New seat belt rules to apply from September

[webfact]

 

By Editor

 

Not wearing a seat belt in any seat of a car in Thailand will soon be punishable by a 2,000 baht fine. The rule will come into effect 120 days after its publication in the Royal Gazette on September 5, 2022.

 

Parents will be required to ensure that their children wear a seat belt for the duration of their journey to prevent injuries in the event of an accident.

 

Under Section 123 of the Road Traffic Act (No.13) 2022, drivers and passengers must abide by the following rules while travelling in a car.

 

The driver must wear a seat belt at all times while driving.  Front seat passengers and passengers sitting in the back or any other row are required to wear a seat belt at all times while travelling in a vehicle.

 

Passengers under 6 years old must be seated in a child safety seat at all times while travelling to prevent injuries in the event of an accident.

 

Passengers under 135 centimetres must wear a seat belt at all times while travelling to prevent injuries in the event of an accident.

 

Drivers and passengers who are unable to wear a seat belt for health reasons are exempt from complying with Section 123. However, that person must introduce other safety measures to prevent injuries in the event of an accident.

 

Anyone who does not comply will be liable to a fine or no more than 2,000 baht.

 

Source: https://royalcoastreview.com/2022/08/new-seat-belt-rules-to-apply-from-september/

 

-- © Copyright Royal Coast Review 2022-08-10

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Monthly car subscription with first-class insurance, 24x7 assistance and more in one price - click here to find out more!

[richard_smith237]

Unfortunately there is an elephant in the room.... and that elephant is not standing by idly but its s spaffing off into face of the lawmakers who’s laws and regulations go completely unenforced.....

 

Laws are pointless if they are ignored and unenforced. 

 

 

That said, the recognition that seatbelts (for the whole vehicle) and child safety seats are required is a good thing... but again, will the police bother to enforce them after the first two weeks of announcements and crackdowns ?

 

 

Then of course, that elephant is still in the room knocking one out over all the policy makers....  what about the pickup trucks with people stuffed in the flat bed ????? Motorcyclists without helmets etc etc etc.... 

 

 

Its great that Thailand is bringing in important laws.... but none of this means anything when that huge big fat elephant in the room is being completely ignored....   Thailand needs to address law enforcement on the roads, until then laws are pretty much irrelevant. 

Edited August 10, 2022 by richard_smith237

[Liverpool Lou]

Nothing to worry about, from a legal perspective, if your car's got dark tints!

[BKKTRAVELER]

I never understood people who don't wear their seat belt. It doesn't cost anything to do so and can potentially save your life. Especially in a country as dangerous as Thailand on the roads... Whatever vehicle I get in, that's the first thing I do as a reflex.

[connda]

12 minutes ago, webfact said:

The driver must wear a seat belt at all times while driving.  Front seat passengers and passengers sitting in the back or any other row are required to wear a seat belt at all times while travelling in a vehicle.

฿฿฿ Cha-Ching!  ฿฿฿

[connda]

Just now, BKKTRAVELER said:

I never understood people who don't wear their seat belt. It doesn't cost anything to do so and can potentially save your life.

For me, buckling up as soon as I sit is ingrained habit.  Like wearing a motorcycle helmet (and shoes, and jean (at least), and gloves).
My body, my choice.  I see value in their use.

Everyone else?  It's up to them.  The laws requiring these items are essentially money-making schemes for the BIB.

[KannikaP]

20 minutes ago, webfact said:

The driver must wear a seat belt at all times while driving.  Front seat passengers and passengers sitting in the back or any other row are required to wear a seat belt at all times while travelling in a vehicle.

 

Passengers under 6 years old must be seated in a child safety seat at all times while travelling to prevent injuries in the event of an accident.

 

Passengers under 135 centimetres must wear a seat belt at all times while travelling to prevent injuries in the event of an accident.

Now let me get this straight. ALL passengers, including sub-135 cm ones, must wear a seatbelt whilst travelling in a vehicle, (even if it is a Smart cab pick up with no belts in the back????? )

Children under SIX must be in a proper car seat, 6 to 12 must be belted (555) as must everyone else in the vehicle.

On 'the other forum' it says that children over TWELVE and shorter than 135 are exempted from a car seat, but must still wear a belt.

Clear now?

Edited August 10, 2022 by KannikaP

[jacko45k]

There isn't any seat belt for the bench seat at rear of my truck cab! And what about people traveling in the pickup bed?

[BKKTRAVELER]

14 minutes ago, connda said:

Everyone else?  It's up to them.  The laws requiring these items are essentially money-making schemes for the BIB.

That's crazy thinking to me. Wearing a seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a motorbike is only to protect your life. There is no downside to it. Not trying to argue with you, I'm just seeing things differently. I believe these laws requiring our safety are a necessity and should be enforced.

[mancub]

14 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

There isn't any seat belt for the bench seat at rear of my truck cab! And what about people traveling in the pickup bed?

Or any assorted form of songtaew or samlor , of course.

[Gold Star]

[proton]

Rarely been in a van with working seat belts, usually tied up or just useless. They seem to think as long as they are there they are working like some sort of road safety amulet. One on Sat did have the seat in the front working, that's usually it.

[mancub]

To ensure compliance, police at checkpoints all over the Kingdom are shortly to be provided with tape measures.

[richard_smith237]

25 minutes ago, BKKTRAVELER said:

42 minutes ago, connda said:

Everyone else?  It's up to them.  The laws requiring these items are essentially money-making schemes for the BIB.

That's crazy thinking to me. Wearing a seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a motorbike is only to protect your life. There is no downside to it. Not trying to argue with you, I'm just seeing things differently. I believe these laws requiring our safety are a necessity and should be enforced.

Agreed.....  I shouldn’t be permitted discretion as to whether or not my child needs to be in a car seat / wear a seat belt or not.....  

 

Any parent who doesn’t think their child should wear a seatbelt or be in a child seat and believes its there choice is a negligent parent. 

 

Additionally, there are many in Thailand who simply do not know the risks - such laws may save ’some’ children - that said, I believe this will just be a paper law which for the most part is ignored. 

 

------

 

I see very wealthy families rock up at my son’s school... Children get out of their Alphards and Merc not a child seat or seatbelt in sight... the parents just don’t consider them necessary.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[soi3eddie]

Christmas just came early for the Boys In Brown! 2,000 Baht a time multiplied by up to 5 passengers per car is a great pay day. Seriously though, this law is 30-40 years after most western countries inposed this life saving rule. The only time I have ever seen children in child safety seats in Thailand are those of farangs. What about the thousands of taxis that have unuseable rear seat belts?

 

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, proton said:

Rarely been in a van with working seat belts, usually tied up or just useless. They seem to think as long as they are there they are working like some sort of road safety amulet. One on Sat did have the seat in the front working, that's usually it.

I've refused taxi’s because the seatbelt stalk was not there.

 

It used to be ridiculous - most taxi’s didn’t have the seatbelt stalk (which was pushed under the seat).. then the law that seat belts must be available in taxis came in a few years back and it was enforced... but that has slipped lately and I’m finding more taxi’s (and grab cars) that I’ve refused to take because they have no rear-seat belt..... (this matters to me, especially when going on an express way).

[John Drake]

Thought they made it a 5000 baht fine about 5 or 6 years ago. There were signs draped over the seats in taxis.

[Joe Farang]

An Irish ad on wearing seat belts in the back from a number of years ago. Gives an effective message.

 

[Liverpool Lou]

57 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

Now let me get this straight. ALL passengers, including sub-135 cm ones, must wear a seatbelt whilst travelling in a vehicle, (even if it is a Smart cab pick up with no belts in the back????? )

Those vehicles are not supposed to carry passengers in the back section, that's why there's no belts.

[KannikaP]

1 hour ago, connda said:

The laws requiring these items are essentially money-making schemes for the BIB.

Or life-saving schemes for the passengers.

[RetroGTAndrew]

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I've refused taxi’s because the seatbelt stalk was not there.

 

It used to be ridiculous - most taxi’s didn’t have the seatbelt stalk (which was pushed under the seat).. then the law that seat belts must be available in taxis came in a few years back and it was enforced... but that has slipped lately and I’m finding more taxi’s (and grab cars) that I’ve refused to take because they have no rear-seat belt..... (this matters to me, especially when going on an express way).

That does annoy me about taxis too! Also I was amazed that stepsons recent Nissan Navara pickup (bought in the government tax back initiative) doesn't have any rear seatbelts. I won't let my wife ride in the back due to the risk as she takes blood thinning medication.

Andrew

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, jacko45k said:

There isn't any seat belt for the bench seat at rear of my truck cab! And what about people traveling in the pickup bed?

That's because you're not supposed to have passengers there!

[KannikaP]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Those vehicles are not supposed to carry passengers in the back section, that's why there's no belts.

So what is that area designated for please? (I know you don't make the rules up 555)

[KannikaP]

1 minute ago, RetroGTAndrew said:

I won't let my wife ride in the back due to the risk as she takes blood thinning medication.

My wife takes paracetomol for period pains, and I wouldn't let even her ride in the back without a seatbelt (or a Tampax 555)

[JimmyJ]

20 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

What about the thousands of taxis that have unuseable rear seat belts?

 

I never close the door until I am buckled into my backseat.

 

So far this year every Bolt car I've called has had a working seat belt in back.

Once or perhaps twice 1 of the belts didn't work but I would use the next belt which always did work.

 

In Vietnam though (where I would estimate about 95% of motorcycle riders wear helmets) I had many cars come without a working seatbelt, and the driver well aware of that.

In each case I would get out, call for another, and give them a 1 star review with an explanation.

This would get me a phone call the next day from Be/Grab apologizing and telling me they will be dealing with the driver to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Edited August 10, 2022 by JimmyJ

[KannikaP]

3 minutes ago, RetroGTAndrew said:

That does annoy me about taxis too! Also I was amazed that stepsons recent Nissan Navara pickup (bought in the government tax back initiative) doesn't have any rear seatbelts. I won't let my wife ride in the back due to the risk as she takes blood thinning medication.

Andrew

What's this Taxback Initiative please? I got it back 10 years ago from Jingluck.

[JayClay]

1 hour ago, BKKTRAVELER said:

That's crazy thinking to me. Wearing a seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a motorbike is only to protect your life

Not really. Wearing a seatbelt in a car can also save the life of the person sitting in front of you. So it's not even just a "personal responsibility" thing.

 

It annoys me every time I get into a taxi and start to belt up only to have the taxi driver say "no need. no need".

[Liverpool Lou]

28 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

What about the thousands of taxis that have unuseable rear seat belts?

Wait for one of the many more thousands of taxis that does have useable rear belts!   Unless you're getting into a older, manky taxi (and that is your choice) the chance of there not being functional seat belts is remote.  Why would the taxi cooperatives that are responsible for most of Bangkok's taxis try to rent out cars that are going to attract police attention and fines?   

 

"Unuseable belts in taxis" is a bit like the "buses belching black smoke" myth (most have been NGV-fuelled for years) that some Thaivisa posters love to trot it out but it's rarely the case in reality.

[Liverpool Lou]

23 minutes ago, KannikaP said:

24 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Those vehicles are not supposed to carry passengers in the back section, that's why there's no belts.

So what is that area designated for please? (I know you don't make the rules up 555)

Cargo, I suppose.  If it was meant for rear passengers they'd have to be supplied with belts as standard, as cars are.

[richard_smith237]

 

1 hour ago, BKKTRAVELER said:

That's crazy thinking to me. Wearing a seatbelt in a car or a helmet on a motorbike is only to protect your life

Thats not true...  there is a knock on impact to others when not wearing helmets and seatbelts in situations where had a seatbelt or helmet been worn serious injury and / or death could have readily been avoided. 

 

And think about persons head smashing into yours because they weren’t restrained in an accident.

(same goes for items in the boot (trunk) and is why we always have the luggage cover pulled across). 

 

 

But... Imagine you are in a fender bender... an accident, a 50:50 fault incident...  the other party was not wearing seatbelt and smaked their head hard enough to cause injury or death when normally, if wearing a seatbelt that would be sufficient to protect them.....    there is a knock on effect to all parties, including the other driver.