42 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Perhaps the problem isn't balcony heights in LOS, but the drunken yobs that have no common sense.

If they banned those that are likely to get drunk and fall off buildings from entry, it would make for a better experience in LOS, IMO.

like most of your posts - just rubbish - you have no idea of the basics of health and safety.

So you are saying in countries where people don't fall off balconies so often there are less "drunken yobs"?

In fact these "drunken yobs" come from other countries too.

I'm sure the relatives of these people will be greatly relived to know that you classify them as "drunken yobs"

"An estimated 86,500 (95% confidence interval [CI], 68,400-104,600) balcony fall-related injuries were treated in US hospital EDs from 1990 through 2006"

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

"An estimated 86,500 (95% confidence interval [CI], 68,400-104,600) balcony fall-related injuries were treated in US hospital EDs from 1990 through 2006"

So what do you conclude from that?

37 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So what do you conclude from that?

Railings in the US are too high

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

So what do you conclude from that?

College students, alcohol & balconies are not a good mix.

18 minutes ago, KhunLA said:

College students, alcohol & balconies are not a good mix.

So all the people who fall from balconies in Thailand are college students? If you could predict that then it would be simple to put in place measures to prevent it.

44 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Railings in the US are too high

Too high for what?

A profoundly illogical conclusion - which sums up a lot of posting on this thread.

You don't even mention railing height.

5 minutes ago, kwilco said:

So all the people who fall from balconies in Thailand are college students? If you could predict that then it would be simple to put in place measures to prevent it.

As you know, I was replying to your comment, about a comment about the US, not TH ... but hey, whatever fits your spin.

 

We're not suppose to victim blame, but I've yet to see a balcony push anyone off.

10 hours ago, kwilco said:

Most of those who fall are older people.

I think you are not up to speed on any aspect of this topic 

Umm the topic at hand is about a young person. And that is what I was talking about. And why I prefixed my comment with "young".

 

You are talking nonsense. The largest demographic of accidental falls is young ppl. Then there's the group of 30-50+ and in that group, suicide and murder is always suspected more than it is for the young ppl. 

4 hours ago, kwilco said:

Too high for what?

A profoundly illogical conclusion - which sums up a lot of posting on this thread.

You don't even mention railing height.

He was being sarcastic. 

1 hour ago, Harsh Jones said:

Umm the topic at hand is about a young person. And that is what I was talking about. And why I prefixed my comment with "young".

 

You are talking nonsense. The largest demographic of accidental falls is young ppl. Then there's the group of 30-50+ and in that group, suicide and murder is always suspected more than it is for the young ppl. 

You appear to have absolutely np knowledge of this topic and I was talking about safety measures for balconies - which you replied to with a nonsensical reply.

1 hour ago, Harsh Jones said:

He was being sarcastic. 

so was I...

7 hours ago, kwilco said:

So what do you conclude from that?

All American are drunks?

8 minutes ago, still kicking said:

All American are drunks?

so you think only drunks fall from balconies - why would that be?

On 7/5/2023 at 5:59 PM, anchadian said:

Did he digest the policy conditions of his travel insurance?  I doubt it.

Hope he recovers well enough to travel to the UK.

if a travel insurance excludes cover for this kind of accident, then it shouldn't be allowed to be sold.

On 7/6/2023 at 7:13 AM, youngster30uk said:

Many policies have excluded falls from balconies for some years already

Insurance companies crack down on holidaymakers claiming for balcony fall injuries
 

Aviva underwriter Kate Niven said: ‘The requirement that you take all reasonable precautions to protect yourself and prevent accidents is already present in all travel policies.

To clarify further . . . we will be excluding claims for balcony falls.’

 

proof again that "travel insurances" are in dire need of government regulation

This is about 90cm, as comes up to my hip, which I measured awhile back, to see where 90cm did come up to.  My upper body, most of my mass hanging over ... and yet, I didn't fall.

 

Be funny as all hell if I did though ... ????

 

Conclusion ... know your balcony, but don't turn your back on it, it may push you off.

 

6 hours ago, tgw said:

proof again that "travel insurances" are in dire need of government regulation

Can you think of any situation where a person ends up falling off a balcony while taking all reasonable precautions to protect oneself ? The only one I can think of is if a criminal breaks and enters into your house and throws you over it. 

 

Quote

The requirement that you take all reasonable precautions to protect yourself 

 

9 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

Can you think of any situation where a person ends up falling off a balcony while taking all reasonable precautions to protect oneself ? The only one I can think of is if a criminal breaks and enters into your house and throws you over it.

if you stay within the insurance company's box of thought, you will argue insurances shouldn't pay for any damages caused by "unreasonable" behaviour.

yet, 95% of accidents happen because of unreasonable behaviour.

 

sometimes I stumble because I put my foot on a hole in the pavement my peripheral vision didn't pick up. Clearly it's unreasonable to not double-check pavement when there could be holes.

 

with that kind of reasoning, it's a blank check to insurance companies to refuse coverage.

 

also, it cannot be expected from every traveler to read the fine print of insurance policies, because I'd argue only about 70%-80% of travelers can read, and only 40-50% can understand what's written.

 

therefore, I think governments should regulate, in cooperation with the insurance industry, the creation of one or several "standard travel insurance" policies, where subscribers would know exactly what to expect from in terms of coverage.

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

Too high for what?

Safety

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

A profoundly illogical conclusion - which sums up a lot of posting on this thread.

Primarily yours

13 hours ago, kwilco said:

You don't even mention railing height.

I said: Railings in the US are too high

Your response: "You don't even mention railing height."

 

I think you have comprehension issues. 

12 hours ago, tgw said:

if you stay within the insurance company's box of thought, you will argue insurances shouldn't pay for any damages caused by "unreasonable" behaviour.

yet, 95% of accidents happen because of unreasonable behaviour.

 

sometimes I stumble because I put my foot on a hole in the pavement my peripheral vision didn't pick up. Clearly it's unreasonable to not double-check pavement when there could be holes.

 

with that kind of reasoning, it's a blank check to insurance companies to refuse coverage.

 

also, it cannot be expected from every traveler to read the fine print of insurance policies, because I'd argue only about 70%-80% of travelers can read, and only 40-50% can understand what's written.

 

therefore, I think governments should regulate, in cooperation with the insurance industry, the creation of one or several "standard travel insurance" policies, where subscribers would know exactly what to expect from in terms of coverage.

You cant compare being a piss drunk 20 year old on a bender of a trip falling off a balcony to walking down the sidewalk and dropping your leg into a hole that shouldn't be there and rolling your ancle. 

 

You already can get insurance for everything. The premium is just higher. But ppl just get the basic coverage and think they are good to go. 

17 minutes ago, Harsh Jones said:

You already can get insurance for everything. The premium is just higher. But ppl just get the basic coverage and think they are good to go. 

and that is exactly the problem which should be solved by a government-regulated travel insurance.

10 hours ago, tgw said:

and that is exactly the problem which should be solved by a government-regulated travel insurance.

You think making it more expensive for people that are not reckless to subsidize those that are reckless is a good solution? 

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

You think making it more expensive for people that are not reckless to subsidize those that are reckless is a good solution? 

I didn't say it would be a compulsory insurance. Just standardized policy coverage, so that every one knows what to be expected.

32 minutes ago, tgw said:

I didn't say it would be a compulsory insurance. Just standardized policy coverage, so that every one knows what to be expected.

Which would make it more expensive for people that are not reckless to subsidize those that are reckless, correct? 

 

If the government mandates travel insurance covers people getting drunk and climbing on balconies and whatnot, the people that do not get drunk and climb on balconies will have to pay for those that do. 

 

 

24 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Which would make it more expensive for people that are not reckless to subsidize those that are reckless, correct? 

 

If the government mandates travel insurance covers people getting drunk and climbing on balconies and whatnot, the people that do not get drunk and climb on balconies will have to pay for those that do.

that's the principle of insurance.

 

but your criticism is pointless, because a government-regulated travel insurance would not remove other insurance policies nor  would it make taking one out for travel compulsory.

 

so if you don't like that package, then you can just ignore it.

 

others might want to take such a package, for example to be covered if they are drunk in a vehicle as a passenger (yes, that exclusion exists in some policies!), or if they are a passenger on a motorcycle without holding a MC license themselves.
the list of ridiculous exclusions goes on and on.

 

I, for one, would be glad to see on the booking page of airplane tickets an option "subscribe to standard travel insurance", maybe with options "include motorcyles as passenger" and/or "include motorcycles as driver", and maybe a handful of other options.

 

that's what I would choose for my children/dependents.

 

On 7/21/2023 at 2:11 AM, tgw said:

proof again that "travel insurances" are in dire need of government regulation

Proof that the young uns shouldn't leave home without their nana more like.

On 7/20/2023 at 1:43 PM, thaibeachlovers said:

They use architects in Thailand? Looking at the standard of some buildings it looks more like Somechai's 5 year old nephew designed them.

 

Seriously, I'm sure the billion baht projects use qualified professionals, but for less prestigious constructions perhaps not so.

If there was a serious earthquake in Pattaya, I'm sure that not many buildings would still be standing after.

The fact that Pattaya is far removed from any earthquake zones means that buildings don't need to be built to the same standard as (say) Japan.

 

2 out of 10

Must try harder

On 7/20/2023 at 7:19 PM, kwilco said:

like most of your posts - just rubbish - you have no idea of the basics of health and safety.

So you are saying in countries where people don't fall off balconies so often there are less "drunken yobs"?

In fact these "drunken yobs" come from other countries too.

I'm sure the relatives of these people will be greatly relived to know that you classify them as "drunken yobs"

I just noticed your insulting post that quoted me ie you are insulting me personally.

Take note of forum rules, or did you not bother reading them?

 

you have no idea of the basics of health and safety.

Given my experience of working in dangerous occupations and areas that is an ignorant comment, and you are being fatuous.

If I actually had no idea of health and safety I would likely have died long ago.

 

Frankly, I don't know how anyone that isn't cognitively impaired in some way ( alcohol or drugs etc ) could fall off a balcony that has something resembling a railing.

4 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Frankly, I don't know how anyone that isn't cognitively impaired in some way ( alcohol or drugs etc ) could fall off a balcony that has something resembling a railing.

I always assume they are pushed, and it's easier for the police to say they fell.

Any foreigners that survive the fall are probably too embarrassed to admit to ladyboys in their room.

 

Lets face it, no authorities in Thailand really care why foreigners die or are injured while here.