British tourists to Thailand: Are you really covered? Travel insurance warning for medical emergencies

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, dirtybirty said:

I thought also req international driving permit. With is easily obtained in uk

Thats also commonly debated on this forum. 

 

As I understand it:

An IDP is not actually a necessity as outlined in the Motor-vehicle act - 42-2 (bis)

(Two sources - worded slightly differently but essentially stating the same thing).=

 

http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Vehicle_Act_BE_2522_(1979).pdf

https://driving-in-thailand.com/motor-vehicle-act/

 

 

This summarises the point...  

 

https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/thailand/transport/driving-licences

 

 

CAVEAT:

There is still a lot of debate regarding the requirement for an IDP to accompany a UK driving licence.

As I understand it, there is a reciprocal treaty between the Thai government and the UK regarding mutual acceptance of the domestic driver licences - getting clear and concise information is difficult. 

 

I’d still recommend an IDP in Thailand regardless of what the law states until its a lot more clear, its better to air on the side of caution IMO. 

 

 

 

[chalawaan]

18 hours ago, ukrules said:

Sure, but they sell a huge amount of over the counter policies in the UK which are almost worthless - this is the problem.

 

The idiots going on holiday will buy the cheapest policy possible and think they're all good - they don't know any better.

 

And when they come a cropper, they don't have the funds to help them get any better. 

There's going to be another GoFundMe story before the week is out, guaranteed. 

[chalawaan]

35 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats also commonly debated on this forum. 

 

As I understand it:

An IDP is not actually a necessity as outlined in the Motor-vehicle act - 42-2 (bis)

(Two sources - worded slightly differently but essentially stating the same thing).=

 

http://web.krisdika.go.th/data/outsitedata/outsite21/file/Vehicle_Act_BE_2522_(1979).pdf

https://driving-in-thailand.com/motor-vehicle-act/

 

 

This summarises the point...  

 

https://www.angloinfo.com/how-to/thailand/transport/driving-licences

 

 

CAVEAT:

There is still a lot of debate regarding the requirement for an IDP to accompany a UK driving licence.

As I understand it, there is a reciprocal treaty between the Thai government and the UK regarding mutual acceptance of the domestic driver licences - getting clear and concise information is difficult. 

 

I’d still recommend an IDP in Thailand regardless of what the law states until its a lot more clear, its better to air on the side of caution IMO. 

 

 

 

That's only for the purposes of national licence exchange if one becomes expatriate, it's not like the EU agreement of mutual validity to legally drive beyond domestic borders. 

And it's "Err on the side of caution" not "Air". 

Edited April 10, 2023 by chalawaan

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

That's only for the purposes of national licence exchange if one becomes expatriate, it's not like the EU agreement of mutual validity to legally drive beyond domestic borders. 

Possibly - I’ve never considered that aspect and could have misunderstood what I read. 

That said, an IDP is not needed for Thai’s in driving in the UK (under what I believed to be reciprocal agreement - but that could simply be the UK allowing any driver of any nation a 12 month window). 

 

 

Bringing this back in line with the thread - If a British tourist is driving in Thailand only on his British driving licence and he is injured while driving could his travel insurance refuse a pay out ?

 

(this is why I’d always err on the side of caution and recommend that a tourist obtains and IDP).

 

22 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

And it's "Err on the side of caution" not "Air". 

Yup... was too late to change after I noticed that stuff up !...  (*I touch type as quickly as I speak and often look back on what I’ve typed and see the most ridiculous of typos... )

[chang1]

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

In previous post you admitted that you ride small capacity rental bikes but now you change to 600cc sports bikes but ok I'll answer your question.      

     Would I buy a large engined sports bike with a drum brake on the front,?  well actually yes  I did a couple of years ago It was a 1957 Norton dominator 99 which I restored.

           Would I buy a modern sports bike with a drum on the front, well no and the reason being  that it would be very difficult to actually source one as far I am aware there are none currently in production. 

            My question for you is , have you ever ridden a classic sports bike with a large twin leading shoe front brake ? If yes, what was it like ? If no, then no further comment is required,

             Now ask your self,  how come  Geoff Duke managed to Lap the TT course in 1955 at 99.97 mph  and Bob Mcintyre managed to achieve a lap speed of 100mph 2 years later both, on bikes fitted with drum brakes, front and rear, whilst you are reluctant to consider a trip to the 7=11 or the beach on a similarly equipped  Honda wave

             And as for riding 3 up, not only is it "not the safest" as you say, but it is also Illegal and guaranteed to void your insurance which is what this thread  was all about 

              Are you aware that statistically you are more likely to be involved in an accident  within 5 minutes of home and the best brakes in the world won't help you if you get "tail ended" or "t boned" 

              But what would I know eh ? 

The reason I asked about a sports bike is because it makes you think about how many now use drum brakes. Not only do disc brakes reduce the unsprung weight, they need far less effort to give the same braking force. Your Norton was designed for totally different tyres to what are available today. I have not ridden a powerful bike with drum brakes and would be rather careful if I did.

TT bikes are not normal production bikes so hardly a fair comparison to abused and poorly maintained rental bikes. They are nowhere near similarly equipped but let's go with it. When was the last time the TT was won by a bike with drum brakes? I tried searching but didn't get far.

Riding 3 up - fair comments, no argument there.

Statistically we spend most of our time within 5 minutes of our home so hardly surprising that is where we will get into trouble more often. It is due to a false sense of security on familiar roads. I am not at home so I am very alert and careful.

I am talking about things you can do to reduce your chances of getting into trouble not eliminating all risks completely.

 

[kwilco]

3 hours ago, chang1 said:

Not in this case. Sports bikes are optimised for speed, handling and very importantly, stopping ability. Even if disc brakes were 4 times as expensive they would still use them.

When I was 16 I started on a moped. It was a Honda SS50 and probably the only moped, at the time, fitted with a disc brake on the front. My mates all had Fizzies (Yamaha FS1E) all with drum brakes. I could outbreak all of them even though it was cable operated. Modern hydraulic disc brakes are far more efficient than cable operated drum brakes. Drum brakes are fine for rear brakes as they don't need to do much work.

You're not an engineer are you?

[chang1]

2 hours ago, Bday Prang said:

Considering you like to ride 3 up with your wife and child  you would be better advised to settle for a bike with working brakes rather than continuing your obsession with dsc brakes, Which as an "engineer" I'm sure you must be aware can also be subject to problems if not correctly maintained. 

That was over 20 years ago, long before I was married.

As I said in another post disc brakes tend to work or not. Apart from air in the hydraulics making them spongey. Drum brakes are more finicky.

I am not obsessed at all and these days drum brakes are almost obsolete anyway.

[chang1]

3 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You're not an engineer are you?

Yes I  am. Refrigeration now and previously a marine engineer.

[richard_smith237]

35 minutes ago, chalawaan said:

And when they come a cropper, they don't have the funds to help them get any better. 

There's going to be another GoFundMe story before the week is out, guaranteed. 

No doubt......   an excellent system is getting played by those who fail to plan ahead which dilutes the cause of the genuinely needy. 

 

That said - insurance companies are cagey foxes and will apply any wiggle room where possible (first hand experience of both getting refused a claim and attempting to get clear facts from them while shopping for cover). 

 

 

I think Thailand did have a reasonable idea with the ‘entry fee’ idea.... i.e. every ‘Tourist’ pays an entry fee which covers any ‘emergency treatment costs’...  

 

BUT...  handing over cash is going to lead to outrageous graft, and, how would this be monitored ?

Every foreign entry, or would we simply have to show our certificate of cover and be excluded from this payment ?

 

Extra queues created at Airports already plagued with complaints about slow immigration lines. 

 

 

The other alternative of course is ’subsided insurance’....  

Thailand currently brings in approximately $36 Billion from medical tourism.

Thailand Tourism revenue is approximately $883 Billion

 

The medical cost burden from unpaid tourist bills is $300 million

 

The medical cost burden of tourist in Thailand is 0.83% of the profit brought in by medical tourism.

The medical cost burden of tourist in Thailand is 0.034% of the profit brought in by tourism.

 

I agree that people should pay for their medical care and have insurance - but the above figures does make one wonder why Thailand seems to public care so much more about this burden than it does the welfare of the tourists themselves when in aggregate they (tourists) contribute so much more to the economy. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Dave0206]

18 hours ago, harleyclarkey said:

What we see here is mostly scooter/motorcycle accidents. A recent go fund me for £200,000 - really??? ????

Stupid to rent a bike anywhere in the world without at least a helmet. 

Stupid of any country to allow bikes to be rented without providing a helmet.

Stupid of any police force not to fine idiots with no helmet. 

I have to confess I have not read all the posts so I may be repeating someone's post.

When it's mentioned police not giving fines to idiots with no licence or helmet worse in my opinion is after getting your fine now you can carry on still no helmet but in your possession the paper showing you paid ( maybe)

So like a lucky amulet not fined again today.

In fairness I think you need to tape the paper to your head for maximum protection 

[richard_smith237]

18 minutes ago, chang1 said:

Now ask your self,  how come  Geoff Duke managed to Lap the TT course in 1955 at 99.97 mph  and Bob Mcintyre managed to achieve a lap speed of 100mph 2 years later both, on bikes fitted with drum brakes, front and rear, whilst you are reluctant to consider a trip to the 7=11 or the beach on a similarly equipped  Honda wave

           

              But what would I know eh ? 

Clearly not enough about the difference between racing pro’s riding a TT course and a tourist riding a sand-strewn road.... If drum brakes were so good, why did they change them ?

 

...Moot points when concerning brakes - I won’t get on a machine without ABS because I don't have to. 

I won’t get on bike without a licence or proper helmet (Bell / Shoei etc)....  

 

For the same reasons... my son has never been in a car without a car seat (a couple of rare inner city taxi rides and he’ll never be on the back of my motorcycle) - not for insurance purposes, my standards are higher than most of the insurance stipulations.

 

BUT... even with all that in mind, the discussion around helmets, brakes, licenses, safety awareness etc I still find the insurance companies to be deliberately vague and misleading....  

 

You come on holiday - pay an insurance premium and get proper treatment for anything that happens...  no one deliberately gets themselves knocked off a motorcycle, helmet or otherwise....

 

... this debate about the ‘grey area’ seems like we’ve all lost our humanity... 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, Dave0206 said:

I have to confess I have not read all the posts so I may be repeating someone's post.

When it's mentioned police not giving fines to idiots with no licence or helmet worse in my opinion is after getting your fine now you can carry on still no helmet but in your possession the paper showing you paid ( maybe)

So like a lucky amulet not fined again today.

In fairness I think you need to tape the paper to your head for maximum protection 

This is part of the issue.....  the lack of proper enforcement enables a lot of the issues. 

... idiots can just ‘pay their fine for no helmet or driving drunk and continue on their way and joke about it’..... 

... Authorities are not accountable for this ‘enabling’ ???? 

 

There are also other facets of the 1968 Vienna convention on road traffic...

Quote

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Road_Traffic_(2022)

 

Chapter 1: Article 3.2: Contracting Parties will take the necessary measures to ensure that road safety education be provided on a systematic and continuous basis, particularly in schools at all levels.

 

 

Thus: IF someone is hurt on Thailands roads, with or without insurance, does Thailand have a responsibility to assist with medical care particularly because it has not met the terms of the contract (convention) in providing systematic and continuous road safety deception in schools at all levels. 

 

 

With all of Thailands criticism of tourists being a burden on their ’system’ - I have to argue... Right back at you Thailand....   some of this is also your fault and you to Thailand (Gov) should also be held accountable. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chang1]

15 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thailand (Gov) should also be held accountable. 

This is where much of the blame lies.

I agree with most of what you say here but I have had very positive interactions when making my two claims and felt both companies handled things very well. Even the first claim with the cheapest backpacker insurance I could find. Credit where credit is due.

[kwilco]

2 hours ago, chang1 said:

Yes I  am. Refrigeration now and previously a marine engineer.

no you are a mechanic and nothing to do with vehicle engineering - why is it that fitters call themselves mechanics and mechanics always try to say they are engineers.

[chang1]

7 minutes ago, kwilco said:

no you are a mechanic and nothing to do with vehicle engineering - why is it that fitters call themselves mechanics and mechanics always try to say they are engineers.

We are going off topic here but I have to respond.

You are clueless, do some research into what marine engineering involves. Vehicle repairs are nothing in comparison. I have worked on cars and bikes since I was a kid.

To give you an idea of the size of a ships engine, the turbo  chargers are larger than your Norton. Engines don't get much bigger. I can also work on everything in an engine room.

As for brakes - they are simple to understand and work on at least until you get to ABS pumps, not that anyone works on them as car mechanics only replace parts never repair them. I have never had to take a car or bike to a garage to be repaired. The only person who goes near my vehicles are the MOT testers. I have rebuilt engines and gearboxes including an automatic gearbox. I have done an electrical job on a car that had had an engine swap which the main dealer said was impossible to do. The dealer said I could have a job there when the lad showed them it running. I have my own diagnostic equipment and even fit my own tyres. I am also into electronics and have plenty of test gear for that.

Basically I am a jack of all trades but master of none except refrigeration which I have many years experience and within my company I get given all of the most complicated or larger equipment jobs which suits me as I like problem solving.

I could go on but I think you get the picture.

Maybe, calling me a refrigeration engineer is a bit over the top but that is my job title and not something I claimed to be. Nevertheless you cannot takeaway from me my training and experience as an engineer.

 

 

[Blumpie]

2 denied from bungee jumping.  Yeah, shows you the safety record of Thailand.  

Honestly, beware of everything that you do here.  It is not up to first world standards.  

[jacko45k]

17 hours ago, Confuscious said:

Driving at high speed, on a main road, with 1 or more girls on your lap, is NOT a way to holiday in a foreign country.

Being parked at the side of the road or at some traffic lights and being mowed into by a pick-up or 10 wheeler truck isn't either.

[MaiChai]

On 4/10/2023 at 4:43 AM, harleyclarkey said:

Start your insurance journey with;

The purpose of any insurance company is to decline your claim and maximise their profits. 

You have a chance to succeed if you really persist. I did....twice. 

 

Stupid, stupid declines over obviously genuine claims. I made a formal complaint to the UK Head Office and lo and behold....an immediate settlement,  an apology plus €200 extra.

 

 

 

Some facts rather than hearsay or theorising. I have little faith in insurance companies and prefer to self insure. 

[Bday Prang]

13 hours ago, chang1 said:

Not in this case. Sports bikes are optimised for speed, handling and very importantly, stopping ability. Even if disc brakes were 4 times as expensive they would still use them.

When I was 16 I started on a moped. It was a Honda SS50 and probably the only moped, at the time, fitted with a disc brake on the front. My mates all had Fizzies (Yamaha FS1E) all with drum brakes. I could outbreak all of them even though it was cable operated. Modern hydraulic disc brakes are far more efficient than cable operated drum brakes. Drum brakes are fine for rear brakes as they don't need to do much work.

            So You have now changed tack again  from 600cc sports bikes with a top speed of 130mph to 1970's 50cc mopeds with a power output of around 5 bhp and  with a top speed of 40mph or in the case of the honda SS50 35 mph for which drum brakes were perfectly adequate,  Jesus rim brakes as fitted to a push bike would have sufficed

            I must be a little older than you I also had an FS!E as did most of my friends, all of them fitted with drums front and rear. There was one guy who had an SS50 but he was invariably so far behind everybody else that his braking "performance" was never witnessed by the rest of us ! lol  

            Nobody ever had any problems or accidents due to poor brake performance. lol in those days we were more concerned in how "quickly" we could thrash our way around the block, often with one brake completely inoperative! you are the first person I have ever heard using the term "out braking" in relation to 50cc mopeds

             The disc brakes fitted to the later FS1E-Dx were nothing more than a cosmetic measure designed to appeal to 16 year old boy "racers" as indeed was the appearance of two bolt on brackets designed to mimic a duplex cradle frame. 

            In fact in those days the efficiency of disc brakes was more than a little concerning in wet weather as evidenced by a warning sticker, factory applied to the front forks of the suzuki GT750 I owned in 1979  https://www.isaydingdong.co.uk/ourshop/prod_6155002-Suzuki-GT750-550-380-250-etc-Series-Fork-Leg-Wet-Disc-Brake-Warning-Stickers-35mm-Pair.html  It wasn't until several years later when an improvement in brake pad material and the advent of drilled or slotted discs cured this problem

             Obviously disc brakes are more efficient, ( I have not suggested otherwise) and less susceptible to fade when working hard , But there is the question of proportion and context.

             The ability to "outbrake" others into the corners in  a racing situation is perhaps the main difference between winning and losing, but we are now talking about skilled professionals, extreme braking on motorcycles is not without extreme danger and is a skill in itself and difficult to master , locking the front wheel up is easily done without ABS ,  a recipe for disaster, and recovering from that situation is well beyond the capabilities of the average tourist on a rental Honda Wave 

             Your obsession with disc brakes is similar to my mrs' faith in the safety value of Buddhist amulets. and there's no convincing her either !

Its not for me to tell you what to ride , it is of course your decision, however I hope your obsession does not stop you looking a little deeper at what you choose to rent,  tyres are also important , ever had a loose chain jump the sprocket ? and please don't forget the rear light ! It really isn't all just about disc brakes

            

             

 

Edited April 11, 2023 by Bday Prang

[Liverpool Lou]

18 hours ago, Foghorn said:

22 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, that's your moral of your story but it is false.

So we can assume you sell insurance with all  defensive posts

You're assumption is wrong.  What you describe as defensive posts are, in fact, rational, accurate posts based on verifiable statistics and personal knowledge of the industry.

[Liverpool Lou]

19 hours ago, sqwakvfr said:

I would disagree.  I briefly worked for a major US Insurance company and went to their Claims Handling school just outside of Chicago and the unstated message was always:  Find a way to deny and if we have to pay “low ball them”.  This was never on paper but everyday these two things were drilled into our heads.  

An anonymous insurance company, an unstated message with nothing ever on paper. Great case.

[Liverpool Lou]

20 hours ago, kingstonkid said:

22 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

"...like Khao Toa".

You'd be safe there (wherever that is) although some people would say that you shouldn't do that in Koh Tao even though 99.9% of visitors never have a problem there, either.

Expand  

Thanks for the correction on the spelling and the dangers there.

I wasn't correcting your spelling.

[MaiChai]

As you get older the cover will reduce and the premiums will increase. It will get to the point where you play cat and mouse on what is or not covered and you will need to be a legal eagle to read the fine print and fight the legal battles to make your claim. If you are a long term traveller instead build up and maintain a fund for health care. Also refrain from dangerous activities and taking risks. With age comes experience.

[kwilco]

4 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Being parked at the side of the road or at some traffic lights and being mowed into by a pick-up or 10 wheeler truck isn't either.

Are you suggesting this is more commonplace than tourists ignoring road safety?

[Liverpool Lou]

21 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

22 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

It is the MO of all insurance companies to pay out all genuine claims that are covered by the policy. 

The financial liability of insurers' paying claims has little effect on them as insurance companies are covered by their own insurance for those liabilities which are massively outweighed by premium revenue.

Expand  

I couldn't disagree more adamantly, which seems to be the theme of our recent exchanges. There is so much evidence to the contrary.

The thing is, in 2023 there is not the evidence that you claim, a couple of anonymous AN posters making claims about their unconfirmable experiences with unnamed companies is not enough evidence to rationally dispute the actual figures that anyone can access.

The claims statistics for the insurance industry, in general, supports the fact that the majority of claims are settled in the policy holders' favour.

 

Re your link (that I don't think you read), something more up to date than 26-years old would bolster your argument...

"the company’s former CEO, Jerry Choate, admitted in 1997 that the company [Allstate] had reduced payments and increased profit".

Even the most recent reference, 2007, is 16 years ago and the insurance industry has changed a lot in the last 20-30 years with stronger regulations and regulating bodies.

[Liverpool Lou]

22 hours ago, Jumbo1968 said:

22 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

That is a completely false assertion, no insurers these days are permitted by their regulators to do that.

Obviously never looked the T&Cs recently then ?

I have, you probably haven't but, go ahead, post an example of a verifiable current policy "where the text is so small it’s barely readable".

Edited April 11, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[Liverpool Lou]

21 hours ago, Lacessit said:

Many insurance companies have a department with the specific task of vetting and rejecting claims on the slightest pretext.

Many?  All insurance companies have claims departments, the job of which is to assess claims' legitimacy and reject those that are claiming for circumstances that are not covered.   Why should any insurer pay out for anything that the policy holder was not covered for?

[Liverpool Lou]

20 hours ago, NoshowJones said:

insurance companies have their small print, it is small because they do not want you to notice it,

"it is small because they do not want you to notice it".

Stop it, they do not.  Literal small print is a myth these days...unless you can post a verifiable current example of such a thing.

Edited April 11, 2023 by Liverpool Lou

[Jumbo1968]

15 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I have, you probably haven't but, go ahead, post an example of a verifiable current policy "where the text is so small it’s barely readable".

The online versions are easy enough you can enlarge them, try printing them out, reams and reams of pages.

[Liverpool Lou]

18 hours ago, Etaoin Shrdlu said:

21 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

I couldn't disagree more adamantly, which seems to be the theme of our recent exchanges. There is so much evidence to the contrary. Though, I am sure the industry appreciates your faith in them. 

 

Even calling it "insurance" is a sick joke. Insurance implies a guarantee, and no matter what we pay, there are never any guarantees. I propose replacing the word "insurance" with the word "maybe?" -- including the question mark -- as in "health maybe?" Maybe they'll pay when we get sick. Maybe they won't randomly hike our monthly premium by 30 percent. Maybe they'll cover our preexisting conditions without gouging us -- that is if they agree to cover us at all. Maybe they won't let our family members die after refusing coverage.

 

Allstate is a great example of intentional insurance fraud, committed against policy holders. 

 

https://www.decof.com/documents/the-ten-worst-insurance-companies.pdf

 

 

Expand  

Good article. 

For the time, yes, but it's referencing 26-year old cases and even the most recent reference was 2007, that's a decade and a half ago, not 2023.