Motorcycle hits bicycle: who is at fault?

[KiChakayan]

1 hour ago, Chazar said:

even more nonsense

Nope, in many European countries when you hit a pedestrian you are at fault, liable for all damages, possibly assault or manslaughter. I don't see any problem with that, BTW.

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

(2) I would expect that in a motorcycle vs bicycle collision motorcycle would automatically be liable.

Correct in our police province.

[Sheryl]

24 minutes ago, EricTh said:

The Cambodian gardener is very poor and it's difficult enough for them to come to Thailand and work in a foreign land with meagre salary.

 

The motorcyclist is unreasonable in demanding money from a poor girl who is probably struggling to earn money for their daily food.

 

Motorcyclist is the one should pay for damaging the bicycle and injuring the poor girl. I always slow down in small lanes so as not to hit anybody.

 

I've seen many Thai motorcyclists revving in small lanes as if he owns the road.

 

Bring the case to the police station.

 

Given their (the parents of the motorcycle driver, the driver himself is really just a kid so I don't blame him) behavior I have a good mind to but as I am not in the country this is not really an option. Difficult enough to ensure adequate translation for the Cambodian parents in the school meeting tomorrow and Cambodians don't ever fair well in dealings with Thai police. (Though they are 100% legal. Passports, visas, work permits and pink ID cards including the girl, I've always seen to that).

[Gumballl]

Bicyclists must obey the rules of the road. Did the girl signal her intention to make a right turn? I bet she didn't.

 

A slow moving vehicle (including a bicycle) must remain on the inside of the lane of travel so that faster moving vehicles may pass. There may be circumstances where it is not safe for the faster moving vehicle to pass, so patience must prevail.

 

It seems that the OP is describing a case where the bicycle crossed into the path of a faster moving vehicle, which in this case a motorcycle.

 

In summary:

1. Girl most likely did not signal intention to turn (from inner left lane to make right turn)

2. This caught fast moving motorcyclist by surprise.

3. Collision occurs.

 

Normally the girl would be at fault. However, if the motorcyclist is not licensed to drive, then outcome may be different. Maybe a counter-lawsuit is needed.

 

P.S. I'm not sure about Thailand, but cross-walks (zebra crossings) are for pedestrians. A person on a bicycle is NOT a pedestrian. Beware when crossing the road.

 

 

 

 

[Just Weird]

1 hour ago, Number 6 said:

1. It's Thailand the foreigner is at fault.

 

2. It's a civilized country - smaller the vehicle the greater the right of way. Pedestrians most of all.

Garbage.  To both points.

[Just Weird]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

The parents are the ones demanding the money.

 

There is a meeting tomorrow at the school about it hence my desire to understand the legal aspect.

What makes you think that any understanding of the legal aspect well enough to have a proper discussion at the school about it will be found here?

[sirineou]

8 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

Bicyclists must obey the rules of the road. Did the girl signal her intention to make a right turn? I bet she didn't.

How do you know that or any other facts concerning this case?  I have no idea who was at fault, but I wll tell you this , the girl was entitle to ride her bike and if the boy was underaged (OP does not indicate age but says school) the boy was not entitled to be riding a motorbike and was illegal.

[sirineou]

Just now, sirineou said:

How do you know that or any other facts concerning this case?  I have no idea who was at fault by reading this OP, but I will tell you this , the girl was entitled to ride her bike and if the boy was underaged (OP does not indicate age but says school) the boy was not entitled to be riding a motorbike and was illegal.

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by sirineou

[Sheryl]

21 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Correct in our police province.

 

Thanks, this is what I thought I had always heard.

 

Prior to this family starting in on the cash demands my thought had been to (at the school meeting) ask for reimbursement of actual medical costs (500 baht at provincial hospital) plus 1500 baht for a new (used) bicycle. (It was an old bike purchased used to begin with that was totalled, but it was also the only bike in the household). And I was prepared to come down in negotations a bit  on the bike cost given how old it was.

 

Had they come in apologetic and pleading  their own expenses for moto repair, I would probably  have settled for just the 500 baht medical costs.

 

But now I am seriously p***ed. And the Cambodian parents are outraged. It is an immutable law in Cambodia -- except of course if someone hiso is involved - moto huts bicycle, moto pays, end of story. They weren't looking to make money out of it, just outraged that money is being asked from them/me. (I think the expectation is that they would get it from me, obviously they can't afford it themselves).

 

Have to admit my reaction to all this is more than partly down to the fact that it is the third time in 7 months that someone in my household has been hit by a motorcycle. First I was run over at high speed  while crossing the street (3 fractures, leg torn wide open, 2 surgeries, 2 weeks in hospital, 2 months in a wheelchair). Then my beloved dog was run over and killed. And now the little girl on her bicycle.

 

I forgave the guy who hit me, sincerely (my insurance paid the medical costs). We never got to see the driver who killed the dog but my sentiments by then were a bit frayed, though I made allowances for possibility that it couldn't be helped (it was unwitnessed so don't really know the details). But now moto attack #3, and the responsible parties have the nerve to try to make money from it to boot....I am completely out of patience.

 

 

[Gumballl]

3 minutes ago, sirineou said:

How do you know that or any other facts concerning this case?  I have no idea who was at fault, but I wll tell you this , the girl was entitle to ride her bike and if the boy was underaged (OP does not indicate age but says school) the boy was not entitled to be riding a motorbike and was illegal.

 

You are correct; we don't have all of the facts regarding the case, namely whether the girl signal her intention to make a right turn. I'm wagering she didn't.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, detach yourself from the situation. Entitlement means nothing. Bicyclist MUST follow the rules of the roadway; not make up their own rules as they wish.

Edited November 27, 2019 by Gumballl

[Sheryl]

17 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

Bicyclists must obey the rules of the road. Did the girl signal her intention to make a right turn? I bet she didn't.

 

A slow moving vehicle (including a bicycle) must remain on the inside of the lane of travel so that faster moving vehicles may pass. There may be circumstances where it is not safe for the faster moving vehicle to pass, so patience must prevail.

 

It seems that the OP is describing a case where the bicycle crossed into the path of a faster moving vehicle, which in this case a motorcycle.

 

In summary:

1. Girl most likely did not signal intention to turn (from inner left lane to make right turn)

2. This caught fast moving motorcyclist by surprise.

3. Collision occurs.

 

Normally the girl would be at fault. However, if the motorcyclist is not licensed to drive, then outcome may be different. Maybe a counter-lawsuit is needed.

 

P.S. I'm not sure about Thailand, but cross-walks (zebra crossings) are for pedestrians. A person on a bicycle is NOT a pedestrian. Beware when crossing the road.

 

 

 

 

I'm sure she didn't signal, who does when there is  no vehicle in sight?  It was a deserted road as far as she could see. Even if she had signalled no one to see it.

 

She did not take the motorcycle by surprise, she was in the road already turned and about halfway across when the moto came into view (and she into his). The moto honked but made no effort to slow or stop.

 

However again my question was not whether people think the fault in practical terms is with bicycle or motorcycle (I already have my own opinion on that) but what the rules and normative practices are in Thailand for bike/moto collisions.

 

The boy is around 13-14.

[rumak]

35 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

She is around 13-14. No license.

 

I have no idea re tax & insurance on the moto.

 

But my question was really what is the norm here when it is moto vs bicycle. Are the 2 vehicles treated equally i.e. same as if it had been 2 motos that collided or is there a greater liability ascribed to the moto.As is the case in many places.

My belief is that in cases like this it is probably going to be a case of who presents the strongest character/personality.  Also who is "negotiating" the incident.  Really comes down to the people involved .  Thais can get aggresive, or at the least refuse to acknowledge wrongdoing.  

The reason I say all this is because nothing is for sure and if no independent and truthful witness to the incident it will become a power play.   If the gardener does not have much experience in resolving a conflict it might be difficult !    Tell him stay calm,  say MC was at fault,  and wait it out.   Really,  if you are not there to see the goings on it is almost impossible to know how to work it out if MC  parents remain stubborn.

The general thinking is bigger vehicle is responsible,  but the deciding person or police can disregard that as easily as anything else

[Gumballl]

8 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I'm sure she didn't signal, who does when there is  no vehicle in sight?  It was a deserted road as far as she could see. Even if she had signalled no one to see it.

 

She did not take the motorcycle by surprise, she was in the road already turned and about halfway across when the moto came into view (and she into his). The moto honked but made no effort to slow or stop.

Obviously there was someone to see the signal. The motorcyclist.

 

You make it seem that the motorcycle appeared out of thin air. It must have been a very quiet motorcycle.

 

There are too many details being left out of the OP. For example, were there any eyewitnesses to the accident. If so, can the corroborate the girl's version of the story.

 

In today's world, I would expect that the young girl was probably listening to music using ear-pods and didn't hear the motorcycle. Also she failed to signal.

 

We can argue this all day, but without solid evidence, only a judge can decide.

 

P.S. In the US, if a bicyclist pulls this kind of stunt, or even if a person jaywalks, the driver of a 'larger' vehicle will most likely not be charged (unless some other crime is committed, such has having no license, failing to stop at scene of accident, etc.).

Edited November 27, 2019 by Gumballl

[rumak]

2 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

We can argue this all day, but without solid evidence, only a judge can decide.

That one sentence is really what the case is here.    And, as i pointed out, who will be the judge?

 

 

 

[phetpeter]

Firstly the motorcycle should by law have third party insurance. Secondly if he is underage, check for driving licence... none means he is at fault no matter the reason. Threaten a lawyer to take to court unless they agree to purchase a new bike. If they disagree (unlikely) start to walk with their full details...call their bluff. Stating we have nothing to lose and can wait. hopefully they will walk away with cash for the cost of the bike, or give go with you to the shop to buy. keep smiling and no shouting or raised voice or become angry. Check out Big C they have bikes for around 500 - 1000 baht that would be a great way to bring the matter to an end plus no insurance they pay costs. or just except new bike from Big C. If insuranced it covers medical expenses if there is a police report.  be there support and at least act as if you know the law file with useless papers and the photos, of injury and damaged bike will have them on the backfoot right away!

Edited November 27, 2019 by phetpeter

[Sheryl]

16 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

Obviously there was someone to see the signal. The motorcyclist.

 

You make it seem that the motorcycle appeared out of thin air. It must have been a very quiet motorcycle.

 

There are too many details being left out of the OP. For example, were there any eyewitnesses to the accident. If so, can the corroborate the girl's version of the story.

 

In today's world, I would expect that the young girl was probably listening to music using ear-pods and didn't hear the motorcycle. Also she failed to signal.

 

We can argue this all day, but without solid evidence, only a judge can decide.

 

The motorcyclist as I have explained several times was not in sight when she began her turn. It appeared as she was already going across the road. It was going very, very fast. It hit her in the center of the road, she was already well past the lane she had turned out of and halfway to the other side of the road when the impact occurred. That alone tells you that she did nto suddenly turn into the path of a moto in the left lane.

 

She does not own any ear pods or portable music device. And she is a very careful bike rider, I know this as I have carefully taught and observed her. The bicycle actually belongs to me, and also as her father's employer and her living on my land, I feel a responsibility for her welfare. Before I agreed to let her start taking the bike to school I made sure she knew how to drive safely...which in this neck of the woods means not turning at all if any other vehicles are in sight. The traffic here is sparse enough that this is feasible, and a good deal safer than relying on hand signals that drivers might not notice or understand.

 

 I have not asked anyone on here to "judge" the case. I asked what law and normal practice is in Thailand. One person has responded that it is, as I had heard and know to be true in at least one other country of SE Asia, that liability is automatically ascribed to the motor vehicle.  And several have responded that lack of license makes the driver automatically at fault.

[Sheryl]

8 minutes ago, rumak said:

That one sentence is really what the case is here.    And, as i pointed out, who will be the judge?

 

 

 

 

There isn't a "judge" as such. There is an informal mediator (teacher at the school).

 

The parents just needed to be fore-armed with accurate understanding of whether the law/usual rules re moto vs bicycle are similiar here to their country as this will help them proceed with more confidence, there is always the uncertainty that "maybe it is different here".

[MeePeeMai]

14 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

P.S. In the US, if a bicyclist pulls this kind of stunt, or even if a person jaywalks, the driver of a 'larger' vehicle will most likely not be charged (unless some other crime is committed, such has having no license, failing to stop at scene of accident, etc.).

But his insurance WILL cover the injuries and/or damages to the bicyclist/pedestrian/bicycle (regardless of "perceived" fault)

[naboo]

If the motorbike rider is 13-14, he has no licence. However, this does not, in Thai law, mean he is at fault. He, or his parents, would be fined by the police for driving without a licence. I was in an accident where all my paperwork, licence, tax and insurance, was correct, whilst the other guy had none. Fault was probably 65% mine. My insurance guy told him that we could call the police to decide who was at fault, but he'd be fined maximum for all three offences as he'd been in an accident. He decided not to try his luck and drove off.

 

Which brings us to who is at fault. From the description, and given there are no witnesses, it is one kids word against another. Fairly straight forward, each family picks up their incurred costs. Unless it can be proven that the motorcyclist was driving dangerously which would need to be judged by the police who attended (if any).

[sirineou]

28 minutes ago, Gumballl said:

 

You are correct; we don't have all of the facts regarding the case, namely whether the girl signal her intention to make a right turn. I'm wagering she didn't.

 

Regarding the rest of your post, detach yourself from the situation. Entitlement means nothing. Bicyclist MUST follow the rules of the roadway; not make up their own rules as they wish.

Sure no disagreement that Bicyclists must obey the rules of the law. 

 

[rumak]

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

There isn't a "judge" as such. There is an informal mediator (teacher at the school).

 

The parents just needed to be fore-armed with accurate understanding of whether the law/usual rules re moto vs bicycle are similiar here to their country as this will help them proceed with more confidence, there is always the uncertainty that "maybe it is different here".

whoever is the mediator is in effect the one who controls the get together.

it is a very difficult position in any situation...... but i guess you are hoping that person will act in an impartial manner and be strong enough to keep order. 

lots of ifs .............. 

 

[phetpeter]

Let me assure you the Thai teacher in small community has a lot of sway. hopefully they will act correctly as long has both students are known. I am assuming the the motorbike is fairly new. if it is an old banger, then things may end up as a handshake, both licking their wounds. if newest than go for it! otherwise you will I am sure get a Big C bargain as the kind person you state you are to the family? You have nothing to lose in supporting them at the meeting.

[MeePeeMai]

As mentioned earlier, the motorcycle is required to have current por ror bor (govt mandated) insurance to be on the roadway (legally) to begin with.  This covers up to 30k baht for injuries (and damages I believe).  If he is unlicensed and the bike does not have any current por ror bor insurance then he should not have been operating that motorbike on the road and was doing so illegally.  If the por ror bor is expired then it is my understanding that the operator of that vehicle must pay for any accident(s) out of his/her own pocket.

 

ALL motorists must exercise the utmost care when there are children in, on, or near the roadway.  It sounds to me like it was an unfortunate situation for both parties but the por ror bor (or however you spell it) should take care of the medical bills and maybe even pay for the damages.  If it had expired (and no agreement can be reached) then it may end up in the hands of the traffic police.

Edited November 27, 2019 by MeePeeMai

[impulse]

1 hour ago, KiChakayan said:

2 hours ago, Chazar said:

even more nonsense

Nope, in many European countries when you hit a pedestrian you are at fault, liable for all damages, possibly assault or manslaughter. I don't see any problem with that, BTW.

 

Go on YouTube and you'll find dozens, if not hundred of videos of pedestrians doing stupid things or even deliberately jumping in front of an expensive car to collect "damages".  It happens all over the world, including Europe.   There may be a bias toward pedestrians, but the decision to award damages depends on the circumstances, not who was driving and who was walking. 

 

[FritsSikkink]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

I don't know if taxed/insured.  The driver did NOT have a license.

 

Not remotely hiso. Lower middle class rural people.

She should have been more careful but he wrong too:

http://www.thailaws.com/law/t_laws/tlaw0140_5.pdf

 

sections 33 =  500thb for not driving on the left side of the road.

section 43a = 400-1000thb for not having a license.

section 43d = 400-1000thb for careless or recklessness driving.

section 43h = 400-1000thb for not thinking about the safety or suffering from other persons.

section 78 = 2000thb / 1 month in prison for not reporting an accident with an injured person to the police

 

Edited November 27, 2019 by FritsSikkink

[Chazar]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

In many countries liability is automatically ascribed to the motorcycle or car in a collision with a bicycle or pedestrian. This is so in the US and also in Cambodia.

so car drives down a road no speed  limit  broken, pedestrian steps  out between parked cars without  looking and gets  hit....its  the car drivers  fault...........i dont think so

[Chazar]

1 hour ago, KiChakayan said:

Nope, in many European countries when you hit a pedestrian you are at fault, liable for all damages, possibly assault or manslaughter. I don't see any problem with that, BTW.

Your  dafter than you  look then

[BritManToo]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

But my question was really what is the norm here when it is moto vs bicycle. Are the 2 vehicles treated equally i.e. same as if it had been 2 motos that collided or is there a greater liability ascribed to the moto.As is the case in many places

no licence = no compensation.

 

 

[BritManToo]

11 minutes ago, Chazar said:

so car drives down a road no speed  limit  broken, pedestrian steps  out between parked cars without  looking and gets  hit....its  the car drivers  fault...........i dont think so

If the car driver has no license, they're going to jail.

[ChouDoufu]

50 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

The motorcyclist as I have explained several times was not in sight when she began her turn. It appeared as she was already going across the road. It was going very, very fast. It hit her in the center of the road, she was already well past the lane she had turned out of and halfway to the other side of the road when the impact occurred. That alone tells you that she did nto suddenly turn into the path of a moto in the left lane.

 

She does not own any ear pods or portable music device. And she is a very careful bike rider, I know this as I have carefully taught and observed her. The bicycle actually belongs to me, and also as her father's employer and her living on my land, I feel a responsibility for her welfare. Before I agreed to let her start taking the bike to school I made sure she knew how to drive safely...which in this neck of the woods means not turning at all if any other vehicles are in sight. The traffic here is sparse enough that this is feasible, and a good deal safer than relying on hand signals that drivers might not notice or understand.

 

 I have not asked anyone on here to "judge" the case. I asked what law and normal practice is in Thailand. One person has responded that it is, as I had heard and know to be true in at least one other country of SE Asia, that liability is automatically ascribed to the motor vehicle.  And several have responded that lack of license makes the driver automatically at fault.

just wondering about the position of the vehicles and what kind of road.

 

do i understand this was a single-lane road -- one lane in each direction?

moto and bike were going in opposite directions?

bicycle was turning right (across the path of the motorcycle) into a driveway?

 

thai traffic law seems to mimic western country laws.  both bicycle and moto are considered vehicles and are required to follow traffic laws.  moto in this case would have had right-of-way, so bicyclist's responsibility to wait until safe.

 

there were no witnesses, so of course the girl can claim the bike "came out of nowhere," but irrelevant as no way to prove it.

 

no license would potentially have the moto rider liable for some penalty, but would not automatically mean liable for an accident.