Swiss Expat Critically Injured in Scooter-Car Crash in Pattaya

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, balo said:

The first car stopped so he was maybe thinking he could carry on, like he was on autopilot, that was his big mistake. 

There are 2 cars he should focus on, he should have slowed down and waited for the white SUV to pass and then continue the ride. If the other cars behind slows down. 

 

It certainly was not defenicive riding from the motor-scooterist (swiss guy).

 

When approaching any similar junction in Thailand, regardless of road-markings we have to assume someone will ignore them and ride or drive defensively, which means slowing down and ensuring no one is blasting through - as many often do. 

 

Other posters are using local knowledge, but that is not a defence for breaking the law and not yielding when you should just because others haven't....  Others also drink drive, park illegally blocking traffic, in many area's riding the wrong way down a one way street becomes the norm because not doing so means taking a long way round.... that doesn't make it ok.

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

57 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

You really need to drive this road to understand the situation. 

 

The SUV was not speeding, she was driving the speed limit.

 

Most cars when travelling this road, are driving at the speed limit or faster because you are not expecting a projectile coming out of the side street. The side street has a level crossing, it's not easy to drive at the speed limit on the side street, it has train tracks, you would become airborne.

 

Question for you SAFETY FIRST - would you have driven across this junction in exactly the same manner that the White MU-X SUV did ???

 

 

 

 

 

 

[chickenslegs]

18 minutes ago, Excogitator said:

This may already have been said in this thread..

 

When driving in Thailand, vehicles yield to the right at intersections. This means that if you arrive at an intersection simultaneously with another vehicle, the one coming from your right has the right of way. 

 

This is a general rule, unless signs and markings tell you otherwise.

 

You can, however, and as we all know, not count on other drivers to actually follow this rule.

 

Sorry, the rule is give way to the vehicle on the left (except at a roundabout, when it is give way to the right).

 

Land Traffic Act 1979, Section 71.

 

Section 71 (500B)
[If, when entering a junction, there are other vehicles, the driver must let such vehicles go
through first.
If two vehicles enter a junction from different directions at the same time, the vehicle on
the left side has a right of way, except when there's a designation of "principle roadway" in
which case the vehicle on the principle roadway has a right of way.]

[SAFETY FIRST]

19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Question for you SAFETY FIRST - would you have driven across this junction in exactly the same manner that the White MU-X SUV did ???

Yes, 100 %, if you don't expect to get hit up the rear by the guy behind. 

 

All traffic flows on this road, never yields at the many intersections unless the flow has stopped due to traffic passing from left or right. 

 

Like I said, it's similar to driving Sukhumvit Road, you're not expecting a projectile to come out of a side street. 

 

Again, you really should drive this road to understand the intersection. 

 

 

Edited April 23 by SAFETY FIRST

[Excogitator]

22 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Sorry, the rule is give way to the vehicle on the left (except at a roundabout, when it is give way to the right).

 

Land Traffic Act 1979, Section 71.

 

Section 71 (500B)
[If, when entering a junction, there are other vehicles, the driver must let such vehicles go
through first.
If two vehicles enter a junction from different directions at the same time, the vehicle on
the left side has a right of way, except when there's a designation of "principle roadway" in
which case the vehicle on the principle roadway has a right of way.]

You are indeed right Sir, I stand corrected. Yield to the LEFT is the general rule.

 

(Seems to be a lot of confusion about this. I was even taught the wrong way here..)

[richard_smith237]

1 minute ago, Excogitator said:

27 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

Sorry, the rule is give way to the vehicle on the left (except at a roundabout, when it is give way to the right).

 

Land Traffic Act 1979, Section 71.

 

Section 71 (500B)
[If, when entering a junction, there are other vehicles, the driver must let such vehicles go
through first.
If two vehicles enter a junction from different directions at the same time, the vehicle on
the left side has a right of way, except when there's a designation of "principle roadway" in
which case the vehicle on the principle roadway has a right of way.]

You are indeed right Sir, I stand corrected. Yield to the LEFT is the general rule.

 

(Seems to be a lot of confusion about this. I was even taught the wrong way here..)

 

And of course at a traffic Island (roundabout) when people misunderstand and quote this law and state that those on the roundabout must yield to the vehicles entering from the left.

 

In the case of a traffic Island (roundabout) - the traffic Island (roundabout) becomes the principle roadway and 'entering traffic' must first yield to the traffic on that.

 

---------

 

In the case of this accident - there are 'stop markings' on the 'North-South' road (parallel to the railway line) which highlights the 'East-West' road is the designated principle road way.

 

 

What some are suggesting is that the 'markings don't matter' because people use the 'North-South' road (parallel to the railway line) as if it is the primary road and drive and speed along it accordingly, apparently also blasting through blind junctions.

 

 

I think the confusion, poor road design, complete ignorance of the road markings and ensuing debate is a perfect example of why Thailand suffers such a high accident and road fatality rate. 

 

Even when there are laws, there are posters on here suggesting they should be ignored because everyone else does !!! 

In some cases I don't disagree, as 'driving too differently' itself can cause issues, but blasting through blind junctions in a 2 tonne SUV is not one of those situations. 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

34 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Yes, 100 %, if you don't expect to get hit up the rear by the guy behind. 

 

All traffic flows on this road, never yields at the many intersections unless the flow has stopped due to traffic passing from left or right. 

 

Like I said, it's similar to driving Sukhumvit Road, you're not expecting a projectile to come out of a side street. 

 

Again, you really should drive this road to understand the intersection. 

 

The danger then being.... IF you [SAFATY FIRST] T-bones a motorcyclist while driving this way.....    what defense will you have when the Police want to charge you for death by dangerous driving ????

 

- But everyone was doing it your honour... is not a valid excuse.

 

 

-----------

 

The Road markings 'could' to be reversed to match the way people drive the roads, by switching the primary and secondary roads (from a legal perspective) such that those driving North-South parallel to the rail-tracks have legal right of way...   and clear Stop Signs and Solid white lines to denote 'Give Way' on the East-West road....

 

BUT... as there is also a crossing - in busy traffic forcing the East-West vehicles to give way has a potentail catastrophic impact when the train barriers are in use (and a train in coming) as the North-South traffic not giving way would block the cars attempting to clear the rail crossing.

 

Thus: The junction has to be set up this way - the issue of course is everyone ignoring and breaking the law and the Police doing nothing about the road law....

 

.... Poor road design, poor policing, poor drivers ignoring the rules, rider not riding defensively.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

On 4/22/2024 at 12:28 PM, brianthainess said:

On 4/22/2024 at 12:03 PM, Goat said:

No helmet.

No sympathy.

Most likely his injuries would have been less "critical" if he had followed basic safety guidelines.

Not legally required on an electric disability trike, or license needed.

Even if the vehicle is being used on the roads as opposed to the pavements?

[Ralf001]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

Would the white SUV still have blasted through the junction on ‘flashing yellow’ ????

 

 

 

Should ask him I reckon.

[Liverpool Lou]

On 4/22/2024 at 12:58 PM, Ralf001 said:

They are legal to ride on the road now ?

Good question.

[Ralf001]

49 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

What some are suggesting is that the 'markings don't matter' because people use the 'North-South' road (parallel to the railway line) as if it is the primary road and drive and speed along it accordingly, apparently also blasting through blind junctions.

The white lines are leftover from before the bypass was dual carriageway.

 

[Ralf001]

Just now, Liverpool Lou said:

Good question.

 

Am keen to know cause I'll grab one for beer runs.

Taking out the car is a pain and a box of beers on the scoot is sketchy !

[richard_smith237]

8 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Good question.

 

As I understand it - as a mobility scooter is classified as a medical device, where there is no pavement (sidewalk) riding one on the road is  legal without the need for it to have road tax or the rider to be licensed. 

 

That said - this is a grey area in Thailand, one that has not been covered in law, in much the same way 'regular electric scooters' have not been covered in law. 

 

So... as its classified as a disability scooter and as there is no pavement, the presence of this disability scooter on the road at this location is no less legal than a labourer crossing the road with a cart.

 

The point IMO is somewhat Moot as the SUV was 'blasting through a blind junction'....    

 

The only valid point I have seen so far, in defence of the SUV driver is that the 'white lines' (which appear to denote primary and secondary roads) are a remnant of an older traffic system and have not been removed (that doesn't surprise me for Thailand). 

But, there were no white lines 'added' to the other road to denote primary and secondary thoroughfares (roads) - thus, the roads are either of equal status, or the above comment is from Ralf that the 'The white lines are leftover from before the bypass was dual carriageway' is not true.

 

 

BUT... IF the roads are of equal status... the point is still moot....   the 'mobility scooter' was in the middle of the junction when the SUV sped through it so it has priority unless the junction is controlled by traffic lights.

 

 

The SUV driver was still reckless and driving dangerously. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Regarding the rest, please keep to topic.

Congratulations on your appointment as a Moderator.

[Liverpool Lou]

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

a junction with a fixed white line

...as opposed to a loose, all-over-the-place white line?

[Mr Meeseeks]

4 hours ago, tmax said:

I drive this area on the Darkside all the time. SAFETY FIRST is right, the vehicles traveling parallel to sukhumvit and the railroad tracks have the right of way over traffic that is crossing. SUV driver showed no caution or defensive driving skills, same with the Swiss man

 

Not according to the road markings and signs. 

 

Traffic travelling parallel to the railway tracks must stop at the intersections. 

[transam]

3 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

I didn´t expect you to understand that, and it´s why it´s funny to you. Very sad.

Regarding the rest, please keep to topic.

Have you found that photo yet..........?      🤭

[brianthainess]

32 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Even if the vehicle is being used on the roads as opposed to the pavements?

YES. they are not registered have no number plate, the same as a bicycle. How would you drive on the pavements here, mostly impossible.

Edited April 23 by brianthainess

[Liverpool Lou]

3 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

36 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Even if the vehicle is being used on the roads as opposed to the pavements?

YES. they are not registered have no number plate, the same as a bicycle.

...except, unlike bicycles, they are motorised vehicles. are they not?

[richard_smith237]

7 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

3 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

a junction with a fixed white line

...as opposed to a loose, all-over-the-place white line?

 

We feeling a bit 'literal' today LL ???  - take a sip of your juice... 

 

[Screaming]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

As I understand it - as a mobility scooter is classified as a medical device, where there is no pavement (sidewalk) riding one on the road is  legal without the need for it to have road tax or the rider to be licensed. 

 

That said - this is a grey area in Thailand, one that has not been covered in law, in much the same way 'regular electric scooters' have not been covered in law. 

 

So... as its classified as a disability scooter and as there is no pavement, the presence of this disability scooter on the road at this location is no less legal than a labourer crossing the road with a cart.

 

The point IMO is somewhat Moot as the SUV was 'blasting through a blind junction'....    

 

The only valid point I have seen so far, in defence of the SUV driver is that the 'white lines' (which appear to denote primary and secondary roads) are a remnant of an older traffic system and have not been removed (that doesn't surprise me for Thailand). 

But, there were no white lines 'added' to the other road to denote primary and secondary thoroughfares (roads) - thus, the roads are either of equal status, or the above comment is from Ralf that the 'The white lines are leftover from before the bypass was dual carriageway' is not true.

 

 

BUT... IF the roads are of equal status... the point is still moot....   the 'mobility scooter' was in the middle of the junction when the SUV sped through it so it has priority unless the junction is controlled by traffic lights.

 

 

The SUV driver was still reckless and driving dangerously. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"The SUV driver was still reckless and driving dangerously. " Maybe so but the bike rider was also reckless and driving dangerously by the fact that he was on a unlicensed, non-insured vehicle with no safety features such as seat belts, blinkers, bumpers and so forth. The bike rider should have had a sign located on the back of bike that said "CAUTION, DRIVING WHILE BEING STUPID, DO NOT RESUSCITATE"

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

6 minutes ago, brianthainess said:

39 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Even if the vehicle is being used on the roads as opposed to the pavements?

YES. they are not registered have no number plate, the same as a bicycle.

...except, unlike bicycles, they are motorised vehicles. are they not?

 

Its a mobility scooter and classed as a medical-device....     just like an electric wheel chair - its not illegal to take one on the road when there is no pavement. 

 

 

That said - looking at the video this 'mobility scooter' was travelling at speed...   thus, it could be argued that it was just a three-wheeled scooter.

 

Thailand legislation has not matured enough to specify legality in these situations.

[brianthainess]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thailand legislation has not matured enough to specify legality in these situations.

That I agree with, in other countries its down to how many Kilowatts the motor is that determines registering as a vehicle or not. 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Screaming said:

"The SUV driver was still reckless and driving dangerously. " Maybe so but the bike rider was also reckless and driving dangerously by the fact that he was on a unlicensed, non-insured vehicle with no safety features such as seat belts, blinkers, bumpers and so forth. The bike rider should have had a sign located on the back of bike that said "CAUTION, DRIVING WHILE BEING STUPID, DO NOT RESUSCITATE"

 

I'm not as sure as you are that the driver needed to be insured, licensed or that the vehicle required blinkers...    

 

But, just like a road going trike and motorcycle - a seatbelt and bumpers is not a requirement..... you over egged it there.

 

As far as the 'mobility scooter riding recklessly'....    I'd agree...  he's certainly abandoned regard for his own safety... I'm in agreement with all posters who suggest the scooter rider was unsafe.

 

I disagree with all posters who are implying the SUV rider has done nothing wrong.... 

I'm also disagreeing with all posters who are implying that the road the SUV was on has priority, this doesn't appear to be the case.

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

I sympathise with the old geezer but there are a lot of posts referring to this electric trike as a "mobility scooter", suggesting that the Swiss rider is disabled and was using a special type of disability vehicle, why is that when neither the OP, nor the his wife, described it as that? 

 

Seems to me he is nothing more than an ordinary bloke recklessly using his tiny, vulnerable electric trike as just an, er, tiny, vulnerable electric trike on a known dangerous road, and is not deserving of any additional gratuitous "disabled" sympathy.  

[richard_smith237]

Just now, brianthainess said:

That I agree with, in other countries its down to how many Kilowatts the motor is that determines registering as a vehicle or not. 

 

Agreed... and these scooters theoretically, as disability / mobility scooters need to be 'fit' to ride around shopping malls etc... I'm not so sure this one was in this case - so its certainly in that grey area.

 

BUT...  the legality of the scooter itself is still not the whole issue IMO....     I pointed out earlier, that the speed at which the SUV approached the junction highlights that it was going to blow straight through the junction regardless of what was in its way.

 

It could have been anything...  a pedestrian who'd tripped over, just a slow pedestrian, a motorcyclist, another car, a lorry, a samlor, tuk-tuk... Anything at all....    the SUV was belting it through that junction without any intention to slow down.

 

SAFETY FIRST drew the parallel with Sukhumvit Road, which clearly is a road that has priority, its marked as such, has lights and junctions which denote such...  This is a back-road which through poor design and poor policing allows drivers to travel quickly....   But that does not mean blowing through any junction, particularly a 'blind junction' is legal and it certainly is not safe.

 

 

 

 

[Liverpool Lou]

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its a mobility scooter and classed as a medical-device....     just like an electric wheel chair

Is it...where can that classification be seen?   Looks like an electric trike to me.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I sympathise with the old geezer but there are a lot of posts referring to this electric trike as a "mobility scooter", suggesting that the Swiss rider is disabled and was using a special type of disability vehicle, why is that when neither the OP, nor the his wife, described it as that? 

 

Seems to me he is nothing more than an ordinary bloke recklessly using his tiny, vulnerable electric trike as just an, er, tiny, vulnerable electric trike on a known dangerous road, and is not deserving of any additional gratuitous "disabled" sympathy.  

 

Fair enough then....   describe it as a scooter....    describe it as a motorcycle.....    The Swiss fella was on a 'vehicle' and already in the middle of the junction when another vehicle approached that junction at speed and wiped him out.

 

It doesn't really matter what the vehicle was... there were motorcycles following it (the scooter)....  they would have been wiped out too if they were further ahead or if the SUV was a second slower.... 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

20 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Its a mobility scooter and classed as a medical-device....     just like an electric wheel chair

Is it...where can that classification be seen?   Looks like an electric trike to me.

 

Does that mean IF we cannot see a classification then its just an electric trike ?? - they're actually called Mobility Trikes (and most of them are road legal in other countries).

 

IMO - It is an Electric Mobility Trike which is being used by an old fella with mobility issues....    

 

Does it need to be road legal in Thailand - thats a grey area (they're road legal in many other countries)

 

We can purchase electric scooters from Big C that a road legal but not on major roads... perhaps this falls into the same category.

 

 

Edited April 23 by richard_smith237

[roo860]

2 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

 

He's on a 3-wheel e-scooter, not necessarily a disability device.  Those can move upwards of 40 km/h.

 

He blew through the intersection without stopping.  Idiot.

 

White line/no white line..........no matter.  Bicycles and trikes and e-scooters should never assume right-of-way.

Exactly, adjust your speed and proceed with caution.