Yeah, you dont know how to drive it's clear in the video.  The bike was alrrady in your lane and you beep your horn for him to get out of your way.  I wosh you'd do that to me.  You clearly  need to go learn how to drive.  The second  bike you clearly  rear ended him.  You had plenty of time to stop and allow him to go.  This is Thailand  they will cut in front with bikes, but there was at least two seconds and you were already stopped when you hit him.  50/50 ..  you should be held  to full amount.  You are a terrible driver.  Its almost like you think its all your privilege. 

8 minutes ago, WEBBYB808 said:

Yeah let them keep conning you, it's not worth the hassle.   

However after watching the video I clearly see both incidents  were your fault and over agressive  driving.

The SUV driVer seems to be a 'King of the Road' type and displays poor driving skills.  He needs to adapt his driving style to Thai road conditions.

Looks like normal driving/riding behavior in Thailand to me.

A pair of toss pots. at best.

 

 

Cant believe you post this video! You are lucky to not kill somebody with your driving. Lunatic who obviously do not see your own wrongs leading to dangerous situatins. Not only one in this video but sevaral. 
 

im driving big car, move morons attitude

19 hours ago, FriendlyFarang said:

I would inform the DLT that a licensed motorcycle taxi (yellow license plate) is riding on bridges where it's not allowed, doesn't have a working rear light, and causes accidents on purpose, this might result in an extra fine for him and maybe a reeducation session on how to behave as a taxi.

I had an Ikea van hit me. after hitting a motorbike, he skidded into me with the bike under the van.

 

Their insurance claimed my fault because although i was stationary, my wheel was over the centre line.

 

I showed the cops the pics which showed the ikea van was moving diagonally and would have hit me anyway.

 

The outcome... ikea driver at fault, me and a cop laughing as i paid the 300 baht fine for being over the line. It just needed to be done to square things and avoid court, i guess.

20 hours ago, Banana7 said:

  This is based on an insurance adjuster/investigator.

Who?  Which one?

55555!   The video's been removed...I wonder why?!

My gf asked me, “Did he buy the driving license? He driving like a thai with to big car

21 hours ago, wprime said:

The video starts just before impact but you can see the incident which angered him at 2:15

Where can late-comers see the video that you removed?   Why did you remove it?

10 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why did you remove it?

Wasn't very complimentary to expressing any version of being a courteous driver.  Resembles what most forum members complain about, as can be summarized by the replies.

 

Also not available on his YT channel

2 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Why did you remove it?

Wasn't very complimentary to expressing any version of being a courteous driver.  Resembles what most forum members complain about, as can be summarized by the replies.

Thanks, but I did realise that, I just wondered what he had to say about it.

20 hours ago, wprime said:

I have 1st class but I have a perfect record on this car since new so I have a substantial discount that I hadn't wanted to lose.

That narrows down the OP's choices.  50/50, and seems fair, probably <1000 for the motorbike, and that's a stretch.  Touch up paint for the SUV, maybe.

Tis strange indeed that the video ends/edited before you see what the bike rider did after he got off his bike.

It took SUV clown a few days to realize how incriminating (for him) that video was, hence it's removal from you-tube. 

15 hours ago, Wagga said:

Tis strange indeed that the video ends/edited before you see what the bike rider did after he got off his bike.

It took SUV clown a few days to realize how incriminating (for him) that video was, hence it's removal from you-tube. 

Not sure what you are expecting to see after the video, it ended because my camera saves in 3 minute blocks. FYI, just to settle this debate.

 

The police saw the video of the incident, they did not care about earlier events because it wasn't related to the incident, there is no legal justification for road rage no matter what your opinions are on my driving. It was 1.6 seconds between when the motorbike entered my lane and impact, that was not sufficient time to stop and it was deemed an unsafe lane change. It was 50:50 because it was still a rear-end collision, I was very lucky to have the video footage as rear-end collisions are almost always ruled 100% the fault of the trailing vehicle.

 

21 hours ago, KhunLA said:

That narrows down the OP's choices.  50/50, and seems fair, probably <1000 for the motorbike, and that's a stretch.  Touch up paint for the SUV, maybe.

By 50/50 I meant each pays for their own damages so I didn't have to pay any settlement for the motorbike.

I have been told a number of times by thai people, if you hit a motorbike with your car regardless if they caused the accident you will still be regarded as in the wrong in the eyes of the police. I know makes no sense. I almost hit a bike the other day he was driving fast cutting in an out of traffic, and cut in front of me just before road works on the road, if I had not been aware of him or had not braked I would have hit him as he cut in front, my wife said if I hit him I in the wrong. But....

Not worth arguing about it with the police just take the good offer of 50/50 you are lucky it was not 100%

14 minutes ago, wprime said:

there is no legal justification for road rage no matter ....  By 50/50 I meant each pays for their own damages so I didn't have to pay any settlement for the motorbike.

Agree, no justification for YOUR road rage.  You should have been courteous, and not squeezed him over when he was passing, and it appeared you actually had time & space to stop, but chose not to, and tapped him on purpose.  Or simply misjudged when trying to get as close as possible.  NOT COOL

 

I understood what the 50/50 meant, and you are lucky he didn't fall and get injured.  Count your blessings.

 

Slow down and be a little courteous in the future.  Just a suggestion.

1 hour ago, wprime said:

Not sure what you are expecting to see after the video, it ended because my camera saves in 3 minute blocks. FYI, just to settle this debate.

 

The police saw the video of the incident, they did not care about earlier events because it wasn't related to the incident, there is no legal justification for road rage no matter what your opinions are on my driving. It was 1.6 seconds between when the motorbike entered my lane and impact, that was not sufficient time to stop and it was deemed an unsafe lane change. It was 50:50 because it was still a rear-end collision, I was very lucky to have the video footage as rear-end collisions are almost always ruled 100% the fault of the trailing vehicle.

 

By 50/50 I meant each pays for their own damages so I didn't have to pay any settlement for the motorbike.

Sure, quite a lot of dash cams record in 3+ min blocks. They also start recording almost immediately again, or it would be pointless having a (dash) cam that only recorded for three min then stopped recording, duh.

FYI, and to settle this debate.

 

My point was it was very convenient that the your video recording stopped ( or was edited out ) when further recording would have been very useful if intending to pursue charges against the bike rider which you obviously did. And you didn't mention 'why' the video ended up being viewed by the police. Although I would suspect it did because the bike rider got a tad angry with you and your ego got the better of you and you went to the police to vent about the " bully Thai bike rider".

Even though I only have your word that the police even really saw the video, the police, being Thai police, had no interest in earlier events (so you say).  'If' you showed the police the video and not an edited version, they would have had to have seen (video records in three min blocks you said) how you cut the bike off and squeezed him between your "two tonne SUV" and that taxi, even though the bike was over the white line in your lane, you still had to barge passed him in a very dangerous [for the bike rider] passing maneuver when all you had to do was back off a bit, but your earlier driving in the video shows you are an overly aggressive driver who thinks he owns the road. I would call that an 'unsafe passing maneuver'

 You also need to get your timing device! checked out. It was a lot more than 1.6 sec between when the motorbike entered your lane and impact.

Here's another quote from you on your pathetic attempts to justify your driving ability .......

" there is no legal justification for road rage no matter what your opinions are on my driving"

What a joke, it's your driving habits that cause road rage.

First post you asked for 'thoughts' and you got them but not the "poor little white guy" thoughts that you wanted to see.

Removing your video is the biggest clue to you knowing you where in the wrong but just to fat headed to admit it. Best thing for everybody would be if you removed yourself from the roads. That would cut down on a lot of road rage.

8 hours ago, stupidfarang said:

I have been told a number of times by thai people, if you hit a motorbike with your car regardless if they caused the accident you will still be regarded as in the wrong in the eyes of the police. I know makes no sense.

Not only would it be nonsensical, it also isn't true.   Doesn't matter what those Thai people personally told you.  

I wanted to watch again but it's gone, someone is shy it seems. Looking forward to your next driving video, very entertaining.

Probable reason the video is gone is because someone told him if the police (or someone in authority) 'really' did view/see the video, they could, potentially charge him with dangerous driving etc etc, based on the video evidence. Just because the (Thai) police 'supposedly' said they were not interested in the rest of the video, does not mean lawyers, family or friends etc of the bike rider would not be interested. Knowing the propensity of people these days to have a phone/camera with them, I would imagine the bike rider would have had a phone with him and could well have got pics of the SUV driver and or his rego plate/vehicle. Could be cause for the SUV driver to be wary when answering his front door (just a possible scenario of course)  As I said, removing the video is a sure sign of a guilty person. End of story.