Motorcyclist Chases Down Foreign Hit-and-Run Driver in Phuket

[SS1]

11 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Here in Thailand, the official law is all that matters, go to court and you'll find that out. Thailand isn't like the West where laws are interpreted,  what's on the books is all that matters.

 

That is true, but I have heard of court cases of similar accidents where the driver cutting in front was deemed at fault. This is only hearsay though, from foreign car drivers who had similar accidents. 

 

My point was also that you can't really blame Thais for riding on the left, because they've been taught to do so for decades and even fined for not doing so. 

 

 

11 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Exactly, the hit and run is the only offense here, the motorcycle is the one who caused this accident by undertaking illegally using the shoulder (Emergency) lane.

 

"Motorcycle is the one who caused the accident" Are you kidding? Look at the video again. Even the grey car driving correctly has to slam his brakes because of the idiot cutting across. Not saying the rider is in the right here but the car is definitely doing the greater evil. 

[Yellowtail]

13 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Exactly, the hit and run is the only offense here, the motorcycle is the one who caused this accident by undertaking illegally using the shoulder (Emergency) lane.

Turning from the right-most lane across the left lane and cutting off a car and a motorcyclist is not illegal in Thailand?

 

You might have had an argument had the car in the left-most lane had turned and struck the motorcycle. 

[Gottfrid]

16 hours ago, snowgard said:

 

Go to a driving school. They will teach & explain it to you. 😉

So, in other words, you couldn´t provide facts for you so far, false claim.

[lordgrinz]

6 hours ago, SS1 said:

 

That is true, but I have heard of court cases of similar accidents where the driver cutting in front was deemed at fault. This is only hearsay though, from foreign car drivers who had similar accidents. 

 

My point was also that you can't really blame Thais for riding on the left, because they've been taught to do so for decades and even fined for not doing so. 

 

 

 

"Motorcycle is the one who caused the accident" Are you kidding? Look at the video again. Even the grey car driving correctly has to slam his brakes because of the idiot cutting across. Not saying the rider is in the right here but the car is definitely doing the greater evil. 

 

If the motorcycle wasn't illegally travelling and undertaking using the shoulder, this never would have happened. Just because the car behind slammed on its brakes says nothing, there was no accident with that car. The accident happened because someone was using the shoulder as a driving lane, and apparently as a passing lane, both of which are illegal here in Thailand.

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

If the motorcycle wasn't illegally travelling and undertaking using the shoulder, this never would have happened. Just because the car behind slammed on its brakes says nothing, there was no accident with that car. The accident happened because someone was using the shoulder as a driving lane, and apparently as a passing lane, both of which are illegal here in Thailand.

 

 

The accident happed because of the careless driving of the Hyundai driver... 

 

I think this supersedes the motorcyclist riding the shoulder...  I've pointed out earlier that this 'shoulder' looks to be used as a left lane by all traffic, cars included (photos of this posted earlier on this thread).

 

Whether riding / or driving in that left lane legally or not, the careless and reckless nature of the Hyundai driver is what caused the accident more so than the actions of any of the other riders / drivers in this situation as the driver has failed to to account for 'normal traffic behavior'....

 

If the Hyundai was turning left from the 'inside' driving lane (not the shoulder) and a motorcyclist sped up the inside and there was a collision - then I'd agree that the motorcyclist is at fault, however, the Hyundai turned blindly from the right most lane without any consideration for traffic in the left hand 'driving' lane (not the shoulder) and is therefore solely at fault (IMO).

 

From a self preservation perspective - the motorcyclist could hold himself accountable and his actions complicit in causing his own injuries because he was not riding carefully or defensively - but from a 'legal-fault' perspective I can only see the Hyundai driver as being at fault here.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

18 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Exactly, the hit and run is the only offense here, the motorcycle is the one who caused this accident by undertaking illegally using the shoulder (Emergency) lane.

Turning from the right-most lane across the left lane and cutting off a car and a motorcyclist is not illegal in Thailand?

 

You might have had an argument had the car in the left-most lane had turned and struck the motorcycle. 

 

100%

 

[lordgrinz]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

The accident happed because of the careless driving of the Hyundai driver... 

 

I think this supersedes the motorcyclist riding the shoulder..

 

And you'd be wrong, based on the letter of the law.

[Yellowtail]

Just now, lordgrinz said:

 

And you'd be wrong, based on the letter of the law.

No, he would not.

[lordgrinz]

The Hyundai driver cut off the car in the lane next to him, though by Thai standards, nothing new. The motorcycle overtaking using the shoulder is something completely different, the motorcycle driver is at fault for the accident he caused.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

The Hyundai driver cut off the car in the lane next to him, though by Thai standards, nothing new. The motorcycle overtaking using the shoulder is something completely different, the motorcycle driver is at fault for the accident he caused.

The motorcycle overtaking using the shoulder is something completely different, though by Thai standards, nothing new.

 

 

[lordgrinz]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The motorcycle overtaking using the shoulder is something completely different, though by Thai standards, nothing new.

 

Yes, I think the Hyundai driver should get a ticket for cutting off the car, but not the accident caused by the motorcycle driving and overtaking vehicles using the shoulder. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, lordgrinz said:

 

Yes, I think the Hyundai driver should get a ticket for cutting off the car, but not the accident caused by the motorcycle driving and overtaking vehicles using the shoulder. 

The Hyundai driver should go to jail for hit and run. 

[lordgrinz]

12 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The Hyundai driver should go to jail for hit and run. 

Which still doesn't negate the fact that the motorcycle driver is at fault for the accident. 

[richard_smith237]

11 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

Yes, I think the Hyundai driver should get a ticket for cutting off the car, but not the accident caused by the motorcycle driving and overtaking vehicles using the shoulder. 

 

No... the accident was 'caused' by the Hyundai driver cutting across a driving lane, a shoulder and a sidewalk without any consideration for other road / sidewalk users.... 

 

It could have been a kid riding down the pavement or shoulder..... 

 

 

I do agree with your underlying sentiment that its not legal for motorcyclist to be riding on the shoulder, however, this is a grey area as there are signs in 'some' area's that indicate the law allows for this - I'm just not sure if this is legal in this area. 

 

Obviously a major part of the issue is that there is a lack of consistency and local regulations vary, and local traffic often adapts to each individual road. 

 

In this case the Hyundai driver has failed to adapt to the driving conditions in Thailand and also made a reckless manoeuvre - without doubt the accident is completely the fault of the Hyundai driver. 

 

The argument to suggest the motorcyclist is at fault becasue he should not have been there is similar to suggesting, if  the motorcyclist was drunk he should not have been there..  the dangerous manoeuvre itself supersedes the other - in such an example the motorcyclist could be charged with DUI separately... 

 

In this case, IF it is proven that the no motorcycles can ride down the shoulder, then that could be a separate charge. 

The driver of the Hyundai still drove recklessly causing an accident. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

18 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

The Hyundai driver should go to jail for hit and run. 

Which still doesn't negate the fact that the motorcycle driver is at fault for the accident. 

 

If it was a kid riding down the pavement, would it be the kids fault ?

 

Regardless of the 'road legality' - I believe fault lies with the Hyundai driver because of the recklessness of his driving.

 

If he was driving at 100kmh and went into the back of an 'untaxed' motorcyclist, we can't say its the motorcyclists fault as it should not have been there in the first place. 

[Yellowtail]

Just now, lordgrinz said:

Which still doesn't negate the fact that the motorcycle driver is at fault for the accident. 

Only per you. 

 

Why did the police arrest the Hyundai driver? 

 

Motorcycles on the shoulder is commonplace. That the rider was breaking the law riding on the shoulder does not put them at blame for the accident. 

[lordgrinz]

4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No... the accident was 'caused' by the Hyundai driver cutting across a driving lane, a shoulder and a sidewalk without any consideration for other road / sidewalk users.... 

 

It could have been a kid riding down the pavement or shoulder..... 

 

There was no kid, this was an adult illegally driving and overtaking using the shoulder. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're trying to conflate everything, the facts are the facts.

[lordgrinz]

32 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Only per you. 

 

Why did the police arrest the Hyundai driver? 

 

Motorcycles on the shoulder is commonplace. That the rider was breaking the law riding on the shoulder does not put them at blame for the accident. 

Motorcycles running red lights is commonplace too, but still illegal. If he wasn't overtaking using the shoulder he wouldn't have crashed, the gray car in the left lane didn't crash, did he?

[richard_smith237]

31 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

There was no kid, this was an adult illegally driving and overtaking using the shoulder. So I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're trying to conflate everything, the facts are the facts.

 

Yes... The facts....

 

1) It is unclear at the moment IF the shoulder lane is a legal riding lane or not.

2) The Hyundai driver swerved / turned across the inside lane and the shoulder lane - a clear illegal and dangerous manoeuvre.

3) Its not 'undertaking' (overtaking on the left) and not illegal to pass traffic on the left in towns in flowing queues of traffic.

 

 

The points I have made are not 'conflating' the issue - they are examples to 'help' you understand the 'grey area' as you seem to apply an extremely black-and-white outlook to what essentially is a 'grey area' from a legal perspective until the 'facts' actually are known.

 

Just because the 'motorcyclist' might have been doing something illegal - it does not mean the fault of the accident is not with the Hyundai dealer... 

... the motorcyclist could have been in the driving lane doing a wheelie (riding illegally) when the Hyundai cut him up and crashed into him... that doesn't not mean the Hyundai drivers manoeuvre is any less dangerous or any less illegal (again - thats not conflation, thats highlighting an example to help you understand the binary approach to discussion fault in this issue may be more complex than you imply).

 

 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

10 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

Motorcycles running red lights is commonplace too, but still illegal. If he wasn't overtaking using the shoulder he wouldn't have crashed, the gray car in the left lane didn't crash, did he?

 

You seem to approach this from the perspective that one illegal road act wipes the slate clean for the other driver committing an illegal road act - it doesn't.

 

And...  as of now, we have no idea if riding or driving on what looks to be shoulder lane in that specific area is legal or not.

What has been proven is that both cars and motorcycles drive / ride down this lane as they would any other (effectively making this a 3 lane road).

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

6 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

Motorcycles running red lights is commonplace too, but still illegal.

I never said riding on the shoulder was legal, I said it does not matter. Riding without a helmet is illegal as well, but it does not put one at fault in an accident. 

6 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

 

If he wasn't overtaking using the shoulder he wouldn't have crashed,...

And had a-hole Hyundai driver not made a dangerous, illegal left turn in front of him he would not have crashed either.

 

Are cars turning from the inside lane, across the outside lane, and across the shoulder, at speed, in traffic to get into a pump commonplace? I see motorcycles on the shoulder (including the police) all day, every day. It is to be expected. 

6 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

...the gray car in the left lane didn't crash, did he?

 

The gray car had to slam on their brakes. 

 

Weak dude. 

 

 

[CallumWK]

27 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

1) It is unclear at the moment IF the shoulder lane is a legal riding lane or not.

 

It's not unclear. If there is a full white or yellow line between the hard shoulder and the road, it is an emergency lane.

 

And it is not allowed for motorized vehicles to use the emergency lane, except in emergencies

[CallumWK]

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I never said riding on the shoulder was legal, I said it does not matter. Riding without a helmet is illegal as well, but it does not put one at fault in an accident. 

 

Are you sure about that?

I'm confident that if there is head trauma because not wearing a helmet, the insurance will refuse to pay, regardless if at fault or not.

[Yellowtail]

4 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Are you sure about that?

I'm confident that if there is head trauma because not wearing a helmet, the insurance will refuse to pay, regardless if at fault or not.

Yes, I'm sure.

 

Is it your position that if one is riding without a helmet, and they are involved in an accident, that the law says they are responsible for the accident because they were riding without a helmet? 

 

What if they were riding without a license, same thing? Broken taillight? 

 

[MalcolmB]

On 1/13/2025 at 7:58 AM, Briggsy said:

Whilst the foreigner was definitely the major contributor to this accident and deserves to be prosecuted for careless driving, the motorcyclist who was knocked off was

 

i. undertaking

ii. riding on the hard shoulder (normal in Thailand but the foreigner may not have expected that)

iii. certainly riding too fast for traffic conditions, possibly over the speed limit

iv. was definitely slow in beginning braking showing he was not paying attention

v. seemed to brake rather gently with his foot out rather than an emergency stop which was what was required

 

The motorcyclist will justifiably claim it was the Hyundai driver's fault but it is clear to me that he can learn lessons here, particularly regarding undertaking, excessive speed and awareness of both turnings and the movement of other vehicles.

 

I am glad it looked like serious injury was avoided.

 

And todays Farang Apologist award goes to Briggsy.

[lordgrinz]

58 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You seem to approach this from the perspective that one illegal road act wipes the slate clean for the other driver committing an illegal road act - it doesn't.

 

No, I did not say that, but your right, it does not wipe the slate clean for the motorcycle drivers behavior either (there are two wrongs here, not one). The Hyundai is guilty of cutting off the gray car, and leaving the scene of an accident, the motorcycle driver is at fault for illegally using the shoulder to undertake, and by doing so crashing as a result. 

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, lordgrinz said:

 

No, I did not say that, but your right, it does not wipe the slate clean for the motorcycle drivers behavior either (there are two wrongs here, not one). The Hyundai is guilty of cutting off the gray car, and leaving the scene of an accident, the motorcycle driver is at fault for illegally using the shoulder to undertake, and by doing so crashing as a result. 

Crashing into a Hyundai that made a dangerous, illegal left turn in front of him. 

[CallumWK]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, I'm sure.

 

Is it your position that if one is riding without a helmet, and they are involved in an accident, that the law says they are responsible for the accident because they were riding without a helmet? 

 

What if they were riding without a license, same thing? Broken taillight? 

 

 

Maybe comprehension isn't your strongest point, try to read my post again, s l o w l y this time.

I said insurance will not pay if there is head trauma because no helmet.

Does that make him at fault? Certainly it does for the insurance

[lordgrinz]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Crashing into a Hyundai that made a dangerous, illegal left turn in front of him. 

You mean the motorcycle illegally passing on the left using the shoulder? Dangerous is passing moving vehicles on the left using the emergency lane. The video even shows the gray car slowing down with no problem, and plenty of space between him and the Hyundai.

[Yellowtail]

13 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

You mean the motorcycle illegally passing on the left using the shoulder? Dangerous is passing moving vehicles on the left using the emergency lane. The video even shows the gray car slowing down with no problem, and plenty of space between him and the Hyundai.

Yes, that's the one, was there another? And yes, the grey car was able to slam on the brakes to avoid the accident, but the motorcyclist that was driving on the shoulder illegally was not so lucky.

 

Had the grey car not slammed on the brakes, it would have hit the as-hole and the motorcyclist would not have been involved, so perhaps it's the grey car's fault.