Australian Woman Runs Over and Kills Street Painter in Pattaya

[NextG]

3 hours ago, JensenZ said:

Accidents don't have to be one or the other party's full responsibility. In this case, they had a shared responsibility. She is not 100% to blame here, but probably over 50%.

 

It looks like the painter was in her blind spot covered by her left window pillar.

If you write the worker was in her blind spot, then how did you get to the over 50% figure? Just off the top of your head eh?

Another one who has not step foot near the place. 
Even if we ignore the sharp left turn with blind spots as you mentioned. What about the gate being opened to gain her entrance? What about the worker’s colleague? 
I won’t even mention if the victim made mistakes, but the point is you seem to think that all of those things add up to less than 50% of the blame. Three people possibly making mistakes on one side and one person on the other. How does the one person, who by your own admission could not see because of a likely blind spot and possibly exacerbated by the position of the worker, translate to more than 50%?

It’s tragic because everyone involved failed in some way. If even one of them spotted the issue, disaster could have been averted. 

 

 

 

[Rimmer]

A baiting post has been removed

[steven100]

yes ...   she obviously cannot see so good,  she ran over the painter and then parked her car.  The look-out boywent to the toilet.

Everything here is bab,  the driver is blind, the lookout boy is a dickhea_,   it all stinks .......  charge them both with manslaughter ..

 

[JensenZ]

On 1/14/2023 at 10:07 PM, NextG said:

If you write the worker was in her blind spot, then how did you get to the over 50% figure? Just off the top of your head eh?

Another one who has not step foot near the place. 
Even if we ignore the sharp left turn with blind spots as you mentioned. What about the gate being opened to gain her entrance? What about the worker’s colleague? 
I won’t even mention if the victim made mistakes, but the point is you seem to think that all of those things add up to less than 50% of the blame. Three people possibly making mistakes on one side and one person on the other. How does the one person, who by your own admission could not see because of a likely blind spot and possibly exacerbated by the position of the worker, translate to more than 50%?

It’s tragic because everyone involved failed in some way. If even one of them spotted the issue, disaster could have been averted. 
 

The assessment was PROBABLY over 50%, which quite clearly indicates it's open to debate. A precise number was never given, nor intended. What number would you pull out of the top of your head?

 

My reasoning for "probably over 50%" was that the woman was never in danger of harm and as the driver of a potentially dangerous vehicle, bares more responsibility.  

 

I'm not a a lawyer. The exact numbers would need to be argued in court by people who were there and were aware of all the factors involved in the accident.

[Patong2021]

It was very easy to have run over this man and it is unfortunate those blaming the woman  have not watched the video closely. If they did they would see;

1. Angle of turn with the painter very low to the ground made it difficult to see the person, especially if driver was focused on where one might expect to see pedestrians, on the side of the vehicle.

2.  Vehicle tires did not drive over the man. Instead he was hit midpoint by  full weight of front of vehicle and bent over. There was no thud or bump to feel since nothing was run over in usual sense.

3. Due to slowing and low speed of the vehicle, the impact would not necesarilly have been felt.

4. I don't think the  driver is any less clueless than many of the male foreign drivers who all assume their driving skills are tops, while everyone else is a poor driver.

[jacko45k]

6 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

I don't think the  driver is any less clueless than many of the male foreign drivers who all assume their driving skills are tops, while everyone else is a poor driver.

Why just foreign drivers? Why just males? 

[NextG]

10 hours ago, JensenZ said:

The assessment was PROBABLY over 50%, which quite clearly indicates it's open to debate. A precise number was never given, nor intended. What number would you pull out of the top of your head?

 

My reasoning for "probably over 50%" was that the woman was never in danger of harm and as the driver of a potentially dangerous vehicle, bares more responsibility.  

 

I'm not a a lawyer. The exact numbers would need to be argued in court by people who were there and were aware of all the factors involved in the accident.

 

Exact numbers? ????

Good that you’ve managed to calm down and write in a more respectful manner. 
As aforementioned, until you inspect the scene for yourself, it’s probably best not to make such assertions. 
It is like driving in a tight circle and obscured on the left by a hedge. 
Then of course there is the height of the car and the length of the bonnet. 
As a layperson, what percentage would you give to anyone who opened the gate for her?

Furthermore, would you work crouched down with your back to a barrier if you knew it could be activated behind you?

You don’t need to be a lawyer to be able to use your intelligence. 

 

 

[Cricky]

On 1/13/2023 at 9:09 AM, Cricky said:

On 1/12/2023 at 6:27 PM, snoop1130 said:

Mrs. Michelle Ann Eddy, seemed to be totally unaware of Mr. Prasit

How many soi dogs has she killed, they're always in the middle of the road asleep

Totally unaware. ????

[steevjee]

On 1/12/2023 at 11:28 PM, richard_smith237 said:

And a blind driver who clearly should never have been behind the wheel of a vehicle. 

Big statement given the lack of driving skill of any Thai driver

[Freddy42OZ]

On 1/14/2023 at 5:55 PM, retayl said:

I cannot believe the vitriol aimed at this woman on here.

If you look at the photo she swung round the corner and the poor man seems to be in her blind spot (right hand drive), he was virtually lying on the ground <deleted>! People on here are basically calling her a psychopath. The fact of her continuing to drive afterwards is somewhat academic - the damage had been done.

 

The vitriol is because she's white.  

[ukrules]

So what happened with this case?

[josephbloggs]

29 minutes ago, Freddy42OZ said:

 

The vitriol is because she's white.  

Yes, of course, poor persecuted white people.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she ran someone over in broad daylight, killing them, and without even noticing, nope, nothing to do with that - it's because she is white. 

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, josephbloggs said:

Yes, of course, poor persecuted white people.

It's got absolutely nothing to do with the fact that she ran someone over in broad daylight, killing them, and without even noticing, nope, nothing to do with that - it's because she is white. 

She is? Where does it state that?

[josephbloggs]

20 hours ago, jacko45k said:

She is? Where does it state that?

No idea, I was replying to Freddy's ridiculous claim that she is only facing vitriol because she is white. Why don't you ask him?

[NextG]

26 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

No idea, I was replying to Freddy's ridiculous claim that she is only facing vitriol because she is white. Why don't you ask him?

Is it any less ridiculous than your assertions? 

[ignore it]

These last posts are great.

Even better than a good flaming session, trolling or a sesquipedalian. 

Edited January 21, 2023 by ignore it

[josephbloggs]

1 hour ago, NextG said:

Is it any less ridiculous than your assertions? 

What are you talking about? I haven't made any assertions. I merely stated that she had someone over in broad daylight - killing them - without even noticing. That's not an assertion, that is just the fact of what happened.

 

Saying she is facing criticism just because she is white is an assertion, a ridiculous one.

So again, what are you talking about?

[NextG]

8 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

What are you talking about? I haven't made any assertions. I merely stated that she had someone over in broad daylight - killing them - without even noticing. That's not an assertion, that is just the fact of what happened.

 

Saying she is facing criticism just because she is white is an assertion, a ridiculous one.

So again, what are you talking about?

You use the term “in broad daylight” as if all was clear to see. It’s disingenuous. 
Survey the scene for yourself or hold your tongue. 

[richard_smith237]

14 minutes ago, NextG said:

You use the term “in broad daylight” as if all was clear to see.

It was clear to see... Conditions couldn’t have been any clearer !!! 

 

14 minutes ago, NextG said:

It’s disingenuous. 
Survey the scene for yourself or hold your tongue. 

The very clear video is not enough for you ????

 

It was 2:50pm... (link below which has already been posted numerous times throughout the thread).

 

Broad Daylight....  Ample natural light.

IF you don’t think the light was either ample or natural then you may need medical optical assistance.

IF you don’t think the line of sight to the painter was clear, then you really should not be driving, just as this woman should never have been permitted behind the wheel if she couldn’t clearly see or failed to maintain adequate attention to the road. 

 

https://thepattayanews.com/2023/01/12/australian-woman-runs-over-and-kills-street-painter-in-pattaya/

Edited January 21, 2023 by richard_smith237

[josephbloggs]

21 minutes ago, NextG said:

You use the term “in broad daylight” as if all was clear to see. It’s disingenuous. 
Survey the scene for yourself or hold your tongue. 

Erm......it was broad daylight. Not sure what you are going on about to be honest.

 

Why should I survey the scene? Would that tell me what time of day she ran someone over? (It was mid afternoon which is generally referred to as "broad daylight").

Are you just another defender of her because she is from a Western country? Would you deny the same clear facts if a Thai had run over and killed a Westerner? I wonder, hmmm.....

No one is saying she did it on purpose, of course not. But the facts are facts, and the video is clear that she should have seen him. And how distracted must she have been to have not even noticed she had run over a human? The mind boggles. (But if boggles more at the defenders of her, it's unbelievable)

Edited January 21, 2023 by josephbloggs

[NextG]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

It was clear to see... Conditions couldn’t have been any clearer !!! 

 

The very clear video is not enough for you ????

 

It was 2:50pm... (link below which has already been posted numerous times throughout the thread).

 

Broad Daylight....  Ample natural light.

IF you don’t think the light was either ample or natural then you may need medical optical assistance.

IF you don’t think the line of sight to the painter was clear, then you really should not be driving, just as this woman should never have been permitted behind the wheel if she couldn’t clearly see or failed to maintain adequate attention to the road. 

 

https://thepattayanews.com/2023/01/12/australian-woman-runs-over-and-kills-street-painter-in-pattaya/

I’ve seen the video and I have actually surveyed the scene. 
When you eventually get to Thailand, take a trip to the scene for yourself. Then perhaps you’ll stop your baiting. 

[NextG]

4 minutes ago, josephbloggs said:

Erm......it was broad daylight. Not sure what you are going on about to be honest.

 

Why should I survey the scene? Would that tell me what time of day she ran someone over? (It was mid afternoon which is generally referred to as "broad daylight").

Are you just another defender of her because she is from a Western country? Would you deny the same clear facts if a Thai had run over and killed a Westerner? I wonder, hmmm.....

No one is saying she did it on purpose, of course not. But the facts are facts.

The difference between myself and the apparent KWs here, is that I have surveyed the scene for myself. So I have a better idea of the actual perspective of a driver. 
It’s not like you imagine. You are seeing it from a different angle. It’s a sharper than 90 degree turn and you can see nothing but a hedge when you begin to turn. 
But of course you would not know any of that…. because you have no idea in reality. 

[josephbloggs]

2 minutes ago, NextG said:

The difference between myself and the apparent KWs here, is that I have surveyed the scene for myself. So I have a better idea of the actual perspective of a driver. 
It’s not like you imagine. You are seeing it from a different angle. It’s a sharper than 90 degree turn and you can see nothing but a hedge when you begin to turn. 
But of course you would not know any of that…. because you have no idea in reality. 

Well done Inspector Clouseau, I bow down to you and your scene inspecting skills. She is not to blame, it was the hedge. And people have been getting mown down there for years, they really should have done something about the hedge.

So, tell me Inspector, if she was driving so conscientiously, why did she not even know she had run someone over and killed them? She was oblivious. Can you go and inspect the scene again for us and try running someone over and tell us that you don't feel a thing and nobody would have realised or hit the brakes when they felt an impact.

[josephbloggs]

8 minutes ago, NextG said:

The difference between myself and the apparent KWs here, is that I have surveyed the scene for myself. So I have a better idea of the actual perspective of a driver. 
It’s not like you imagine. You are seeing it from a different angle. It’s a sharper than 90 degree turn and you can see nothing but a hedge when you begin to turn. 
But of course you would not know any of that…. because you have no idea in reality. 

Well done Inspector Clouseau, I bow down to you and your scene inspecting skills. She is not to blame, it was the hedge. And people have been getting mown down there for years, they really should have done something about the hedge.

So, tell me Inspector, if she was driving so conscientiously, why did she not even know she had run someone over and killed them? She was oblivious. Can you go and inspect the scene again for us and try running someone over and tell us that you don't feel a thing and that nobody would have realised or hit the brakes when they felt an impact.

Oh, and what is a "KW"?

Edited January 21, 2023 by josephbloggs

[NextG]

Just now, josephbloggs said:

Well done Inspector Clouseau, I bow down to you and your scene inspecting skills. She is not to blame, it was the hedge. And people have been getting mown down there for years, they really should have done something about the hedge.

So, tell me Inspector, if she was driving so conscientiously, why did she not even know she had run someone over and killed them? She was oblivious. Can you go and inspect the scene again for us and try running someone over and tell us that you don't feel a thing and that nobody would have realised or hit the brakes when they felt an impact.

May I suggest that you get on with your own life instead of wasting it by uselessly judging others?

[josephbloggs]

32 minutes ago, NextG said:

May I suggest that you get on with your own life instead of wasting it by uselessly judging others?

So you can't answer then, thought so.

[richard_smith237]

33 minutes ago, NextG said:

I’ve seen the video and I have actually surveyed the scene. 

You surveyed the scene ?????  was that in broad daylight ??? !!! 

Hilarious...  

 

 

33 minutes ago, NextG said:

When you eventually get to Thailand, take a trip to the scene for yourself. Then perhaps you’ll stop your baiting. 

‘When I get to Thailand ??’...  erm... a very odd comment with rather idiotic underhand implication that I may not be in Thailand thus watering the validity of comments....  That highlights the extent of your fundamentally flawed logic. 

Are you really daft enough to think that being in Thailand or not adds any validity to this thread ???

 

And, no, there is no baiting of you... Just debate and calling you out on some rather ‘out there’ conclusions and comments...  

I fail to see how you can’t recognise this woman is not 100% at fault... that you don’t think this was broad day light...   Your conclusions is are downright odd.

 

 

36 minutes ago, NextG said:

The difference between myself and the apparent KWs here, is that I have surveyed the scene for myself. So I have a better idea of the actual perspective of a driver. 
It’s not like you imagine. You are seeing it from a different angle. It’s a sharper than 90 degree turn and you can see nothing but a hedge when you begin to turn. 

That can be observed from the video... And as you point out the sharp turn has to be navigated slowly and the car almost come to a stop... So, why, when going so slowly the lady still did not stop ???

 

There was no visibility issue... Its clear from the video that this was ‘broad daylight’...  there was perfect line of sight... (photo below)

 

The lady didn’t stop because she wasn’t looking where she was going - its that simple. 

 

Then she fails to stop because she didn’t notice she’d hit someone ???... how is that even possible ?

 

She needs (needed) to be given blood tests.... there is no way someone drives this poorly without being loaded on something... i.e. Xanax... Did ’surveying the scene’ allow you to identify that ?

 

AND... IF after surveying the scene you still believe that this accident is something that is not wholly the womans fault, then for the safety of all other road users can you please stay away from driving any vehicle ever again for you are a danger to society. 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

The only excuses I can possibly see for this incident to occur the way it did... 

a) The woman driver was about 5ft tall, did not have her seat adjusted high enough and could hardly see over the steering wheel, thus her view forwards was blocked by the instrument display... 

 

 

But that still doesn’t explain why she didn't stop after driving ‘over someone’...  perhaps the wheels didn’t go over him and he was extremely slim, thus the it felt like going over a speed bump ??

 

b) She was off her nuts on something...  (Diazepam / Benzo’s )

[Leaver]

 

Sadly, justice is measured in baht here.

 

Farang + Thai + Painter = 1 million baht. 

[PJ71]

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Do you have a lot of first hand experience of taking benzodiazepine ?...   would you argue its impossible to have an incident such as this lady had and not know ?

 

 

 

YES

 

YES