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

[teddy_bare]

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

The problem is letting people decide for themselves affects other people, obviously! Regulating some actions stops abuse and putting other people in danger. My counterpoint to yours was pointing this out. In my country they used to shove children up chimneys to clean them. Regulation and enforcement was the only reason they stopped. Bosses etc insist their workers travel this way as it's cheaper not a freaking life choice.

[taxexile]

bad stuff does happen , but simple precautions easily taken can prevent stupid accidents.

why not have bare electricity wires , why bother sheathing them with plastic.

why have railings on balconies , who would be so stupid as to walk over the edge.

why wear a condom when having sex with a stranger.

why wear a seatbelt in a car.

and why wear a crash helmet when riding a bike.

these precautions are simple common sense , hardly the stuff of a nanny state and over regulation.

why risk fukcing up your life , wheres the fun in taking that kind of risk ? if you enjoy so much risk , why are you planting rice ? how come you're not climbing everest ?

and zooming around the countryside helmetless on a moped is hardly action man stuff is it now ?

the fun you talk about , the excitement of life is in partaking of extreme acts , but taking easy precautions to increase the odds of living to do them again.

complying with regulations regarding wearing a crash helmet or a seat belt is not handing over responsibility to the government , its taking control of your own life.

so come on chownah , be a good fellow , put your helmet on and keep safe.

we like your postings ( they usually make more sense than tonights offerings ) and we all need rice , so look after yourself.

[gisele]

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

Alot of people wear their helmets without fastening them anyway.

As I was driving on the 401 in Nakhon not long ago, a helmet flew past my windshield, bad enough you have to keep a look-out for cows, dogs, motorcycles and cars going the wrong way, vehicules appearing out of nowhere but should I have to worry about flying helmets!

[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

The problem is letting people decide for themselves affects other people, obviously! Regulating some actions stops abuse and putting other people in danger. My counterpoint to yours was pointing this out. In my country they used to shove children up chimneys to clean them. Regulation and enforcement was the only reason they stopped. Bosses etc insist their workers travel this way as it's cheaper not a freaking life choice.

I guess that you think that passing a law that limits the number of people that can ride in the back of a pickup will improve safety and that this should be a high priority for the gov't.....and I think that taken within the context of all the risks in life that such an intrusion on people's personal choices is unwarranted and does not address the real issue which is one of weight. I really don't think that either of us will convince the other of having a wrong view....so why not just leave it at that.

Seems to me that most Thais don't consider riding in the back of a pickup too risky and are not averse to doing it....it saves them time and money and I'm sure they would oppose a law to limit this....actually they probably wouldn't care about the law as they would probably just ignore it if allowed to.....but this is just my view of Thai people and I really have only met a tiny fraction of all the Thai people so I could be mistaken on this.

Chownah

[gharknes]

right I get it, trucks motorbikes hmmmmmm make them wear a helmet

[meemiathai]

Chownah, you better pray that I don't become in charge one day. I swear I'm going to make every person wear their fricking helmets 24 hrs a day. No more beaches, no more swimming pools! No more olympics!

Just how could those governments let people glide down from those snow mountains at such high speeds!!!

Just how do human beings let this world become so dangerous!!

[jetjock]

Here in the US, most states even require dogs to be leashed when traveling in the back of an open pickup because of safety issues. Laws are usually designed to be reflective of the culture they represent and it is obvious that some cultures put a higher value on life than others.

I never saw Robby or Evil Knievel do their sport without a helmet. Professional boxers wear headgear in training. Race car drivers and acrobatic pilots wear fireproof suits plus much more. I could go on and on but it is my experience that people that are really the risk takers in life and are involved in dangerous activities take every precaution possible to survive should something go wrong. IMHO it is the people that boast the most and talk macho that are usually the wimps and their only claim to fame is that they take a simple task and make it risky and dangerous by being stupid and not taking simple precautions. I consider riding a motorcycle without a helmet and riding in the back of a open pickup to fall in the latter group. But as they say'to each his own".

[teddy_bare]

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

The problem is letting people decide for themselves affects other people, obviously! Regulating some actions stops abuse and putting other people in danger. My counterpoint to yours was pointing this out. In my country they used to shove children up chimneys to clean them. Regulation and enforcement was the only reason they stopped. Bosses etc insist their workers travel this way as it's cheaper not a freaking life choice.

I guess that you think that passing a law that limits the number of people that can ride in the back of a pickup will improve safety and that this should be a high priority for the gov't.....and I think that taken within the context of all the risks in life that such an intrusion on people's personal choices is unwarranted and does not address the real issue which is one of weight. I really don't think that either of us will convince the other of having a wrong view....so why not just leave it at that.

Seems to me that most Thais don't consider riding in the back of a pickup too risky and are not averse to doing it....it saves them time and money and I'm sure they would oppose a law to limit this....actually they probably wouldn't care about the law as they would probably just ignore it if allowed to.....but this is just my view of Thai people and I really have only met a tiny fraction of all the Thai people so I could be mistaken on this.

Chownah

Yes i do think a law will improve safety of many individuals. Just as the helmet law (when abided by) has saves some amount of lives. Your point on weight is more than valid as it also effects the performance of the car. But your arguement would suggest that's the choice of the driver. maybe he enjoys the lack of responsiveness and reduced braking ability. Maybe that is his thing. Are you seeing my point yet?

Given a choice there are a lot of govt, social, morality rules and regs many people would rather not adhere to. Do complete strangers walk in your house/farm to use your toilet? i doubt. Sorry i am taking the example to the ridiculous, just to make a point.

People the world over dont like rules and regs, but they protect the majority from the choice loving idiots, who believe their individual rights are more important than the next guys safety.

[Mid]

who believe their individual rights are more important than the next guys safety.

No man is an Island ................................

[cdnvic]

Alot of people wear their helmets without fastening them anyway.

In Seoul they ride around with construction hardhats on

Seriously though, I'm in favour of this law, however I think rather than adding more barely enforced laws they should make an effort to enforce some of the existing ones. For instance, make a real serious effort to deal with drunk driving. To the point where people begin to take it seriously. That will save far more lives than adding a new law and then letting everyone away with breaking it.

The more laws you add that you don't enforce, the less seriously people take the law in general, and that is one of the root causes of traffic deaths.

[gisele]

This is what we need:

more motorcycle cops patrolling, reinforcing the helmet law and the limited passenger law

(notice the name on the side of the motorcycle)

Edited April 10, 2007 by gisele

[swanks]

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.

Bl**dy he** cdnvic!

I thought they were just going to fine the drivers!

Edited April 10, 2007 by swanks

[somtaamgaiyang]

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

You really have to wonder about the ability of Thai police to notice anything. Of course they have a high tendency to die. They are in a flatbed.

As for support from the police, I would rather believe it is a lack of support from the car manufacturers and parts suppliers. If there is a limit imposed on numbers in a pick up truck, a lot of people will go and buy a Honda Jazz instead. It has airbags and seat belts (although probably unused)so numbers of deaths would plummet. How about removing VAT and duty on imported child protection seats? (Too far thinking for a Thai politician I am sure). Fuel consumption would probably plummet too.

I know Thailand has a massive pick up exporting business, but I still cannot fathom why they give such tax discounts to pick ups, when all we hear is boo hoo, gasoline is expensive. Japanese companies are the experts at making small engined cars i.e. 1.0 to 1.3, meanwhile the streets of Bangkok are swarming with oversized 2.0 and 2.4 litre pick ups crawling thru the traffic. As for up country, they are swarming with 20 year old 2.0 and 2.4 litre pick ups.

If the country wants to save gasoline, they need to give a break to small engined town cars and place less importance on pick up sales in Thailand. Export as many as they want (although the rest of the world is now shunning pick ups), and give the manufacturers an reason to make smaller town cars and the populous a reason to buy them.

[sriracha john]

Push to limit pickup passengers to four for Songkran

The Land Transport Department has proposed that pickup trucks be barred from carrying more than four passengers during the upcoming Songkran Festival. "This is for safety reasons," the department's director general Silapachai Jarukasemrattana said yesterday.

He added his department has already informed the Royal Thai Police to help enforce the ban or at least seek cooperation from motorists, because water fights from the pickups have often led to accidents over the past several years.

Transport Minister Admiral Theera Haocharoen also urged motorists and all relevant people to help prevent accidents. "Human error has led to accidents," he said, adding they were often caused by reckless driving or by poorly maintained vehicles.

Theera said his department was now planning to take harsh action against anyone who caused an accident and motorists should face a driving ban if they were responsible. "If any accident happens, someone must be held responsible," he said.

Silapachai urged people to check their vehicles and directions before they start their journey. His department planned to check on motorists and vehicles as a measure to prevent accidents.

In Bangkok, security concerns have prompted authorities to increase the number of police officers on Khao San Road, which is expected to attract up to 100,000 revelers during the Songkran celebrations.

"The number of police officers will increase to 200," an informed source said. Last year, only 100 police officers were deployed on Khao San during the festival. The Songkran Festival runs from Friday to next Tuesday this year. The same source said up to 500 police officers would be stationed in areas surrounding Khao San Road.

As for Sanam Luang, where grand celebrations including cultural shows will be staged, 22 security cameras will be installed and about 500 police officers would be on duty.

Meanwhile, the Transport Co announced it has increased the number of bus trips from 4,400 to 8,000 a day to accommodate the huge demand during the Songkran Festival.

A large number of Bangkok residents usually head to other provinces during the festival either for a vacation or to visit their home provinces.

- The Nation

====================

Busses would ideally be the solution, but then one has to contend with:

7 Killed, Over 40 Injured When Bus Veers Off Mountainside

or

Man Dies As Bus Crashes Into 20 Vehicles

or

At Least 28 Passengers Killed When A Bus Catches On Fire

or....

or....

or....

[Tarragona]

My wife's first reaction to this was that it will be just another way for the BiB to squeeze people.

Second reaction was to wonder how people in rural areas will get around and then how half of the people trying to get home for Songkran would get there.

The thinking behind such a law is sound. Some good measures have been implemented recently like banning pickups with passengers in the back from using the elevated tollways.

But you also have to think of the practicalities and the alternatives that are available to people. Not many in a lot of cases.

[somtaamgaiyang]

Push to limit pickup passengers to four for Songkran

The Land Transport Department has proposed that pickup trucks be barred from carrying more than four passengers during the upcoming Songkran Festival. "This is for safety reasons," the department's director general Silapachai Jarukasemrattana said yesterday.

He added his department has already informed the Royal Thai Police to help enforce the ban or at least seek cooperation from motorists, because water fights from the pickups have often led to accidents over the past several years.

Transport Minister Admiral Theera Haocharoen also urged motorists and all relevant people to help prevent accidents. "Human error has led to accidents," he said, adding they were often caused by reckless driving or by poorly maintained vehicles.

Theera said his department was now planning to take harsh action against anyone who caused an accident and motorists should face a driving ban if they were responsible. "If any accident happens, someone must be held responsible," he said.

Silapachai urged people to check their vehicles and directions before they start their journey. His department planned to check on motorists and vehicles as a measure to prevent accidents.

In Bangkok, security concerns have prompted authorities to increase the number of police officers on Khao San Road, which is expected to attract up to 100,000 revelers during the Songkran celebrations.

"The number of police officers will increase to 200," an informed source said. Last year, only 100 police officers were deployed on Khao San during the festival. The Songkran Festival runs from Friday to next Tuesday this year. The same source said up to 500 police officers would be stationed in areas surrounding Khao San Road.

As for Sanam Luang, where grand celebrations including cultural shows will be staged, 22 security cameras will be installed and about 500 police officers would be on duty.

Meanwhile, the Transport Co announced it has increased the number of bus trips from 4,400 to 8,000 a day to accommodate the huge demand during the Songkran Festival.

A large number of Bangkok residents usually head to other provinces during the festival either for a vacation or to visit their home provinces.

- The Nation

====================

Busses would ideally be the solution, but then one has to contend with:

7 Killed, Over 40 Injured When Bus Veers Off Mountainside

or

Man Dies As Bus Crashes Into 20 Vehicles

or

At Least 28 Passengers Killed When A Bus Catches On Fire

or....

or....

or....

""Human error has led to accidents," he said, adding they were often caused by reckless driving or by poorly maintained vehicles. "

So that would be idiots who don't have licenses or are drunk (police's responsibility) and the fact that there is no road safety check on old vehicles in the country (legal problem). With no enforcement, there is no hope.

[john128]

I have a Toyota pick-up that is 'covered'. ie it has a fibre-glass roof on the back. It is insured for 13 people...5 in the cab and seven in the back. So if the maximum is 4 in the back during Sonkran...do the insurers pay the fines??

On a more serious note...there are not enough vehicles in our village..nor enough money to purchase more. Many children have to go to school some 20 Km away and that is also the distance to the nearest market. You stop them going in the back of a pick-up and you STOP them DEAD! The driver is pretty good...safe at least...he can't do more than 40 Km/h because of the load and gets honked at by Bangkonians etc for being slow...He don't care! At least the people in the car are safe at that speed.

Just be careful when you drive around Isaan...Thais and Farangs. Stay cool and go with the flow. When they go slow it's because they know they are safe at that speed. When you go fast you risk hitting that stray Kwai or Vua that the farmer stuck next to the road just to slow you down.

Too many peolple die from injuries as a result from being thrown from the back of a pick-up...I have seen it many times...but this is a symptom of bad driving as a whole and removing the symptom is not the cure. Educate te people to drive safely is the cure.

By the way...how much did the Thaksin government receive from WHO for driving improvement...howmuch of this went into it and how much was pocketed??

[Scott]

But you need a lot of people in the back to keep the beer from bouncing around and the bottles getting broken!

(Yes, I am only kidding). It is only on the rarest of occasions that I ever let anyone ride in the back of the pickup. One very good way to prevent this without being pompous or self-righteous is to keep the back quite dirty. When I wash the vehicle, I leave the back dusty and dirty that way nobody insists on riding there and no one just jumps in!

[CTM]

My wife's first reaction to this was that it will be just another way for the BiB to squeeze people.

Second reaction was to wonder how people in rural areas will get around and then how half of the people trying to get home for Songkran would get there.

The thinking behind such a law is sound. Some good measures have been implemented recently like banning pickups with passengers in the back from using the elevated tollways.

But you also have to think of the practicalities and the alternatives that are available to people. Not many in a lot of cases.

Exactly what I was thinking. But I don't think the average Thaivisa poster cares anymore about hardships on the poor or rural classes than the rich Bangkok Chinese. Most seem to believe mobility and other freedoms are a privilege reserved to the rich. The poor are too dumb to think for themselves and must be controlled with massive intrusive government regulation and strict "Zero Tolerance" enforcement.

I can’t believe I’m going to say this but if Thailand is too “dangerous” for you, then go back to whenever you came from. Not everyone wants to turn Thailand into Limeyland with cheap hookers and booze flowing 24/7.

[ando]

Thailand is a developing country. Most people are relatively poor by western standards and cant afford a car.

Mass transport in in the backs of pic-up trucks is a matter of econemy rather than choice.

I look back to when I was a kid in my own country here in Australia. No seat belts, no motorcycle helmet laws, and it was not uncommon to see people riding in the back of a pick-up in rural areas. Now things are a lot different, but it didnt happen overnight. Road safety laws were introduced in small increments that could be accepted both politically and economically by the public. Give the Thais a fair go. They are just doing the same as we did in our home countries several decades earlier.

Laws have to be realistic considering their practical application. If we transplanted all the current US traffic code laws to Thailand just to make a few expats and tourists here happy, it would devastate the countries transport system. If some of you guys dont like Thai road laws perhaps you should think about going back to your own countries and leave Thai law making to the Thais.

Food for thought. In developed countries like US and Europe, road deaths of motorcycle riders are about 8 times higher than for car drivers. Does that mean we should ban motorcycles from the roads in US and Europe? Yes, now bring on the advocates for freedom of choice.

[cdnvic]

I don't think the average Thaivisa poster cares anymore about hardships on the poor or rural classes than the rich Bangkok Chinese. Most seem to believe mobility and other freedoms are a privilege reserved to the rich.

Where in this whole topic do you see anything remotely like this?

Everyone I see is concerned about loss of life, not keeping people in their place.

Sorry to throw cold water on the people's revolution but it's a matter of not wanting people to die.

[meemiathai]

Thailand is a developing country. Most people are relatively poor by western standards and cant afford a car.

Mass transport in in the backs of pic-up trucks is a matter of econemy rather than choice.

I look back to when I was a kid in my own country here in Australia. No seat belts, no motorcycle helmet laws, and it was not uncommon to see people riding in the back of a pick-up in rural areas. Now things are a lot different, but it didnt happen overnight. Road safety laws were introduced in small increments that could be accepted both politically and economically by the public. Give the Thais a fair go. They are just doing the same as we did in our home countries several decades earlier.

Laws have to be realistic considering their practical application. If we transplanted all the current US traffic code laws to Thailand just to make a few expats and tourists here happy, it would devastate the countries transport system. If some of you guys dont like Thai road laws perhaps you should think about going back to your own countries and leave Thai law making to the Thais.

Food for thought. In developed countries like US and Europe, road deaths of motorcycle riders are about 8 times higher than for car drivers. Does that mean we should ban motorcycles from the roads in US and Europe? Yes, now bring on the advocates for freedom of choice.

Exactly what I was thinking. Especially this one "leave Thai law making to the Thais"

[wilko]

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

the problem with these individuals when they are dead is that they continue to cost the country money.

If you travel in the back of a pickup you are in much more danger than belted up inside.

If you die a factory loses an employee, a family loses a wage earner, an insurance company loses money and puts up its fees, a hospital has a bill a wife has no support, children have no father, the local bottlo loses it's best customer and has to close....NO individual is an island.

It has been shown time and again that road safety saves a country money.

In developing countries the choice is often travel in a pickup or not at all...so this regulation will not be enforced and will come to nothing because as tyet, Thailand is not ready for it.....there has to be a program to create awareness of road safety....just looking at some of the postings here by westerners shows that even there people still don't have a clue.......

[rken]

Why is it when people move to LOS from other places they want to make LOS just like the place they ran away from. To many governmental laws aready. Next you'll have to where a rubber inflatable suit and gas mask just to walk outside your house. The food patrols in the US are already in high gear, next you'll have to pay a tax for every pound over weight and on and on and on. Stop aready, lets get back to taking personal responsibility for our actions.

[Tony Clifton]

Why is it when people move to LOS from other places they want to make LOS just like the place they ran away from. To many governmental laws aready. Next you'll have to where a rubber inflatable suit and gas mask just to walk outside your house. The food patrols in the US are already in high gear, next you'll have to pay a tax for every pound over weight and on and on and on. Stop aready, lets get back to taking personal responsibility for our actions.

This is exactly what too many drivers here do not do.

[Dupont]

It is a practical law and well enforced.

I have never seen more people in the back of a pick up than could physically fit in it!

[ericB]

It is a practical law and well enforced.

I have never seen more people in the back of a pick up than could physically fit in it!

Precise 'could physically fit in it' please.

I do see every day, pickups with so many people on the back that those people have to stay stand up (no room to sit). May also precise, the pickup is not driving at 50 km/hour or so, but at a speed that weems to me a dangerous speed, not allowing a vehicle to stop immediatly in case of a kid jumping on the road.

Someone was advocating about personal responsability " lets get back to taking personal responsibility for our actions. " Someone seems to forget that kind of attitude (driving at hight speed with so many people in the back) is simply irresponsible. And I do believe the attitude to accept it on the ground of the so call individual freedom is a mere BS, as the individual freedom of both the passengers and the citizens using on the same time the road include the freedom to stay alive without injuries.

Road are dangerous, everywhere. But usually people try to limite that danger. But in this thread, I see many posters advocating to simply let things happend, because they certainly bet on the amountof dead with the Poo yai; or maybe they do drive like crazed (maybe arethey simply crazed, with not enought blood in the beer), and using the feel superior because they take 14 people from their gf familly on the back of their own pickup to drive then to local Tesco.

Btw us , use your brain 20 sec, do you think your mother in law is so happy to go to TEsco? Anyway she does not have the baht to spend there. You just put her life at risk, while you are making her envious of all those shinny stuffs she can not afford (IF she had the money to have her own car, she would have already buy the shinny stuffs, and certainly not go to a low level place such as Tesco.... Obviously)

Proctecting life is the most important duty anyone can have.

[slapout]

The official proposing this ( not elected ) probably has no need to transport people via pick up, so he is not concerned. Wait until the various business who utilize this mode of transport, along with the groups who regularly transport voters, protestors, supporters, workers etc express their thoughts. If it is passed, it will be followed by all motorists, just like they adhere to present traffic laws. Maybe we should call them regulations, not laws as it seems they are seldom followed or enforced. How are the villagers going to travel to the various functions (wedding, funerals, etc) they are not offered bus service, like the city folk?

[geriatrickid]

Seems to me to be an incremental approach. As stated previously, if they banned all passengers, the law would be disregarded. With the 4 person rule, maybe people will only break it by an extra 2 people and in the interim understand that it is a dangerous practice.

Anyways, I have seen the results of people getting bounced out of trucks and it's not pretty. More often than not there's a shattered cranium, pulverized brain etc. All in all, not a sight for the squeamish.

[wilko]

Why is it when people move to LOS from other places they want to make LOS just like the place they ran away from. To many governmental laws aready. Next you'll have to where a rubber inflatable suit and gas mask just to walk outside your house. The food patrols in the US are already in high gear, next you'll have to pay a tax for every pound over weight and on and on and on. Stop aready, lets get back to taking personal responsibility for our actions.

Precisely....and reckless individuals who ride in the back of pick-ups are not taking responsibility for their actions as are people who ride without crash helmets or put children on their laps on motor bikes....if you have an accident a hospital has to fix you up and that is then paid for by insurance which I pay for in increased fees...the money doesn't appear from nowhere.....your relatives either end up looking after you or having to pay for your bills etc etc...it is not "freedom of choice" it is downright irresponsible and if you don't do it on your own accord then legislation is the only course.