Jump to content

New seat belt rules to apply from September


webfact
 Share

Recommended Posts

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 by KannikaP
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

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.

 

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...