Rider on 650 cc bike and pillion passenger both dead after collision with drunk van driver

[BangkokReady]

8 hours ago, biggles45 said:

What relevance is the bikes engine size

To the news story?  It adds detail for the interest of the readers.  To the assigning of blame?  I guess it suggests that the bike may have been moving very fast as it has the capability to do so.

 

8 hours ago, biggles45 said:

the van driver was drunk? 

The driver van driver being drunk doesn't remove all responsibility from the rider if they weren't driving in a safe or legal manner.  It just doesn't work like that.

[VocalNeal]

7 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

no police presence on the roads, lack of speed cameras, booze buses and large fines/jail for repeat offenders with no licenses (corruption) etc,

Great here isn't it?

[JeffersLos]

4 hours ago, giddyup said:

You have more chance of avoiding them if you don't ride a motorbike at all.

And never going outside of the front door. 

 

Keep it locked. No one in, never leave. 

 

 

[2 is 1]

33 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

The driver van driver being drunk doesn't remove all responsibility from the rider if they weren't driving in a safe or legal manner.  It just doesn't work like that.

Works here TIT. And question is : if "equation" dont include drunk van driver is there still accident!?

[BangkokReady]

9 hours ago, 2 is 1 said:

Works here TIT. And question is : if "equation" dont include drunk van driver is there still accident!?

So if the drunk driver was driving completely normally and safely, and did not do anything to actually cause the accident, while the motorcyclist was driving dangerously and caused the accident to happen, it is all the fault of the drunk driver? Something a little off about that.

 

Driving while over the alcohol limit is an offence, but it does not automatically assign blame.

 

You're not thinking logically.

[Jaybott]

20 minutes ago, BangkokReady said:

So if the drunk driver was driving completely normally and safely, and did not do anything to actually cause the accident, while the motorcyclist was driving dangerously and caused the accident to happen, it is all the fault of the drunk driver?

From the video, the van driver did not yield to oncoming traffic, so he is at fault.  The motorcyclist was traveling at excessive speed, so he is also at fault.  Who knows if the van driver would have seen the motorcyclist if he wasn't drunk or not but failure to yield to oncoming traffic is a common Thai driving trait.  A direct result of the lack of proper driver education throughout Thailand.

 

RIP to the two young men, thier last seconds of life must have been terrifying.

[giddyup]

10 hours ago, JeffersLos said:

And never going outside of the front door. 

 

Keep it locked. No one in, never leave. 

 

 

Hey, it's your life and limbs, do as you please. Just don't start a Gofundme to pay for your medical bills.

[SS1]

Whether the driver was drunk or the motorcycle was going fast is quite irrelevant.. the f*** idiot of a van driver cut accross 2 lanes at once and didn't yield to oncoming traffic. 

 

However, the speed of the motorcycle is certainly relevant from a "self-preservation" and "how to avoid dying on a motorcycle in Thailand" perspective. The fact that there is a U-turn, a parked car and a restaurant would be enough for me to slow down significantly and be alert for idiots like this van driver. 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

22 hours ago, biggles45 said:

What relevance is the bikes engine size, the van driver was drunk? 

It's no less relevant than the rider's age, the name of the restaurant or the make of the van, why did you pick on the engine size particularly?  They're all just part of the report.  Why does it concern you so much?

[Liverpool Lou]

22 hours ago, biggles45 said:

Yes, you can't guard against stupidity. been hit twice on my bike, both times stationary turning right with indicators. Hit by Thais not paying attention. 

"Hit by Thais not paying attention". 

Bearing in mind that you're in Thailand, the odds of that not being the case are fairly low!

[Liverpool Lou]

21 hours ago, Screaming said:

I have owed over twenty five motorbikes in all sizes in my lifetime

Did you give any of them back to the people you "owed" [sic] them to?

[2 is 1]

3 hours ago, BangkokReady said:

So if the drunk driver was driving completely normally and safely, and did not do anything to actually cause the accident, while the motorcyclist was driving dangerously and caused the accident to happen, it is all the fault of the drunk driver? Something a little off about that.

 

Driving while over the alcohol limit is an offence, but it does not automatically assign blame.

 

You're not thinking logically.

Many country its the law! If you drink and drive its your fold dosent matter how accident happen! Definetly if you watch what insurance company going to pay and to who!

[richard_smith237]

18 hours ago, giddyup said:

You have more chance of avoiding them if you don't ride a motorbike at all.

This is one of those silly strawman arguments....    We also have more chance of avoiding a car accident if we don’t go out. 

 

You will of course counter that with taking a motorcycle is a choice with elevated risk... 

But, so would be going out in a toyota yaris instead of a Volvo-XC90....  

 

This is the issue when you start stating absolutes... there is a hole to be picked in ‘every absolute’... 

Living in Thailand is more dangerous than living in the UK...   

 

We all know the risks, evaluated them and live within our risk profile on that long sliding scale. 

 

Riding a motorcycle is of course more dangerous than driving any car. 

Driving a tiny little car is of course more dangerous than driving larger car (Merc S class or Volvo etc).

 

 

But to suggest someone has ‘more chance of avoiding a motorcycle accident if they don’t ride a motorcycle’ is moronically obvious....   I have less chance of slipping in the shower if I don’t shower !

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

21 hours ago, Screaming said:

It is insane to drive a motorbike in Thailand. I have owed over twenty five motorbikes in all sizes in my lifetime and consider myself a skilled rider but I would never get on a motorbike in Thailand. Rider beware that you are tempting fate when you ride in Thailand.

"It is insane to drive a motorbike in Thailand ... I would never get on a motorbike in Thailand".

If you've never even been on a bike in Thailand how can your vast experience be in any way relevant to riding here?   It may be your opinion (as is your estimation of your skill!) but your total lack of experience here means that you're in no position to dictate that "riding here is insane".     

 

The millions of people who have ridden bikes here, unscathed, would be in a better position to make that judgement.

[Liverpool Lou]

21 hours ago, Aussieroaming said:

Scumbag drunk driver should be charged with murder, regardless of whether the biker was partially at fault or not.

Nothing like a bit of irrationality to add spice to the thread.

[richard_smith237]

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It's no less relevant than the rider's age, the name of the restaurant or the make of the van, why did you pick on the engine size particularly?  They're all just part of the report.  Why does it concern you so much?

He probably did so [picked up on the cc of the bike] because ‘big bikes’ have been targeted by the media and authorities..... as if it is the size of the bike itself which causes accidents....  Of course inexperienced riders on larger bikes face and present greater risk than experienced riders on larger bikes or inexperienced riders on smaller bikes... 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

21 hours ago, vandeventer said:

22 hours ago, Screaming said:

It is insane to drive a motorbike in Thailand. I have owed over twenty five motorbikes in all sizes in my lifetime and consider myself a skilled rider but I would never get on a motorbike in Thailand. Rider beware that you are tempting fate when you ride in Thailand.

Expand  

Really, I have been riding on big bikes here for over twenty years and never been in a accident .Knock on wood!

And he's never been on a bike here so he wouldn't know!

[Liverpool Lou]

18 hours ago, digger70 said:

20 Yrs Jail for Drunken Van Driver.

It would be more logical to demand 20 years jail for any drunk driver.

[Liverpool Lou]

17 hours ago, SS1 said:

At least on my own motorcycle, I'm in 100% control of the vechicle instead of some yaba head Somchai behind the wheel. 

"...I'm in 100% control..."

only until the moment that you're not, same as every bike accident victim.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[Liverpool Lou]

16 hours ago, impulse said:

Where does it say it was the van driver's fault? 

 

Just because he was over the legal limit doesn't mean he caused the wreck.  

"Where does it say it was the van driver's fault?"

The CCTV indicates that his pulling out into the outside lane that the bike was in sure contributed!  If the van driver had stayed in the left hand lane they probably wouldn't have collided.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[2long]

Has anyone else noticed that the alcohol test has happened so fast, but if the driver is 'important' or has rich family members, it takes a lot longer?!

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

17 hours ago, SS1 said:

At least on my own motorcycle, I'm in 100% control of the vechicle instead of some yaba head Somchai behind the wheel. 

"...I'm in 100% control..."

only until the moment that you're not, same as every bike accident victim.

Very true... but as SS1 pointed out...    when we are in 100% control many of us are more safe. 

 

The last two times I took a motorcycle taxi (probably about 3 or more years ago), I had to get the rider to stop and tell them to take it easy. 

 

Just this week I had a GrabCar attempt to overtake a slower car in a small Soi, I had to tell him there is no rush, its not worth the risk of an accident. 

 

I much prefer to ride and drive myself for the reasons SS1 mentioned, I want to be the one in control wherever possible. 

When on a motorcycle, I want to be the one to decide where I stop my bike at the lights (i.e. out of the ‘line of fire’ as much as possible), in a car, I want to decide not to ‘drift over the centre line’ on a corner etc or give parked cars more space incase one of them opens their door etc....  

 

I’m not better than every other driver or rider here and I am not impervious to having an accident...  but by riding and driving myself I am in-control of my own risk profile. 

 

I refused to take two (flag fall) taxis in a row last week because they didn’t have rear-seat belts....  (I was going on the expressway).

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

3 hours ago, Jaybott said:

From the video, the van driver did not yield to oncoming traffic, so he is at fault.

Van driver clearly at fault...  there was no reason to pull straight out into the second lane at all. 

 

Motorcyclist clearly ‘gunning it’ on a road where ‘gunning it’ is obviously extremely stupid and suicidal behaviour. 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 22, 2022 by richard_smith237

[Liverpool Lou]

4 hours ago, Jaybott said:

RIP to the two young men, thier last seconds of life must have been terrifying.

Doubt that they knew anything about it during the less than one second it took from travelling normally to blackness.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, SS1 said:

Whether the driver was drunk or the motorcycle was going fast is quite irrelevant.. the f*** idiot of a van driver cut accross 2 lanes at once and didn't yield to oncoming traffic.

Seems that no one wants to consider that the bike rider could have been impaired also.  

[Liverpool Lou]

27 minutes ago, 2long said:

Has anyone else noticed that the alcohol test has happened so fast, but if the driver is 'important' or has rich family members, it takes a lot longer?!

Perhaps he was breath-tested at the scene (or the police station) as, apparently, he wasn't injured. 

 

I assume that you're referring to the one instance of the Porsche driver who  collided with the Pakistani on a bike a week or so ago and sustained a head injury and couldn't be breath-tested at the scene?  He had blood samples taken for drug and alcohol testing in hospital fairly quickly.

Edited March 22, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[rott]

19 hours ago, digger70 said:

20 Yrs Jail for Drunken Van Driver.

And a pity there is no law to charge the passengers with conspiracy or whatever. 

[Liverpool Lou]

34 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I refused to take two (flag fall) taxis in a row last week because they didn’t have rear-seat belts.

They must have been pretty old taxis!

 

Toyota Corollas and the few other popular makes used as taxis have been fitted with rear belts as standard for many years and, being a legal requirement, a taxi owner/co-operative would, obviously, have no reason to remove them .

Edited March 22, 2022 by Liverpool Lou

[giddyup]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

This is one of those silly strawman arguments....    We also have more chance of avoiding a car accident if we don’t go out. 

 

You will of course counter that with taking a motorcycle is a choice with elevated risk... 

But, so would be going out in a toyota yaris instead of a Volvo-XC90....  

 

This is the issue when you start stating absolutes... there is a hole to be picked in ‘every absolute’... 

Living in Thailand is more dangerous than living in the UK...   

 

We all know the risks, evaluated them and live within our risk profile on that long sliding scale. 

 

Riding a motorcycle is of course more dangerous than driving any car. 

Driving a tiny little car is of course more dangerous than driving larger car (Merc S class or Volvo etc).

 

 

But to suggest someone has ‘more chance of avoiding a motorcycle accident if they don’t ride a motorcycle’ is moronically obvious....   I have less chance of slipping in the shower if I don’t shower !

 

 

I was responding to your reply to my first post, ie But, not riding at night cuts out a huge amount of risk. Well so does not riding at all, get my drift?

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

They must have been pretty old taxis!

 

Toyota Corollas and the few other popular makes used as taxis have been fitted with rear belts as standard for many years and, being a legal requirement, a taxi owner/co-operative would, obviously, have no reason to remove them .

Actually not...  this is also in ’some’ newer taxis (i.e. within last 5 years etc). 

 

For a while the ‘pendulum had swung’ and nearly every taxi had a rear-seatbelt - I think there was a clamp-down (its illegal for taxis not to have rear seatbelts). 

 

Over this past year I’ve noticed it a few times, even with Grab-taxi....    I think at some point the driver lifts up the seats so the stalk is not sticking up and its more ‘comfortable’ to get 4-5 people across the backseat !!! (thats the mentality I suspect anyway). 

 

Or, when the seat is ‘resurfaced’ its placed back and the stalks never lifted up before the seat is repositioned. Or the seat cover itself, covers the ‘recess’ where the seatbelt is positioned.