the driver had some heart problem and the girl noticed that he became blue in his face. He did not react or wake up but had his foot on the accelerator. So she grabbed the wheel and kept the bus on the road while simultaneously trying to get the driver to wake up again. With some success - he woke up just enough to stop the bus finally. The girl then called an ambulance, using a mobile phone.

This happened in AUSTRALIA.

And the comments of the police? "The girl is a hero. Like all bush kids, she had been driving since she was 7 or 8 years old, but never experienced a bus before. She will be receiving a national award".

And you make a fuss when 10-year olds drive on country roads here in Thailand? Heck better than in the city! (and i once have been on a bus where the driver didn't look any older than maybe 14-15, with his father (i suppose) sitting beside him giving instructions).

Regards....

Thanh

[gdhm]

Just recently in the "Bangkok Post":

10 year old girl saved busload of students from accident when bus driver fainted. Aparently the driver had some heart problem and the girl noticed that he became blue in his face. He did not react or wake up but had his foot on the accelerator. So she grabbed the wheel and kept the bus on the road while simultaneously trying to get the driver to wake up again. With some success - he woke up just enough to stop the bus finally. The girl then called an ambulance, using a mobile phone.

This happened in AUSTRALIA.

And the comments of the police? "The girl is a hero. Like all bush kids, she had been driving since she was 7 or 8 years old, but never experienced a bus before. She will be receiving a national award".

And you make a fuss when 10-year olds drive on country roads here in Thailand? Heck better than in the city! (and i once have been on a bus where the driver didn't look any older than maybe 14-15, with his father (i suppose) sitting beside him giving instructions).

Regards....

Thanh

The girl's a hero and wonderful maturity too. Good on her.

I suspect its usually pretty safe to drive in the bush as many "bush kids" probably seldom see vehicles on their roads for kilometres and kilometres but villages in Thailand are quite busy as MOST families have at least motorbikes (sometimes several).

However, never having lived in Australia I can only draw my opinion based on TV natural history programs and movies showing the bush.

ANYWAY, Fair enough "One swallow DOES make a Summer"

I give in and now accept all the countries of the World and their Police forces who say a 10 year old is not allowed to drive on their public roads are uninformed, authoritarian idiots who have no scientific support or intelligent thought or experience to make such outrageous restrictions. They just like victimising and provoking the people they are paid or elected to serve.

Must start teaching my 4 year old to drive he is very intelligent, mature for his age AND A GOOD kid too. Looks like all I now need to find is a kindly Policeman to turn a blind eye to the law.

Mind you, judging by some of the driving I have seen in Thailand he is ready already.

Regards, Dave

Edited April 5, 2007 by gdhm