Saved a Thai from being fined. Good or bad?

[FritsSikkink]

15 hours ago, AustinRacing said:

 Would you, or have you done this?

Yes, I would and Thai people have helped me too.

[PETERTHEEATER]

I saw a young woman with no helmet riding a motorcycle towards a checkpoint and flashed her. She reported me for indecent exposure.

[Watawattana]

12 minutes ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

I saw a young woman with no helmet riding a motorcycle towards a checkpoint and flashed her. She reported me for indecent exposure.

Then fell off her bike laughing at what she'd seen?  Saying in Thai, "wow, it looks like a pen!s only smaller?" 🤪

[worgeordie]

Back in the UK ,driving trucks we would signal other truck drivers all the

time ,speed traps,accidents ahead ,etc , it was the thing to do.

 

regards worgeordie

[retarius]

15 hours ago, it is what it is said:

 

it's not about the legality, it's about the safety. the law is there to protect idiots from themselves

My view is that it is a nanny state law. Idiots deserve what they get.

[JamesPhuket10]

5 hours ago, PETERTHEEATER said:

I saw a young woman with no helmet riding a motorcycle towards a checkpoint and flashed her. She reported me for indecent exposure.

 

I did the same, she said she preferred real cigars, not miniature patellas. 

 

Then she took out a magnifying glass. 😄

[JamesPhuket10]

19 hours ago, it is what it is said:

 

it's not about the legality, it's about the safety. the law is there to protect idiots from themselves

 

In that case, I assume you agree smoking should be banned so the idiot smokers are protected from themselves, I refer to your logo of a guy smoking a cigarette. 

[richard_smith237]

27 minutes ago, JamesPhuket10 said:

20 hours ago, it is what it is said:

 

it's not about the legality, it's about the safety. the law is there to protect idiots from themselves

 

In that case, I assume you agree smoking should be banned so the idiot smokers are protected from themselves, I refer to your logo of a guy smoking a cigarette. 

 

To some extent - thats what is happening...  taxation on smoking is increasing as an incentive to force people not to smoke. 

 

Though using smoking as a source of comparison has a fundamental flaw in that an incident involving a motorcycle may well involve 'other motorists'... regardless of fault, if a helmet is not worn, there is a higher probability of serious injury or death and that 'can be' pinned on the driver / rider of the other vehicle. 

 

i.e. A motorcyclist cuts out in front of someone a collision is impossible to avoid. Motorcyclist head smashed the ground, he's dead, or brain damaged - should that person have to live with the potential guilt when wearing a helmet would have resulted in cuts and bruises ?

 

Taking this a step further, if someone commits a traffic offence, an innocent mistake such as changing lanes and 'just didn't see the motorcyclist' (it happens), and knocks the motorcyclist off, head smashed the ground, he's dead, or brain damaged...  should that person be legally accountable for the death (or brain damage) when the motorcyclist was not wearing a helmet (i.e. not on the road legally ?).

 

 

Thus...  there are 'other implications' - contrary to what some people suggest, not wearing a helmet does not 'only potentially impact the rider'....