American motorcyclist killed in head on collision in Phrae

[Gecko123]

1 hour ago, scammed said:

the conditions was as fine as it can get except for the fact an illiterate decided to take over using the bikers lane, and didnt even revert back when he saw the lane was busy

Are you of the opinion that there was absolutely nothing the motorcyclist could have done to avoid the collision? You don't think there's a possibility the motorcyclist may have been going too fast for road conditions? Consider:

 

•  there was a bend in the road;
• there was road construction;
•  someone had just passed the commodity truck,
•  the commodity truck and car passing in front of the black Mitsubishi were partially blocking view of oncoming traffic, and
• the dashed dividing line should have alerted to the possibility that people might attempt to pass  

 

I'm also confused why people are arguing that there was absolutely nothing the motorcyclist could have done to avoid or mitigate the outcome of the collision. I am not a motorcyclist but what about braking? Trying to squeeze past on the paved shoulder? Driving off onto the unpaved shoulder? How do you explain the apparent complete lack of evasive action until the last moment if not because of inattention or a rate of speed which was ill-advised for the traffic and road conditions at the time.

 

I readily agree that the Mitsubishi driver was 90%+ at fault, but the above issues about speed and response time to the oncoming vehicle are why I cannot attribute 100% negligence to the car driver.

Edited May 29, 2021 by Gecko123

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, 4MyEgo said:

I just saw the video, yes the driver overtook too early and on a winding corner, bike was also moving too fast to slow, but I would have thought that the car could have moved over, inexperienced driver. Personally, I wouldn't want to take the gravel route if on that bike, or drop it, but the gravel route would have been the only alternative.

 

Gravel route was the only option.... Or at least move to the side.

With ATGATT (all the gear all the time) if the rider were to drop the bike on the gravel to his left he could ride the slide.... knackered bike and threads, bruising...   I still struggle to see how the motorcycle rider didn’t react.

 

Those criticising the motorcyclists speed could equality criticise the motorcyclist being partially to blame for being there in the first place or not being in a car.... its an idiotic criticism - the motorcyclist was riding at highway speeds on a highway and a total idiot overtook a lorry driving into his lane... there is no 90/10 proportion of blame, 100% of blame lies with the car driver. 

 

The motorcyclist could have avoided the accident, but the accident was 100% caused by the car. 

[Freigeist365]

1 minute ago, Gecko123 said:

Are you of the opinion that there was absolutely nothing the motorcyclist could have done to avoid the collision? You don't think there's a possibility the motorcyclist may have been going too fast for road conditions? Consider:

 

•  there was a bend in the road;
• there was road construction;
•  someone had just passed the commodity truck,
•  the commodity truck and car passing in front of the black Mitsubishi were partially blocking view of oncoming traffic, and
• the dashed dividing line should have alerted to the possibility that people might attempt to pass?   

 

I'm also confused why people are arguing that there was absolutely nothing the motorcyclist could have done to avoid or mitigate the outcome of the collision. I am not a motorcyclist but what about braking,  trying to squeeze past on the paved shoulder? Driving off onto the unpaved shoulder? How do you explain the complete lack of evasive action until the last moment if not because of inattention or a rate of speed which was ill-advised for the traffic and road conditions at the time.

 

I readily agree that the Mitsubishi driver was 90%+ at fault, but the above issues about speed and response time to the oncoming vehicle are why I cannot attribute 100% negligence to the car driver.

 

100% negligence to the car driver is provided by the simple fact that he overtook in a left bend not being able to see oncoming traffic. Evasive action should have been performed by the Mitsubishi driver who hadn't passed even the first set of rear wheels of the concrete truck. Would have been simple to hit the brakes hard, fall back and return back into HIS lane. Instead - he drove on and mowed the biker down like a dog. 90% at fault??? You must be kidding me - that's like 90% pregnant...

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

I readily agree that the Mitsubishi driver was 90%+ at fault, but the above issues about speed and response time to the oncoming vehicle are why I cannot attribute 100% negligence to the car driver.

 

No...  The car driver was 100% negligent in his duty of care (for other road users) when he overtook the lorry without first ensuring the road ahead was 100% clear. 

 

The motorcyclist ‘could' have taken action to avoid impact. But the fact that the motorcyclist needed to take action to avoid a car heading toward him on the wrong side of the road highlights clearly that the car driver was 100% at fault. 

[Odysseus123]

11 minutes ago, Freigeist365 said:

100% negligence to the car driver is provided by the simple fact that he overtook in a left bend not being able to see oncoming traffic. 

Yep-simple isn't it?

..and the Thai police agree.

 

..and the only people that seem to disagree are a bunch of whack jobs on ThaiVisa

Edited May 29, 2021 by Odysseus123

[Freigeist365]

18 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Yep-simple isn't it?

..and the Thai police agree.

 

..and the only people that seem to disagree are a bunch of whack jobs on ThaiVisa

 

Cheers, Odysseus! It's probably the same kind of sick puppies that turn into keyboard warrior apologists for that murdering swine, Looker, in another thread here on TV.... Can't get my head around it. Why would people take sides of a reckless driver, or even a brutal murderer who flat out killed people? Makes you question humanity as a whole... doesn't it?

[Odysseus123]

2 minutes ago, Freigeist365 said:

Can't get my head around it. Why would people take sides of a reckless driver,

Hi Free spirit...now that's the $64 dollar question isn't it?

..and I am afraid I cannot answer it.

 

But..the life of an expat in Thailand can be a weird one....????

[Gecko123]

41 minutes ago, Odysseus123 said:

Yep-simple isn't it?

..and the Thai police agree.

 

..and the only people that seem to disagree are a bunch of whack jobs on ThaiVisa

No, it's not as always simple as that, Odysseus. And a little respect for those who don't share your opinions would be appreciated. I have 30 years of experience in liability law, so I'm not some "whack job" as you put it. 

 

Let's say an oncoming car was driving at 180 km/hr and for whatever reason didn't hit the brakes even though he had ample time to respond to the presence of an oncoming vehicle passing on his side of the road. Do you think, that person could say, 'Oh, he was on my side of the road, he didn't belong there, so it's all his fault. End of story?' Of course not.

 

In many jurisdictions the speed of the oncoming car and whether they took reasonable steps to avoid the collision would be taken into consideration when assigning liability for an accident. I am also looking at this from a "lessons to be learned" standpoint, so that other motorcyclists might avoid a similar fate. If you want to act like there's nothing to be learned from the video from the motorcyclist's point-of-view, I think you're doing other motorcyclists a disservice. Can we please stop the 'Thai vs. foreigner' and "motorcyclist vs motorist' bickering? It makes for very tiresome reading.

 

Edited May 29, 2021 by Gecko123

[Pravda]

1 hour ago, Freigeist365 said:

After the nonsense everyone here was forced to read, written by you, all I can say is that I very much wish you will be ending up in a similar situation one day, and then - for a split second - remember all the nonsense you have written here, part blaming the American for being killed, before the lights go out as you were caught in the headlights like a deer, unable to move or do a thing to prevent the crash. In fact, this message goes out to all those who part-blame the motorcyclist whereas the driver of the black Mazda is the one and only person to blame.

 

 

You can wish as much as you want but it's not going to happen as I don't drive a motorbike at 100kmh on Thai roads... So I think I'll live 100 years. 

[4MyEgo]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Gravel route was the only option.... Or at least move to the side.

With ATGATT (all the gear all the time) if the rider were to drop the bike on the gravel to his left he could ride the slide.... knackered bike and threads, bruising...   I still struggle to see how the motorcycle rider didn’t react.

 

Those criticising the motorcyclists speed could equality criticise the motorcyclist being partially to blame for being there in the first place or not being in a car.... its an idiotic criticism - the motorcyclist was riding at highway speeds on a highway and a total idiot overtook a lorry driving into his lane... there is no 90/10 proportion of blame, 100% of blame lies with the car driver. 

 

The motorcyclist could have avoided the accident, but the accident was 100% caused by the car. 

 

Totally agree with you 110%, unfortunately this driver will get off Scott free, apart from a fine and get to enjoy the rest of his/her life.

 

Loss of license for 10 years and huge compensation to the victims family would help, we know it won't bring him back, but nevertheless, financial support would assist his family for the loss of income and punishing the driver at the same time.

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, Pravda said:

You can wish as much as you want but it's not going to happen as I don't drive a motorbike at 100kmh on Thai roads... So I think I'll live 100 years. 

 

I try and keep speed ‘with’ the other traffic. 

 

In an underpass in Bangkok I looked down and I was doing 100kmh - the car in front was doing the same speed and the car behind was doing the same speed. 

 

I don’t want to be the motorcyclist doing 50kmh and naively thinking I’m safer as cars try to squeeze past me at 100kmh. 

 

 

 

Regarding the deceased American guy: Some have pointed out that he was going fast. But, had be been tootling along at 50kmh he’d place himself at greater risk as all the other vehicles, cars, lorries etc tried to pass him. 

 

He (the deceased American) died because a car overtook without the road being clear. But, he also died because he inexplicably did not take any avoiding action in the 3 seconds he had to react when a car was on his side of the road. 

 

Perhaps the ‘brain didn’t register’ what his eyes were seeing, perhaps we wasn’t looking ahead, or watching exactly where he was going... Regardless, the car is 100% at fault for causing the accident, but, as a motorcyclist I consider I am 100% responsible myself for avoiding all the crazy, dumb and outrageous stuff that unfolds around me on the roads. 

 

 

 

 

[Odysseus123]

36 minutes ago, Gecko123 said:

Can we please stop the 'Thai vs. foreigner' and "motorcyclist vs motorist' bickering? It makes for very tiresome reading.

 

6 minutes ago, 4MyEgo said:

 

Totally agree with you 110%, unfortunately this driver will get off Scott free, apart from a fine and get to enjoy the rest of his/her life.

 

Loss of license for 10 years and huge compensation to the victims family would help, we know it won't bring him back, but nevertheless, financial support would assist his family for the loss of income and punishing the driver at the same time.

Very true..whereby the chronic over intellectualisation of some of the utter poseurs on this thread will not.

 

Rip, my man.

[Pravda]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

but, as a motorcyclist I consider I am 100% responsible myself for avoiding all the crazy, dumb and outrageous stuff that unfolds around me on the roads

 

Correct. You are literally stepping into a war zone. I hate Thai roads and would never in a million years risk my like like that American did. This is not about whose fault is it, but the risk you are putting your self into. 

[IraqRon]

38 minutes ago, Pravda said:

 

 

You can wish as much as you want but it's not going to happen as I don't drive a motorbike at 100kmh on Thai roads... So I think I'll live 100 years. 

not if I see you first

[Pravda]

Just now, IraqRon said:

not if I see you first

 

On a barstool 

[richard_smith237]

25 minutes ago, Pravda said:

 

Correct. You are literally stepping into a war zone. I hate Thai roads and would never in a million years risk my like like that American did. This is not about whose fault is it, but the risk you are putting your self into. 

 

The American was doing what millions do every day. 

 

I don’t see that he was riding dangerously or placing himself at any greater risk than any other motorcyclist. 

 

Even in cars we take an acceptable level of risk when we want to get somewhere - think lorry brake failure, unsecured loads, red-light jumpers, containers falling off lorries on corners etc.

 

This motorcyclist was travelling at highway speeds on a highway. He wasn’t doing anything wrong or dangerous, he was simply travelling (I still don’t know how he didn’t try to avoid the impact though). 

[Odysseus123]

1 hour ago, Gecko123 said:

In many jurisdictions the speed of the oncoming car and whether they took reasonable steps to avoid the collision

What jurisdictions?

 

This is complete fanciful nonsense.

 

The Thai driver pulled out on a blind corner and impacted with an oncoming motorcyclist..

 

In any other jurisdiction he would be charged-as he was- and you would be declared insane.

[JeffersLos]

He was also not in the most left hand lane. 

 

If he didn't break the law, by not riding where he legally should have been, he would be alive and well. 

Edited May 29, 2021 by JeffersLos

[Odysseus123]

1 hour ago, JeffersLos said:

He was also not in the most left hand lane. 

 

If he didn't break the law, by not riding where he legally should have been, he would be alive and well. 

Eh?

[IraqRon]

3 hours ago, Pravda said:

 

On a barstool 

is that where you hide out, where exactly will that be

[NanLaew]

7 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

You can see on the video, the moment the black car hit his brakes, because he slows in relation to the commodity truck, but there is no similar slowing by the motorcycle.

 

Yes, you can see when the car driver hit the brakes as the truck heading in the same direction appears to accelerate ahead. This is because we have two, clear points of reference heading in the same direction. How can you possibly discern that the bike, the only point of reference heading in the opposite direction, didn't start braking? If you can work that out from a YouTube dashcam clip, there's a great future for you as the first ever human doppler radar.

[scammed]

6 hours ago, Gecko123 said:

Are you of the opinion that there was absolutely nothing the motorcyclist could have done to avoid the collision? You don't think there's a possibility the motorcyclist may have been going too fast for road conditions? Consider:

 

•  there was a bend in the road;
• there was road construction;
•  someone had just passed the commodity truck,
•  the commodity truck and car passing in front of the black Mitsubishi were partially blocking view of oncoming traffic, and
• the dashed dividing line should have alerted to the possibility that people might attempt to pass  

 

I'm also confused why people are arguing that there was absolutely nothing the motorcyclist could have done to avoid or mitigate the outcome of the collision. I am not a motorcyclist but what about braking? Trying to squeeze past on the paved shoulder? Driving off onto the unpaved shoulder? How do you explain the apparent complete lack of evasive action until the last moment if not because of inattention or a rate of speed which was ill-advised for the traffic and road conditions at the time.

 

I readily agree that the Mitsubishi driver was 90%+ at fault, but the above issues about speed and response time to the oncoming vehicle are why I cannot attribute 100% negligence to the car driver.

yes, he could have leaned heavily and turned into the wilderness, or he could have thrown himself off the bike,

those are the two outcomes beside being hit straight on.

 

if you think a motorcycle can maneuver  safely,

then you just havnt driven motorcycle and been faced

with someone that summons in your path,

you will get hurt, period.

 

this is why traffic regulations outlaw anyone to switch lane unless that lane is empty, cause the momentum makes evasive action empty worthless words

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

He was also not in the most left hand lane. 

 

If he didn't break the law, by not riding where he legally should have been, he would be alive and well. 

 

Where is this ‘most left hand lane’ you seem to believe exists ???

 

 

[richard_smith237]

13 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Yes, you can see when the car driver hit the brakes as the truck heading in the same direction appears to accelerate ahead. This is because we have two, clear points of reference heading in the same direction. How can you possibly discern that the bike, the only point of reference heading in the opposite direction, didn't start braking? If you can work that out from a YouTube dashcam clip, there's a great future for you as the first ever human doppler radar.

 

Theoretically one could identify whether or not a motorcyclist is breaking heavily by the ‘compression’ on the front forks.

 

The quality of the video seems too poor to determine this. 

 

When the motorcyclists comes into view there does not appear to be any ‘dip’ of the front as the motorcyclist applies his breaks which may indicate that he didn’t apply the brake, OR, he was already breaking hard and the front of the bike had already dipped. 

[NanLaew]

26 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

3 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

He was also not in the most left hand lane. 

 

If he didn't break the law, by not riding where he legally should have been, he would be alive and well. 

 

Where is this ‘most left hand lane’ you seem to believe exists ???

 

 

 

 

Sorry Jeffers, a bike can use the same lanes as cars and trucks. Their road tax is lower but doesn't mandate that they can only ride on the skinny bit of pavement between the solid, nearside line and the dirt regardless of how much you wish that they did.

 

Do you have a driving license? If yes, what brand of boxed cereal did it come in?

[NanLaew]

23 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

He (the deceased American) died because a car overtook without the road being clear. But, he also died because he inexplicably did not take any avoiding action in the 3 seconds he had to react when a car was on his side of the road. 

 

In terms of distance, human reaction time at 100 kph is 42 m and braking time is 56 m for a total of 98 m. If he was doing 100 kph, perfectly plausible on a wide, open road with good visibility and riding a PCX, he would have covered about 83 m in the roughly 3 seconds since he too first saw the overtaking car that hit him. Note that he too was blindsided by the long curve, the tanker and the other car that had just passed the tanker truck.

 

Now if he was doing the more sedate 70 kph that the non-riders suggest, his reaction distance would have been 29 m and braking distance 27 m for a total of 56 m. Much more margin for safety there, no? However, those numbers only apply to him and his forward velocity and don't include the reaction and braking distance of the oncoming car. My earlier post suggested a likely closing speed (both vehicles) of at least 120 kph which equates with a TOTAL reaction AND braking distance of 227 m. The option to easily avoid the accident simply didn't exist here.

 

Looking at the video frame by 1-second frame, at 12 seconds, the car is already overtaking and you can still see the car ahead completing it's overtake of the tanker truck.

 

At ~13 seconds, the car is still overtaking and a flash of sun reflects off an oncoming car seen in the nearside gap of the tanker truck.

 

At ~14 seconds, the car is still overtaking, totally blind by this time.

 

At ~15 seconds, the car is still overtaking, about a car-length behind the tanker as the motorcycle just appears ahead.

 

At ~16 seconds, the car is still overtaking, less than a car-length behind the tanker as sun reflects off the oncoming motorbike, or maybe the rider, reacting, has just turned his headlights on and maybe started braking?

 

At ~17 seconds, the car is still overtaking, almost abreast of the tanker truck's rear wheel as the motorcycle ahead is clearly visible with its headlights on.

 

At ~18 seconds, the car suddenly slows maybe a couple of hundred milliseconds before the point of impact.

Edited May 30, 2021 by NanLaew

[richard_smith237]

25 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

 

In terms of distance, human reaction time at 100 kph is 42 m and braking time is 56 m for a total of 98 m. If he was doing 100 kph, perfectly plausible on a wide, open road with good visibility and riding a PCX, he would have covered about 83 m in the roughly 3 seconds since he too first saw the overtaking car that hit him. Note that he too was blindsided by the long curve, the tanker and the other car that had just passed the tanker truck.

 

Now if he was doing the more sedate 70 kph that the non-riders suggest, his reaction distance would have been 29 m and braking distance 27 m for a total of 56 m. Much more margin for safety there, no? However, those numbers only apply to him and his forward velocity and don't include the reaction and braking distance of the oncoming car. My earlier post suggested a likely closing speed (both vehicles) of at least 120 kph which equates with a TOTAL reaction AND braking distance of 227 m. The option to easily avoid the accident simply didn't exist here.

 

Looking at the video frame by 1-second frame, at 12 seconds, the car is already overtaking and you can still see the car ahead completing it's overtake of the tanker truck.

 

At ~13 seconds, the car is still overtaking and a flash of sun reflects off an oncoming car seen in the nearside gap of the tanker truck.

 

At ~14 seconds, the car is still overtaking, totally blind by this time.

 

At ~15 seconds, the car is still overtaking, about a car-length behind the tanker as the motorcycle just appears ahead.

 

At ~16 seconds, the car is still overtaking, less than a car-length behind the tanker as sun reflects off the oncoming motorbike, or maybe the rider, reacting, has just turned his headlights on and maybe started braking?

 

At ~17 seconds, the car is still overtaking, almost abreast of the tanker truck's rear wheel as the motorcycle ahead is clearly visible with its headlights on.

 

At ~18 seconds, the car suddenly slows maybe a couple of hundred milliseconds before the point of impact.

 

That makes a lot of sense, but you have also included ‘breaking distance’ to the distance in your interpretation that the head-on collision was unavoidable. 

 

There was no apparent reaction at all from the motorcyclist.

As you point out at 100kmh the reaction time takes up 42m after which time (distance) there was no visible reaction, no reaction at all from the motorcyclist for the full 3 seconds the car would have been in view, no attempt to swerve or move out of the way, no apparent braking *(although thats extremely difficult to tell from the video). 

 

I know, quickly swerving is difficult on a bike at speed on a curve, an experienced rider would immediately counter-steer to bring the bike onto the fringe. I’m not saying the deceased was an inexperienced rider, but I do not see any attempt to ‘manoeuvre’, to swerve, no shift of weight, no moment at all.... 

 

I see no reaction whatsoever from the motorcyclist.....  the option to avoid the head on impact definitely existed, it just seems the motorcyclist didn’t notice the car in his lane (which I find impossible). 

 

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by richard_smith237

[Gecko123]

Those pointing out that the longer stopping distances for a motorcycle and the difficulties that the rider would have encountered trying to take evasive action have made some very compelling arguments that the accident would have been difficult, if not impossible, for the motorcyclist to avoid.

 

But are those same arguments not equally compelling reasons to recommend against long distance motorcycle touring in Thailand? In my opinion, the poor driving skills of so many Thai drivers, the lack of highway traffic enforcement, and the overall quality of road infrastructure make this type of tragic incident an every day occurrence.

 

For the above reasons, I am strongly of the opinion that motorcycle touring is an ill-advised activity in Thailand. I understand and respect the counter-opinions of those who believe that a vigilant eye can safely manage the risks, but for those still weighing the pros and cons, may I gently, and as unantagonistically as possible, point out that I suspect that there are many people who, but for the fact that they are no longer with us, would likely agree with what I am saying.

 

Edited May 30, 2021 by Gecko123

[VocalNeal]

???? Pontification at its very best. 

 

Assuming our American rider saw the car there was a whole football field of cleared surface to his left that he could have aimed for. Could have ended up in hospital but not necessarily dead.

Yes the car driver was at fault but our deceased bike riding colleague has his own part to play in his demise. More experienced riders have similar lapses in judgement. There but for the grace of god....

A British guy died in December in Chiang Rai but nothing noted on this forum as the vehicle he hit didn't have a dash cam. Have his mates given up riding? Lord no, they simply keep on going knowing the risks. They didn't come to Thailand to spend their lives sat on a porch. 

So why don't we all give up what we enjoy. Golfers should stay home because of lightning?  Et al.. 

 

 

[whaleboneman]

12 hours ago, NanLaew said:

 

In terms of distance, human reaction time at 100 kph is 42 m and braking time is 56 m for a total of 98 m. If he was doing 100 kph, perfectly plausible on a wide, open road with good visibility and riding a PCX, he would have covered about 83 m in the roughly 3 seconds since he too first saw the overtaking car that hit him. Note that he too was blindsided by the long curve, the tanker and the other car that had just passed the tanker truck.

 

Now if he was doing the more sedate 70 kph that the non-riders suggest, his reaction distance would have been 29 m and braking distance 27 m for a total of 56 m. Much more margin for safety there, no? However, those numbers only apply to him and his forward velocity and don't include the reaction and braking distance of the oncoming car. My earlier post suggested a likely closing speed (both vehicles) of at least 120 kph which equates with a TOTAL reaction AND braking distance of 227 m. The option to easily avoid the accident simply didn't exist here.

 

Looking at the video frame by 1-second frame, at 12 seconds, the car is already overtaking and you can still see the car ahead completing it's overtake of the tanker truck.

 

At ~13 seconds, the car is still overtaking and a flash of sun reflects off an oncoming car seen in the nearside gap of the tanker truck.

 

At ~14 seconds, the car is still overtaking, totally blind by this time.

 

At ~15 seconds, the car is still overtaking, about a car-length behind the tanker as the motorcycle just appears ahead.

 

At ~16 seconds, the car is still overtaking, less than a car-length behind the tanker as sun reflects off the oncoming motorbike, or maybe the rider, reacting, has just turned his headlights on and maybe started braking?

 

At ~17 seconds, the car is still overtaking, almost abreast of the tanker truck's rear wheel as the motorcycle ahead is clearly visible with its headlights on.

 

At ~18 seconds, the car suddenly slows maybe a couple of hundred milliseconds before the point of impact.

How did you get your braking times? Are they from testing motorcycles on curves? And in my opinion, the only way to avoid this accident would have been heading left and laying the bike down.