Brit in intensive care after Thailand moped crash as family can't afford to get him home

[geisha]

3 hours ago, John Drake said:

Yet another one. Terrible accident. No helmet. Skull fracture. No insurance. Giant hospital bills. Go Fund Me. 

He had insurance. No helmet. 

[John Drake]

1 minute ago, geisha said:

He had insurance. No helmet. 

No, he had no insurance because he had no helmet. He was uninsured for riding without a helmet. Same as if you jump off a building and die. You may have the best insurance policy in the world. But you will be uninsured for jumping off a building.

[Road Warrior]

3 hours ago, John Drake said:

Yet another one. Terrible accident. No helmet. Skull fracture. No insurance. Giant hospital bills. Go Fund Me. 

very sad indeed ,helmet /insurance !!!!!!!!

[twizzian]

2 hours ago, BangkokKnights said:

There is barely a scratch on him. 

Never trust the British. It could be a staged photo.

200,000 pounds.?

Get lost.

 

Never trust the British!  Utter rubbish!
When you crash a motorcycle, you will have other injuries. Road rashes, cuts and bruises or broken bones etc, some severe, some not so. 
The photo only shows his face

[3NUMBAS]

the t and cs always state what you are covered for but they dont read em, as skiers are always being turned down for injuries and bungee jumpers have no chance of getting cover... read the terms and conditions which is usually a small booklet

[jo1993]

3 hours ago, RickG16 said:

Surprised. Rarely see anyone ride around Bangkok without a helmet. Unless it was a quiet area.

A lot more helmets in bkk than elsewhere but no helmet is still common even on Sukhumvit 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, NorthernRyland said:

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Publicise what happened to him and hope that some people take note of the possible consequences and do not opt to join the idiots club.

Saying "idiots club" is going too far. Millions of people ride motorbike every day in Thailand. What happened to him could be a legit accident

Doesn't matter if it was a "legit accident" (whatever that is) or an non-legit accident, if he wasn't wearing a helmet he's still a member of the idiots club by definition.

[terryofcrete]

Are you all finished arguing yet ? 

[MarkyM3]

2 hours ago, Purdey said:

Going off at a tangent for a minute, this is what people can expect if the British government puts healthcare in the hands of insurance companies - refusals to pay. Yes, I understand that one should look at the small print but a lot of people don't bother, thinking the insurance will take care of them and not understanding that insurers will look for every way to deny paying out.

Why would the British government have anything to do with insuring its citizens overseas? No country does that afaik, the potential expense would be huge and encourage laissez-faire risk taking.

 

I feel really sorry for this guy and his family but you have to be insured and follow the rules. He's 24yo, not a kid.

 

To begin with, anyone hiring a motorbike in Thailand who doesn't have the UK license is asking for problems if they have an accident, thought most seem to ignore it. And even if they are licensed, if they are not wearing a helmet, as required by the policy conditions, then a payout will inevitably be refused. Insurance companies aren't benevolent funds.  

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by MarkyM3

[Darksidedude]

Feel sorry for the guy hope he gets well.

 

He wouldn't ride a motorbike without wearing a helmet where he comes from why wouldn't he wear one in Thailand, he has put so much grief on his family financially and emotionally.

[chuang]

Remembered reading sometimes back someone needed 250000 pounds, is it the same case.

Thailand should follow Bali example no rental of bikes to foreigners. Problem solved and don't know what kInd of #fundme will follow then...

[Eloquent pilgrim]

 

Very sad for the lad and very distressing for his family. However, once again we see insurance being invalidated by not wearing a crash helmet on a motorcycle / scooter.

 

Insurance company painted as the villains once again, but everyone knows about this by now, this is no longer a small print get out clause.

[John Drake]

11 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

I feel really sorry for this guy and his family but you have to be insured and follow the rules. He's 24yo, not a kid.

I begin to wonder about this. Twenty somethings and thirty somethings seem to generate most of these stories. I really do wonder if they are mature enough to travel unaccompanied to places such as Thailand. Especially coming from the West, are their survival and danger instincts still intact? They're of legal age, so you can't stop them. But parents, I think, should still give them a long talking to and perhaps dissuade the more foolhardy. 

Edited April 4, 2023 by John Drake

[Smokey and the Bandit]

2 hours ago, Mywayboy said:

Where is the proof of him wearing or not wearing the appropriate helmet.

Insurance Companies are the biggest legalised Scam on our planet.

They show no mercy.

It seems that the insurance company do not believe he was wearing a helmet?

"they believe he was not wearing a helmet at the time."

So they cannot prove or disprove he was? So it appears there was no accident report etc?

So yes they show no mercy? They are in business to make a profit like any business.

 

Edited April 4, 2023 by Smokey and the Bandit

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, BangkokKnights said:

There is barely a scratch on him. 

Never trust the British. It could be a staged photo.

200,000 pounds.?

Get lost.

Barely a scratch?  Apart from the fractured skull.

[Ralf001]

28 minutes ago, twizzian said:

Never trust the British!  Utter rubbish!
When you crash a motorcycle, you will have other injuries. Road rashes, cuts and bruises or broken bones etc, some severe, some not so. 
The photo only shows his face

There is pics of his head on other news sources.

Coupla scrapes and bruises on the face but the rest of the head is fine.

[Mr Dome]

3 hours ago, John Drake said:

Yet another one. Terrible accident. No helmet. Skull fracture. No insurance. Giant hospital bills. Go Fund Me. 

Do you guys even bother to read the posts or do you have a comment already prepared for each tragedy?

 

He did have insurance but there's a clause in it preventing the pay out for *repatriation* if the insured can be found to be partially at fault.

 

He may have worn one or he may not but none of us will answer that question with 100% confidence, so not going to go there.

[Ralf001]

6 minutes ago, John Drake said:

I begin to wonder about this. Twenty somethings and thirty somethings seem to generate most of these stories. I really do wonder if they are mature enough to travel unaccompanied to places such as Thailand. Especially coming from the West, are their survival and danger instincts still intact? They're of legal age, so you can't stop them. But parents, I think, should still give them a long talking to and perhaps dissuade the more foolhardy. 

Gen Z.... think they know better and have had a soft upbringing.

 

Bring back the old days when parents could smack their kids when they did wrong.

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, Mywayboy said:

Where is the proof of him wearing or not wearing the appropriate helmet.

Insurance Companies are the biggest legalised Scam on our planet.

They show no mercy.

"Insurance Companies are the biggest legalised Scam on our planet".

Really?...

https://www.unbiased.co.uk/news/financial-adviser/5-startling-facts-about-insurance-payouts#:~:text=So how much do insurers,policies were accepted last year.

 

"Travel insurers paid over £1,042 per claim in 2019/20 and the claims acceptance rate fell to 83%".

https://www.abi.org.uk/data/

[John Drake]

1 minute ago, Mr Dome said:

He did have insurance but there's a clause in it preventing the pay out for *repatriation* if the insured can be found to be partially at fault.

Which means he is uninsured for the accident that took place.

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, wensiensheng said:

The head injury is more than suggestive that a helmet wasn’t worn. Just as the insurance company concluded.

I would not ssy that.

 

It raises questions  of course  but is hardly probative. It is possible to sustain a skull fracture evn wearing a helmet if the force of impact is great enough.

 

If the insurance company's case rests solely on nature of his injuries they are on shaky ground IMO. 

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, Goat said:

I will donate $USD500 again

It's not on the donation list and you needed to tell everyone?

Edited April 4, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[Bangkok Barry]

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

You are making baseless assumptions - Thailand has dreadful hospitals and care is dependant on ability to pay. Ine of the most serious factors in RTIs is that Thailand has no proper emergency services, no trained first responders and no uniform, centralised ambulance services.

I assume you speak from personal experience, or that of others that you know, otherwise your comment has no validity. My own experience is that my local village government hospital cannot be faulted in any way, and costs are a fraction of what a private hospital will charge. I also happened to be there on one occasion when they did their annual drill of how they would handle a mass casualty situation, with 'victims' even dressed in 'bloodied' bandages. The village even has its own ambulance. If a small village can have decent treatment then I imagine a city will have even better facilities and more of them.

The problem is that such standards are not universal. Yes, Thailand does have some dreadful hospitals and doesn't have the infrastructure that the First World does (often at a very high cost). But it also has some very good ones where the costs are not overwhelming.
 

[John Drake]

8 minutes ago, Smokey and the Bandit said:

It seems that the insurance company do not believe he was wearing a helmet?

"they believe he was not wearing a helmet at the time."

So they cannot prove or disprove he was? So it appears there was no accident report etc?

So yes they show no mercy? They are in business to make a profit like any business.

 

Nobody seems to be putting any argument at all up that he was wearing a helmet. I would expect it to have been on or near his person had he had one. Doesn't seem the family is even arguing the point.

[mrfill]

26 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

the t and cs always state what you are covered for but they dont read em, as skiers are always being turned down for injuries and bungee jumpers have no chance of getting cover... read the terms and conditions which is usually a small booklet

Just had a look at an old policy and its not only winter sports that require an extra premium. The list is Golf cover (covering loss of equipment, hire of equipment and green fees), Business cover (covering business equipment, samples, money and replacing staff), Wedding cover (covering outfits, gifts, rings and photographer), Natural catastrophe cover (covering cancellation, being stranded, car parking, kennel fees and travel expenses to get home) and Cruise cover (covering missed port, cabin confinement and unused excursions).

[Liverpool Lou]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Re the insurance if there is no proof he was not wearing a helmet family should appeal to the Ombudsman.

His injuries sort of indicate that the chances of his wearing a properly fastened helmet are probably zero.

[mikeymike100]

5 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I would not ssy that.

 

It raises questions  of course  but is hardly probative. It is possible to sustain a skull fracture evn wearing a helmet if the force of impact is great enough.

 

If the insurance company's case rests solely on nature of his injuries they are on shaky ground IMO. 

Quite so, I recall Michael Schumacher, the racing driver who had an accident skiing, he was wearing a helmet and his head struck a rock, this was in 2013, he still has not recovered.

[John Drake]

5 minutes ago, mrfill said:

Just had a look at an old policy and its not only winter sports that require an extra premium. The list is Golf cover (covering loss of equipment, hire of equipment and green fees), Business cover (covering business equipment, samples, money and replacing staff), Wedding cover (covering outfits, gifts, rings and photographer), Natural catastrophe cover (covering cancellation, being stranded, car parking, kennel fees and travel expenses to get home) and Cruise cover (covering missed port, cabin confinement and unused excursions).

Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't you go to get travel insurance and say: "I'm going to Thailand. I will be 1) riding a scooter, 2) be publicly intoxicated, 3) eat street food of dubious origins, 3) ride in a variety of water going craft, 4) go hang gliding, etc. Now, please cover me or tell me if you can't.

[Ralf001]

1 minute ago, John Drake said:

Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't you go to get travel insurance and say: "I'm going to Thailand. I will be 1) riding a scooter, 2) be publicly intoxicated, 3) eat street food of dubious origins, 3) ride in a variety of water going craft, 4) go hang gliding, etc. Now, please cover me or tell me if you can't.

Well they probably will offer coverage for the right money.

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, phetpeter said:

Hmm! looking at the photo, not a serious facture, no surgey, head on pillow, slight grin on face.

Hmm?  Can you read?  That photo was taken a few weeks after the accident, according to the accompanying caption.