Regulations May Be Introduced To Limit Number Of Passengers In Pick-up Trucks

[Jai Dee]

DLT pushes for regulation limiting number of passengers on pick-up truck

The Department of Land Transport (DLT) expedites a discussion with relevant units to issue a regulation prohibiting pick-up trucks to accommodate more than four passengers in the open back part.

DLT Director-General Silapachai Jarukasemrattana (ศิลปชัย จารุเกษมรัตนะ) informs that more than 10,000 people a year have died from road accidents. DLT has always campaign for road safety to reduce road accidents especially during important festivals.

The department has also planned to push for the regulation limiting the number of passengers in a pick-up truck as statistics show that the passengers in the open back part have higher tendency to die when an accident occurs.

Mr Silapachai adds that DLT used to propose the regulation to the Royal Thai Police two years ago but it has not officially received support.

Source: Thai National News Bureau Public Relations Department - 09 April 2007

[PeaceBlondie]

Looking on the positive side, four unbelted passengers in the pickup bed would be better than 14.

[Mid]

we're being overrun by Groundhogs ............................

[gharknes]

so reduce the number and reduce the deaths, it's acceptable for people to die from this dangerous practice but just not as many

what a wierd way to think, same as mobile phone use and motor acccidents, i'm pretty sure it contributes to at lest 20% of all road accidents, i have witnessed a few myself and the driver causing the accident had a mobile phone stuck to his/her ear.

[PhilHarries]

so reduce the number and reduce the deaths, it's acceptable for people to die from this dangerous practice but just not as many

what a wierd way to think, same as mobile phone use and motor acccidents, i'm pretty sure it contributes to at lest 20% of all road accidents, i have witnessed a few myself and the driver causing the accident had a mobile phone stuck to his/her ear.

That appears to be the way the authorities think in Thailand.

Look at the target for road deaths and injuries over Songkhran. Keep below a target figure and evrything is tikkity boo, above that figure and they'll be blaming all sorts of dark influences and proposing a whole raft of unnecessary new draconian laws.

[cdnvic]

I think it's a case of, if they push too hard it won't get taken seriously, especially in a country where the ratio of vehicles to people is still low. My big worry is that it won't get enforced, or sporadicly enforced like so many other things.

The idea is good, the execution is what will make the difference though.

[gharknes]

farmers in the UK would not be allowed to transport pigs in the back of a truck

[Axel]

Are there any regulations limiting passengers on a motor bike?

[Mid]

Are there any regulations limiting passengers on a motor bike?

good point ,

and the answer is yes ..............................

[cdnvic]

Are there any regulations limiting passengers on a motor bike?

good point ,

and the answer is yes ..............................

Three if the driver is under 12

[stagger]

If it is going to be only 4 in the back, how will they be able to fit 14 in the Cab?

[Sing_Sling]

Thai Laws and logic . . . Zooming into the 19th century with blinding speed

[mbkudu]

I seem to remember there being an enforced motorcycle helmet law in Bangkok. Hmmm...

[taxexile]

any new rules for school buses ?

[chownah]

I think its a bad law. I think it should be up to the individual whether they want to ride in the back or not. If they want to prohibit someone from the back it should be children although I'm not advocating for this but at least it makes more sense in that children don't usually have the ability to estimate risks well enough to make the decision by themselves perhaps. If someone rides in the back of a pickup they are only endangering themselves and no one else...so why make it illegal. If you think society has enough smarts to determine what risks you should be allowed to take then be ready for alcohol to be outlawed....it is way more dangerous than riding in the back of pickup.

A weight limit seems to make better sense and have more to do with safety.

Chownah

Edited April 9, 2007 by chownah

[taxexile]

If someone rides in the back of a pickup they are only endangering themselves and no one else..

you're very wrong there.

some pickups are so overloaded , not only with people , sometimes with goods.

the weight distribution and centre of gravity are altered to such an extent and that affects the steering , roadholding and braking systems

the vehicle becomes almosnt uncontrollable , and on a bend or should a tyre burst ( are tyre pressures changed in line with the excess loading) then the thing can swerve into the path of an oncoming vehicle or just turn over and cause accidents to other vehicles.

these overloaded pickups are a menace to all roadusers , especially the ones where the occupants ( sometimes as many as 20 .... or see the photo of the school bus i posted above ) are standing up in the back , usually construction or factory workers being transported to sites .

[stumonster]

and songtaews ?

How is Thailands workforce supposed to get to work now then?

[mogoso]

and songtaews ?

How is Thailands workforce supposed to get to work now then?

I believe the article stated "open pick up" trucks. The populace can still get to work.

[teddy_bare]

I think its a bad law. I think it should be up to the individual whether they want to ride in the back or not. If they want to prohibit someone from the back it should be children although I'm not advocating for this but at least it makes more sense in that children don't usually have the ability to estimate risks well enough to make the decision by themselves perhaps. If someone rides in the back of a pickup they are only endangering themselves and no one else...so why make it illegal. If you think society has enough smarts to determine what risks you should be allowed to take then be ready for alcohol to be outlawed....it is way more dangerous than riding in the back of pickup.

A weight limit seems to make better sense and have more to do with safety.

Chownah

To my knowledge, there is a law covering the 'securing of the vehicle load'. If this is so, then why not have the same to secure the human load. Are you suggesting that a 50kg human missle launched from the back of a Pick Up wouldn't be a concern to other road users? As for making the choice of the individual, think about it. Who are mostly carried around in the back of Pick-ups? ......................... Workers. Do you think they are going to say to the Boss, 'Thanks, but no thanks'?

Perhaps you are one of those Bosses?

Yours is the dumbest post i have read today, still it's only 6pm.

[chownah]

If someone rides in the back of a pickup they are only endangering themselves and no one else..

you're very wrong there.

some pickups are so overloaded , not only with people , sometimes with goods.

the weight distribution and centre of gravity are altered to such an extent and that affects the steering , roadholding and braking systems

the vehicle becomes almosnt uncontrollable , and on a bend or should a tyre burst ( are tyre pressures changed in line with the excess loading) then the thing can swerve into the path of an oncoming vehicle or just turn over and cause accidents to other vehicles.

these overloaded pickups are a menace to all roadusers , especially the ones where the occupants ( sometimes as many as 20 .... or see the photo of the school bus i posted above ) are standing up in the back , usually construction or factory workers being transported to sites .

Clearly you are describing a weight overload condition......as I said in my post, "A weight limit seems to make better sense and have more to do with safety."

Also you are describing a driver operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner (swerving etc.) which I'm reasonably sure is already against the law.

Chownah

[chownah]

I think its a bad law. I think it should be up to the individual whether they want to ride in the back or not. If they want to prohibit someone from the back it should be children although I'm not advocating for this but at least it makes more sense in that children don't usually have the ability to estimate risks well enough to make the decision by themselves perhaps. If someone rides in the back of a pickup they are only endangering themselves and no one else...so why make it illegal. If you think society has enough smarts to determine what risks you should be allowed to take then be ready for alcohol to be outlawed....it is way more dangerous than riding in the back of pickup.

A weight limit seems to make better sense and have more to do with safety.

Chownah

To my knowledge, there is a law covering the 'securing of the vehicle load'. If this is so, then why not have the same to secure the human load. Are you suggesting that a 50kg human missle launched from the back of a Pick Up wouldn't be a concern to other road users? As for making the choice of the individual, think about it. Who are mostly carried around in the back of Pick-ups? ......................... Workers. Do you think they are going to say to the Boss, 'Thanks, but no thanks'?

Perhaps you are one of those Bosses?

Yours is the dumbest post i have read today, still it's only 6pm.

Yeah, I'm really dumb....thanks for pointing it out...it sure made me feel better...I hope it made you feel better when you pointed it out.

My experience is that some/many/most Thais prefer to ride in the back if the pickup is crowded because its more comfortable......this is probably dumb too, huh.

My experience is that alot of people think that the gov't should not only be Big Brother but Big Mother too.....this is probably dumb too, huh.

My experience is that alot of people want to make life risk free and dull as dirt.....hey wait a minute I'm a farmer and I find dirt quite interesting....this is probably dumb too, huh.

Don't ask me what I think of you,

I might not answer what you want me to.

Oh Well!

Chownah

[Mid]

Chownah ,

no man is an Island ,

what happens when one of these souls falls in front of me and I run over them ??

[chownah]

Chownah ,

no man is an Island ,

what happens when one of these souls falls in front of me and I run over them ??

I guess they should outlaw motorcycles too since what happens when one of these falls in front of you and you run over it?? Do you think there are more fatalities from people on motorcycles or in the back of pickups?....clearly the motorcycle wins hands down. The fact is that life in Thailand is not as safe as in North American or European countries.....and partly because more risk is allowed. For me this is one of the reasons why living in Thailand is better.....it is easier for me to take responsibility for my own life and death instead of the gov't taking the responsibility away from me....and if imagining that you might run over the body of a stupid person who falls out of a pickup truck is too much for you to handle then I would prefer that you go to some safer more risk aversive culture and leave the riskier ones for those who prefer to manage their own risk. I support having safe and risk aversive cultures in the world so people who want to live that way can....but I also support haveing less safe and risk allowing cultures to exist so that people who want to live that way can. For some reason it never ceases to surprise me that there are so many people in the world who want to ruin my life by trying to make it risk free.

Since no man is an Island, are you then proposing that there not be a limit on the number of Islands that can be carried in a pickup?.....this is probably dumb too, huh?

Chownah

P.S. My preference is to ride a motorcyle without a helmet and do so whenever I can get away with it..........Chownah

Edited April 9, 2007 by chownah

[taxexile]

P.S. My preference is to ride a motorcyle without a helmet and do so whenever I can get away with it..........Chownah

your wife and children must be very proud of having such a responsible husband /father.

an accident (possibly with an overloaded out of control pickup) could leave you a drooling catheterised vegetable for your family to look after.

there is a big difference between living an exciting life and living a stupid life.

....and if imagining that you might run over the body of a stupid person who falls out of a pickup truck is too much for you to handle then I would prefer that you go to some safer more risk aversive culture and leave the riskier ones for those who prefer to manage their own risk.

a crass statement , indefensible !

[Mid]

Since no man is an Island, are you then proposing that there not be a limit on the number of Islands that can be carried in a pickup?.....this is probably dumb too, huh?

the analogy refers to the FACT that our actions affect others ......................

simple ain't it ?

[chownah]

Since no man is an Island, are you then proposing that there not be a limit on the number of Islands that can be carried in a pickup?.....this is probably dumb too, huh?

the analogy refers to the FACT that our actions affect others ......................

simple ain't it ?

Yes, ALL of our actions affect others and our actions even affect ourselves!!!

I guess then that you don't support the Island limit....

[chownah]

P.S. My preference is to ride a motorcyle without a helmet and do so whenever I can get away with it..........Chownah

your wife and children must be very proud of having such a responsible husband /father.

an accident (possibly with an overloaded out of control pickup) could leave you a drooling catheterised vegetable for your family to look after.

there is a big difference between living an exciting life and living a stupid life.

....and if imagining that you might run over the body of a stupid person who falls out of a pickup truck is too much for you to handle then I would prefer that you go to some safer more risk aversive culture and leave the riskier ones for those who prefer to manage their own risk.

a crass statement , indefensible !

First I was dumb and now I'm crass. I can always tell when I've made a good case for my point of view because some people start calling me names because they can't come up with a good arguement against me....never mind them just politely posting their own point of view and just letting us dumb crassnicks express our views in quiet dignity.

And by the way....I agree, there is a big difference between living an exciting life and a stupid life....I prefer the exciting life...seems like those who want the gov't to take on the responsibilty for thier lives want a stupid life....but that is just my view and is probably crass and dumb like all the other indefensible stuff I've posted here.

Chownah

[Tony Clifton]

Weight limit? How you going to enforce that?

Riding in the back of pick-up truck has been banned at least 30 years ago elsewhere. The vehicle is designed for 5, and 5 it should be. Most loaded trucks hardly have any grip and brakes upfront as the back suspension is being overloaded. It can kill you too, not only passengers.

Happened to see a young girl riding in the truck box today, standing up, hanging on to the roll bars, they don`t do much when you go from 60 to 0 , dad was sitting alone up front. Why take the risk?

[taxexile]

chownah

because they can't come up with a good arguement against me....

taxexile

your wife and children must be very proud of having such a responsible husband /father.

an accident (possibly with an overloaded out of control pickup) could leave you a drooling catheterised vegetable for your family to look after.

argue your way out of that then.

[chownah]

chownah

because they can't come up with a good arguement against me....

taxexile

your wife and children must be very proud of having such a responsible husband /father.

an accident (possibly with an overloaded out of control pickup) could leave you a drooling catheterised vegetable for your family to look after.

argue your way out of that then.

First please recall that I did say, "A weight limit seems to make better sense and have more to do with safety." and this is the second time I've repeated it...meaning that I have now posted it three times....I think this adequately addresses the overloaded vehicle issue. Also I previously posted, "Also you are describing a driver operating a vehicle in an unsafe manner (swerving etc.) which I'm reasonably sure is already against the law."....I think this adequately addresses the out of control pickup issue.

The issues you raise are good ones but they don't really depend on the number of passengers in the back of a pickup which is the supposed topic of discussion.

Further.....it might just as well be my wife that is turned into a vegetable...or another loved one for that matter...and I might be the one who has to care for them...and if this should happen because of someone falling out of a pickup truck then I will still say that the proposed law is a bad one.......this is life my friend and bad stuff happens....anyone who is afraid that bad stuff will happen and spends their life trying to arrange things so bad stuff doesn't happen will be living a life of delusion because bad stuff happens regardless of what one does.....even if motorcyles are outlawed people will die on the roads.....you do support outlawing motorcycles don't you since the chances of being turned into a drooling vegetable are much much higher because of motorcycles than pickups....don't you support outlawing motorcycles?

Chownah

Edited April 9, 2007 by chownah