Video: 'Jazz woman' says she was in the right, blames truck driver and intends to fight case

[Destiny1990]

Both are to blame especially the Selfish lady who caused the accident and acts innocent but the truck driver was probably speeding and he cant transport people in the back. Why he didn’t care these poor workers In the back by driving more slow and defensive.

[SteveK]

5 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

 Why he didn’t care these poor workers In the back by driving more slow and defensive.

I guess he assumed that someone wouldn't be stupid enough to pull in front of him and slam their brakes on without looking in the mirror. Obviously he hasn't been in Thailand for very long.

[Mister Fixit]

8 hours ago, darksidedog said:

She is as guilty as it gets. Stupid too.

And typically 'It can't possibly be my fault' Thai arrogant too.  

[gimo]

7 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

All 3 lanes are same direction traffic, right?

 

The left lane is therefor the slow lane and the truck is trying to overtake the Jazz on the left (wrong) side.

She might have a chance to win this case.

  Yes , divided road .All 3 lanes visible on the video go in the same direction , which means she was going slowly in the fast lane when she comes into view . While the truck driver's speed did appear to contribute the accident , him overtaking her from the middle lane seems reasonable , and very common in Thailand . As she slowed even more she obviously cut across in front of the truck . Her fault , but the truck driver could've avoided trouble by anticipating what she might do and slowed down earlier .

 

[gimo]

28 minutes ago, Destiny1990 said:

Both are to blame especially the Selfish lady who caused the accident and acts innocent but the truck driver was probably speeding and he cant transport people in the back. Why he didn’t care these poor workers In the back by driving more slow and defensive.

  Couldn't agree more .

[KhaoYai]

I've watched this video several times and I'm not sure things are a clear cut as they seem.- If you look closely the truck appears to have originally been in the same lane as the Jazz, then seeing what he takes to be a slower vehicle in front, he attempts to undertake it. At the last moment, when he realises that the car is actually going to turn left, he tries to cut back to the right - with the devastating result. The truck seems to have been travelling quite fast but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that would point to him speeding. The crux is whether or not the truck was originally in the same lane as the Jazz or not - maybe its clearer on the original video?

 

Seems to me that they may both be to blame. She is clearly stupid for trying to make that manoeuvre, she had obviously missed her turn. I don't know the law in Thailand but in most countries, you are required to keep a safe distance from the car in front. If as I suspect he was originally in the same lane and only swapped at the last minute, the truck driver should not have been so close to the Jazz that he couldn't stop.

 

I don't know what the law in Thailand is on this but if the truck had originally been following the Jazz, in the UK the truck driver would almost certainly be prosecuted for dangerous driving - as would the Jazz driver. That being the case, I think that's as far as it would go in the case of the Jazz driver because although she did a stupid thing, the truck actually caused the accident. I believe the significant factor is that although the truck driver will almost certainly claim he was just taking avoiding action, if he had been travelling far enough back he would have been able to stop - he wouldn't need to swerve left then right.

 

Things would be totally different if the truck had originally been in the inside lane and the Jazz cut across it but that doesn't appear to be the case.  Its one of those things - if I was the truck driver I'd probably jump to the conclusion that the Jazz driver was an idiot and totally in the wrong. However, In the cold light of day, when you balance that against the law and the reasons why that law exists - you get a different outcome (presuming the law in Thailand also states that you should keep a safe distance).

 

The video is a bit blurred but I don't see an indicator flashing on either vehicle.

 

One strange thing, the camera that shot the video appears to move a little so it doesn't seem to be fixed. Does the camera owner hang around that junction waiting for accidents? There doesn't seem to be anything interesting going on - can't see why they would be filming but lucky they were.

Edited February 26, 2020 by KhaoYai

[hotchilli]

8 hours ago, webfact said:

She has blamed the truck driver whose vehicle overturned and ended up in the central reservation.

The video will tell all in court,  her defense... the truck should have avoided her.

[Mister Fixit]

'Daily News reported that she claims to be totally in the right and did not see the truck driver who she blames for the accident that occurred on a slippery road. '

 

So if she didn't see the truck, she was driving without due care and attention then ... 

Probably texting her mate or watching Youtube.  

[Destiny1990]

32 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

I've watched this video several times and I'm not sure things are a clear cut as they seem.- If you look closely the truck appears to have originally been in the same lane as the Jazz, then seeing what he takes to be a slower vehicle in front, he attempts to undertake it. At the last moment, when he realises that the car is actually going to turn left, he tries to cut back to the right - with the devastating result. The truck seems to have been travelling quite fast but there doesn't appear to be any evidence that would point to him speeding. The crux is whether or not the truck was originally in the same lane as the Jazz or not - maybe its clearer on the original video?

 

Seems to me that they may both be to blame. She is clearly stupid for trying to make that manoeuvre, she had obviously missed her turn. I don't know the law in Thailand but in most countries, you are required to keep a safe distance from the car in front. If as I suspect he was originally in the same lane and only swapped at the last minute, the truck driver should not have been so close to the Jazz that he couldn't stop.

 

I don't know what the law in Thailand is on this but if the truck had originally been following the Jazz, in the UK the truck driver would almost certainly be prosecuted for dangerous driving - as would the Jazz driver. That being the case, I think that's as far as it would go in the case of the Jazz driver because although she did a stupid thing, the truck actually caused the accident. I believe the significant factor is that although the truck driver will almost certainly claim he was just taking avoiding action, if he had been travelling far enough back he would have been able to stop - he wouldn't need to swerve left then right.

 

Things would be totally different if the truck had originally been in the inside lane and the Jazz cut across it but that doesn't appear to be the case.  Its one of those things - if I was the truck driver I'd probably jump to the conclusion that the Jazz driver was an idiot and totally in the wrong. However, In the cold light of day, when you balance that against the law and the reasons why that law exists - you get a different outcome (presuming the law in Thailand also states that you should keep a safe distance).

 

The video is a bit blurred but I don't see an indicator flashing on either vehicle.

 

One strange thing, the camera that shot the video appears to move a little so it doesn't seem to be fixed. Does the camera owner hang around that junction waiting for accidents? There doesn't seem to be anything interesting going on - can't see why they would be filming but lucky they were.

Poor Anticipating in traffic we can see often here. I do wonder why that lady was not in the left lane especially with her low speed ? No blinker even for lane changing? Why did the truck not lower his speed first while approaching a slow car especially  with his passengers in the open? Probably because he doesn’t care about them. Doesn’t want to loose single minute Of his time !! Both are stupid and both have guilt. But The lady the most.

[irwinfc]

8 hours ago, actonion said:

Fight the case, stupid woman,  she should  be charged with reckless driving, driving with undue care and attention to other road users.. . thats in a country  that recognises rules of the road, & anything else they can think of,  but here, who knows what will happen

unfortunately though, this happens to be Thailand where reckless driving does not exist - it's just driving. despite all the logic and traffic rules cited in this thread, none of it matters since traffic rules here are implemented so arbitrarily. despite all the rage over the incident, expect no change whatsoever.

[Mister Fixit]

1 hour ago, KhaoYai said:

Quote

I don't know the law in Thailand ...

I don't know what the law in Thailand is on this ...
 

Well, that certainly adds to the believability of your conjecture

 

Quote

but if the truck had originally been following the Jazz

Which it wasn't, had you watched the video.

 

Quote

That being the case, I think that's as far as it would go in the case of the Jazz driver because although she did a stupid thing, the truck actually caused the accident.

 

In what parallel universe did that happen?  The truck plainly did NOT cause the accident.  Yes, he was going fast, but when faced with some numptie in the outside lane suddenly pulling over to the left lane across his front without indicating, said numptie was obviously at fault.  

Better go to Specsavers if that's what you saw.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Mister Fixit

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, gimo said:

  Yes , divided road .All 3 lanes visible on the video go in the same direction , which means she was going slowly in the fast lane when she comes into view . While the truck driver's speed did appear to contribute the accident , him overtaking her from the middle lane seems reasonable , and very common in Thailand . As she slowed even more she obviously cut across in front of the truck . Her fault , but the truck driver could've avoided trouble by anticipating what she might do and slowed down earlier .

 

i cant predict unpredictable behavior, i know its not always possible

to predict unpredictable behavior, not my fault.

driving like she did is a chaotic by nature, its not possible to predict what she is up to,

that is why a driving license is required, to verify that she conform to

practices that we can predict, but alas, she didnt conform to predictable practices,

thus an accident was inevitable.

 

i had an accident just a few months ago,

another lady in a small car decided to cut my lane,

there was nothing to do, i was driving perhaps 40 km/h,

no time at all to take evasive action when someone

ignore right of way and cut lane

Edited February 26, 2020 by brokenbone

[brokenbone]

1 hour ago, Destiny1990 said:

Poor Anticipating in traffic we can see often here. I do wonder why that lady was not in the left lane especially with her low speed ? No blinker even for lane changing? Why did the truck not lower his speed first while approaching a slow car especially  with his passengers in the open? Probably because he doesn’t care about them. Doesn’t want to loose single minute Of his time !! Both are stupid and both have guilt. But The lady the most.

the truck did not lower speed because he had the right of way

and there was no telling the lady had intent of breaking the law by cutting him

[evadgib]

41 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

the truck did not lower speed because he had the right of way

and there was no telling the lady had intent of breaking the law by cutting him

No he did not! In racing terms the car in front and to the right had 'the racing line' despite the fact that frankly she should never have been there in the first place.

[Scott Tracy]

Perhaps the lorry driver should have rear ended her, rather than swerve.

Lorry laden with passengers in the bed, trying to overtake on the nearside, a car travelling in the far offside lane. A recipe for disaster.

 

Sorry, Darwinism strikes again.

[brokenbone]

55 minutes ago, evadgib said:

No he did not! In racing terms the car in front and to the right had 'the racing line' despite the fact that frankly she should never have been there in the first place.

no, she was in another lane, he had the right of way in his line

[KhaoYai]

3 hours ago, Mister Fixit said:

Well, that certainly adds to the believability of your conjecture

 

Which it wasn't, had you watched the video.

 

 

In what parallel universe did that happen?  The truck plainly did NOT cause the accident.  Yes, he was going fast, but when faced with some numptie in the outside lane suddenly pulling over to the left lane across his front without indicating, said numptie was obviously at fault.  

Better go to Specsavers if that's what you saw.

 

Well one thing I won't do is resort to slagging like you ????.

 

I can't speak for what would happen in Thailand because I don't know the law as I already said + your pointed comments actually make that clear so........

 

I have watched the video again and nothing has changed my view, although as I also said previously, maybe its a little clearer in the actual video.

 

A decent lawyer in a civilised court would forensically split that video into segments. Those segments will show what I said above. Yes, the Honda driver was stupid, crazy even but she would not be held responsible for the actual accident.

 

The video, so split, would firstly show both vehicles travelling in the same lane. The distance between them and the speed they were travelling at would not be too difficult to estimate. That would establish the fact that ther driver of the truck was too close, given the speed he was travelling at - you are supposed to travel at a speed that allows you to stop if an incident occurrs in front of you.

 

Think of it like this, what if there had been traffic in the inside lane? Where would the truck driver have gone then? He should have been at a safe distance - he clearly wasn't.

 

The next segment would then show the truck swerving left to avoid the car in front of him. Moving on, he then realises the car is going to turn left.......complete madness, no getting away from that but that is not what caused the accident. The truck driver then swerves right to avoid the collision which results in him turning the truck over.

 

The Honda driver would clearly be guilty of dangerous or reckless driving but legally, she did not cause the collision, it would have been avoidable if the truck had not been so close or going so fast.

 

Real world, I would probably have done the same as the truck driver but I would still have been in the wrong.  I used to think that 'safe stopping distances' were well over the top but after seeing so many accidents, you begin to realise that everyone's reaction time is different and people should stay back.

 

A couple of days ago, as I was approaching a roundabout, the woman in the car in front of me stopped and I came withing a couple of inches of running in to the back of her. There was nothing coming on the roundabout, no reason for her to stop but she did. I blew my horn and shouted expletives at her - as I'm sure many others would. It was not the first time a woman has done this to me at a roundabout. But, when you examine it, the real reason I almost ran in to the back of her was because I was too close and I was also looking to see if anything was coming. My attention at that point should have been on the car in front of me, not on the roundabout. If I had hit her car, I am 100% certain that legally, I would have been held responsible.

 

Sometimes when you examine the facts, you find that they are not as you originally thought.

Edited February 26, 2020 by KhaoYai

[KhaoYai]

14 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

but when faced with some numptie in the outside lane suddenly pulling over to the left lane

Watch the video - he wasn't. At the point where he first took evasive action he was not faced with someone suddenly pulling over to the left lane, she hadn't moved. He was faced with a car slowing down rapidly. When she started to turn left, he then swerved right. His first action was the wrong one and was because he was too close.

 

Look at it another way, the truck driver would not have swerved left to avoid the car, if as you say, he was faced with it pulling over to the left lane. He clearly did not think she was going to turn left at that point because if he'd done that and she did he would have hit it her.

 

Who needs to go to Specsavers?

Edited February 26, 2020 by KhaoYai

[brokenbone]

5 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

Watch the video - he wasn't. At the point he first took evasive action he was not faced with someone suddenly pulling over to the left lane, she hadn't moved. He was faced with a car slowing down rapidly. When she started to turn left, he then swerved right. His first action was the wrong one and was because he was too close.

 

Who needs to go to Specsavers?

no, he saw the moron starting to turn into his lane and

tried to avoid collision by turning the other way.

it was too late tho, if he had been cooler he should have just rammed her,

he could have pushed her out of his lane without harm to himself

[KhaoYai]

24 minutes ago, brokenbone said:

no, he saw the moron starting to turn into his lane and

tried to avoid collision by turning the other way.

it was too late tho, if he had been cooler he should have just rammed her,

he could have pushed her out of his lane without harm to himself

He did not - watch the video. His first reaction was to swerve left. Why would someone swerve left to avoid a car he thinks is turning left.  He turns the other way as you say, only when he realises the car is turning left.

 

She wasn't in his lane, they were both in the same lane - watch it, he swerves left and then right.

 

Edit:

I accept the video is not clear but if you watch it from way back, the Honda actually starts to move over into the middle lane about 50-75m back. From about 100m back I think they are both in the same lane and its quite clear then that the truck was going much faster than the Honda.  I'm pretty sure that speed and distance were the things that caused the accident not the absolute stupidity of the Honda driver.

 

Maybe some dash cam footage will turn up that establishes clearly who was in what lane when.

Edited February 26, 2020 by KhaoYai

[KhaoYai]

One thing I would say, this stupid woman starts to make her move further back than I originally thought - if she had only used her indicator, this collision could have been totally avoided. The truck driver obviously had no idea what she was going to do. Conversely, wouldn't that be a reason for him to hit the brakes?

[brokenbone]

3 minutes ago, KhaoYai said:

One thing I would say, this stupid woman starts to make her move further back than I originally thought - if she had only used her indicator, this collision could have been totally avoided. The truck driver obviously had no idea what she was going to do. Conversely, wouldn't that be a reason for him to hit the brakes?

if she had turned on the turning signal, he would likely had

slow down not knowing if she knew the principle of right of way or not,

but she didnt so he had no reason to believe she would even come up with the idea to enter his line

Edited February 26, 2020 by brokenbone

[Chelseafan]

14 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

Truck driver was speeding. The broken down vehicle and the Jazz lady were just catalyst to an otherwise avoidable accident.

By the way, if all occupants in the truck had been wearing seat-belts, all would have survived. It was a soft roll. She is in no way shape or form guilty of the fatality. May his soul RIP.

Really? As I see it she is in the outside lane, slows down in a dangerous manner to make a turn which should have been done from the inside lane. She is 100% at fault. Period.

 

Edited February 26, 2020 by Chelseafan

[Chelseafan]

9 hours ago, androokery said:

The accident is caused not by the Jazz driving into the gas station area, but by the changing of lanes - also of course because the truck driver is trying to undertake the Jazz car. It doesn't matter if the Jazz driver intends to leave the road altogether. The most important question is if the Jazz driver indicates the intention to change lanes in time. 

It doesn't matter if she indicated or not, she shouldn't of moved lane without checking to see if it was safe to do so first. She is a moron for slowing down in the "fast" lane in the first place too. Maybe the truck driver saw beforehand (and before video starts) she was going too slow and moved into the center lane to undertake which is very common in Thailand.

 

She <deleted> up big time. The truck may have been speeding but there was no way he could anticipate that she was going to stop and cut him up.

[Thechook]

Definitely 100% in the wrong.  Thais will never say I was wrong.

[Damrongsak]

I barely avoided a similar situation in the U.S.  Some idiot lady missed a dedicated turn lane and decided to turn across two lanes at very low speed.  I was doing about 90 kph in the fast lane.  I had to slam on the brakes and ride up over the turn lane curb on the median to avoid her.  Fortunately I had a Toyota 4wd truck with big tires and plenty of ground clearance. 

 

That truck driver probably could have avoided it if he hadn't reacted a bit late and then swerved too quickly.  Still, she was the major cause.  The truck should have just continued straight, scrubbed off a bit of speed and hit her.

[Destiny1990]

6 hours ago, brokenbone said:

the truck did not lower speed because he had the right of way

and there was no telling the lady had intent of breaking the law by cutting him

He cant pass her on that side legally..

[Destiny1990]

2 hours ago, Victornoir said:

No.

1-31 Jazz had just entered the right lane via a U-turn. 1-31
1-17 The truck sees it. He must slow down to give time to regain the left lane but he chooses to force through the left.
1-15 A car is parked on this lane. The truck realizes that it will not have space to pass.
1-13 He then changes course and decides at the last moment to pass jazz on the right. But it rolls too fast and overturns.
 
In this case there are several errors, faulty turn signal and maneuver too slow for jazz. Black car parked in the left lane.
But the major responsibility lies with the truck which does not slow down in front of an obstacle, tries to force the passage on the left, maneuver prohibited by the road code including the Thai code, (Section 45, 400 -1000 B) and finally loses control because too high speed.

We can express feelings of regret or indignation at the casual attitude of the Jazz driver but in terms of law the truck driver is entirely at fault.

While he has workers in his open cabine that he doesn’t gives a <deleted> about. He’s the moron. he wanted to do everything  except to lower his speed. 

[a977]

As far as I recollect from when I did my driving test, one must stay in the left lane unless overtaking, in say that I have driven many roads and highways in Thailand and along the major highways you see signs stipulating that. The truck was travelling in the correct lane you were probably to busy talking or texting on your phone to notice him, did the police think to check her phone. I know in Australia that is the first thing they do at an accident scene. Lady you are brain dead and should never been allowed to obtain a licence in the first place.

[EVENKEEL]

21 hours ago, ExpatOilWorker said:

All 3 lanes are same direction traffic, right?

 

The left lane is therefor the slow lane and the truck is trying to overtake the Jazz on the left (wrong) side.

She might have a chance to win this case.

Lame excuse, you've never had a slow moving vehicle in fast lane and pass on the left? Won't fly.