Swede's Split-Second Distraction Triggers Buriram Accident

[Kinok Farang]

Turnip.

[portisaacozzy]

11 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Total dork! He should of course had stoped the car to pick up the bottle. 

and if the bottle is wedged under the brake peddle ???????

[Gottfrid]

7 hours ago, Barnet1900 said:

Looking left or right at passing distractions, pretty ladies

I only need to take this one. You mean that you can´t drive and look at the traffic if a beautiful woman walks on the side walk? What are you? A hormone controlled teenager. Yet, maybe you are married. What would your wife think about that, sitting in the car and you risk her life?

[Dr B]

8 hours ago, Myran said:

"Should have", not "should of".

Wrong this time, because it was "of course".

[Gottfrid]

6 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Hindsight is 20/20, it has been said.

 

Hindsight!? Do you mean he didn´t know the danger? So, then he was stupid. Has nothing to do with hindsight!

[Gottfrid]

1 hour ago, portisaacozzy said:

and if the bottle is wedged under the brake peddle ???????

Then he can´t stop, but that was not the point here. The point was that he did not know and took his eyes off the road.

[Barnet1900]

12 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

I only need to take this one. You mean that you can´t drive and look at the traffic if a beautiful woman walks on the side walk? What are you? A hormone controlled teenager. Yet, maybe you are married. What would your wife think about that, sitting in the car and you risk her life?

Hhhh...that coming from a grown man who uses the word "dork." I relate that term to Bill and Ted or Beavis and Butthead. Must be who you were named after.

 

Nope, later stages of life and blissfully single. Nice try though. Your psychology skills are commendable like everything else that I idolise about you.

 

However, to help you out once more, random examples of random distractions, that's my point 

 

Sadly, you still don't get the nature of the examples I gave. Read it again Sherlock.

 

I love a good debate but this is like talking to Zippy from Rainbow.

[Gottfrid]

1 hour ago, Barnet1900 said:

Hhhh...that coming from a grown man who uses the word "dork." I relate that term to Bill and Ted or Beavis and Butthead. Must be who you were named after.

 

Nope, later stages of life and blissfully single. Nice try though. Your psychology skills are commendable like everything else that I idolise about you.

 

However, to help you out once more, random examples of random distractions, that's my point 

 

Sadly, you still don't get the nature of the examples I gave. Read it again Sherlock.

 

I love a good debate but this is like talking to Zippy from Rainbow.

Out of your love for cartoon, I would say, you are not really with us in the real world. Besides that, blissfully single. My experience tells me that there are only people who didn´t find one who names it like that.

Anyway, not need to be any Sherlock to understand. If a bottle or something else falls down, you keep your composure and drive to the side, picking it up. Anything else is a dangerous person on the roads.

[richard_smith237]

30 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Anyway, not need to be any Sherlock to understand. If a bottle or something else falls down, you keep your composure and drive to the side, picking it up. Anything else is a dangerous person on the roads.

 

As pointed out...  when slowing, anything that has rolled into the footwell, can also roll under the pedals....  There's a strong argument to suggest it should be retrieved as quickly as possible (though the accident itself contradicts this)...

...  this is a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' - the link below highlights an accident where a thermos rolled under the pedals, perhaps there's an argument to suggest the drive 'should have' retrieved the flask ASAP.

 

Its easy to judge with 20/20 hindsight.

 

IMO - thats rather poor hindsight - should those judgemental enough to suggest they have never made a mistake on the road not instead suggest that nothing should be present to roll into the drivers footwell in the first place instead of suggesting he slowed to a halt ?

 

Additionally: this incident could have occurred in many other ways. Had the driver stopped to retrieve the item and was rear ended by a truck, would those with 20/20 hindsight not then suggest he should have retrieved the item quickly to avoid stopping and becoming a hazard.

 

 

Too many variables of course - the non-variable are the 'experts' forgetting they too are human and that mistakes are made. 

 

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/21/deadly-bus-crash-was-caused-by-drivers-thermos-getting-stuck-under-brake-pedal-8706682/

 

[Gottfrid]

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

As pointed out...  when slowing, anything that has rolled into the footwell, can also roll under the pedals....  There's a strong argument to suggest it should be retrieved as quickly as possible (though the accident itself contradicts this)...

...  this is a case of 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' - the link below highlights an accident where a thermos rolled under the pedals, perhaps there's an argument to suggest the drive 'should have' retrieved the flask ASAP.

 

Its easy to judge with 20/20 hindsight.

 

IMO - thats rather poor hindsight - should those judgemental enough to suggest they have never made a mistake on the road not instead suggest that nothing should be present to roll into the drivers footwell in the first place instead of suggesting he slowed to a halt ?

 

Additionally: this incident could have occurred in many other ways. Had the driver stopped to retrieve the item and was rear ended by a truck, would those with 20/20 hindsight not then suggest he should have retrieved the item quickly to avoid stopping and becoming a hazard.

 

 

Too many variables of course - the non-variable are the 'experts' forgetting they too are human and that mistakes are made. 

 

 

https://metro.co.uk/2019/02/21/deadly-bus-crash-was-caused-by-drivers-thermos-getting-stuck-under-brake-pedal-8706682/

 

No, you are not damned both ways. You still have a foot that can remove the bottle if in the way. Also, if you slow down and drive into the side, you are of course not making an abrupt stop in the middle of the road. You slow down and at the same time driving out on the shoulder. It´s nothing judgemental, no hindsight and no need to be an expert. The only thing you need is to be an experienced and composed driver making the right decisions. And no, we do not get the right to call something that might pose a deadly risk for others a mistake.

But, all of that is of course only my opinion, and based on my experience driving cars and riding motorbikes for over 37 years without any accidents. Anyone with that kind of track record, are of course welcome to oppose.

[richard_smith237]

9 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

No, you are not damned both ways. You still have a foot that can remove the bottle if in the way.

 

IMO a driver is [damned both ways] - there are many accidents where the vehicle cannot slow or stop because the bottle is under the pedals.

 

9 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Also, if you slow down and drive into the side, you are of course not making an abrupt stop in the middle of the road. You slow down and at the same time driving out on the shoulder.

 

There are many accidents where a lorry, truck, car, motorcycle etc has driven into a stationary vehicle at the side of the road / on the shoulder...  Stopping makes you a hazard (even though drivers should of course be more aware - the are many incidents of this in Thailand).

 

9 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

It´s nothing judgemental, no hindsight and no need to be an expert. The only thing you need is to be an experienced and composed driver making the right decisions. And no, we do not get the right to call something that might pose a deadly risk for others a mistake.

 

Obviously, the only correct option is not to have anything that can roll under in the first place...  thats the correct decision and its made before taking to the road (we have a tray compartment as part of our centre console, my wife put a water bottle there and I had to get her to remove it due to this very risk).

 

You (and others) have suggest one solution in the event of this issue (slowing to a stop and removing the item) because the accident in this event occurred a certain way...  had the bottle rolled under the pedals and the accident occurred differently, it would then be argued that he should have tried to remove the bottle.

 

Your comment about 'composure' stands out - thats the key in any issue - remain composed, sometimes there is no perfect solution to an issue.

 

9 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

But, all of that is of course only my opinion, and based on my experience driving cars and riding motorbikes for over 37 years without any accidents. Anyone with that kind of track record, are of course welcome to oppose.

 

You have 1 year of experience and have repeated it 37 times ???... 

5 years experience repeated 7.4x....  ?.....  Thats the issue with quoting experience as a time-frame - its not a valid metric of 'quality'.... Its also the issue with stating no accidents - you are always 'another drive' away from one (hopefully not of course)...

 

...But time and not having had an accident before are not an accurate measure of a better driver.... its simply an accurate measure of time and luck in most cases...

... there are life long 'advanced driving instructors, police drivers etc. who have had accidents'..

 

 

 

 

[Gottfrid]

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

IMO a driver is [damned both ways] - there are many accidents where the vehicle cannot slow or stop because the bottle is under the pedals.

Many??? Ok, show me a few the last year, please.
 

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

There are many accidents where a lorry, truck, car, motorcycle etc has driven into a stationary vehicle at the side of the road / on the shoulder...  Stopping makes you a hazard (even though drivers should of course be more aware - the are many incidents of this in Thailand).

Yes, you are right. Now tell me the danger in percent between softly slowing down at the same time as turning in to the shoulder, and to bow down and take your eyes away from the road for 5 or more seconds.

 

5 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You have 1 year of experience and have repeated it 37 times ???... 

5 years experience repeated 7.4x....  ?.....  Thats the issue with quoting experience as a time-frame - its not a valid metric of 'quality'.... Its also the issue with stating no accidents - you are always 'another drive' away from one (hopefully not of course)...

 

...But time and not having had an accident before are not an accurate measure of a better driver.... its simply an accurate measure of time and luck in most cases...

... there are life long 'advanced driving instructors, police drivers etc. who have had accidents'..

That was a really weird reply. Valid metric???? Please just tell the truth. You had accidents during such long timeframe, so you just had to write something silly to avoid admitting that.

[richard_smith237]

22 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Many??? Ok, show me a few the last year, please.

 

Do your own research - just google 'object stuck under pedals' etc... 

 

22 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Yes, you are right. Now tell me the danger in percent between softly slowing down at the same time as turning in to the shoulder, and to bow down and take your eyes away from the road for 5 or more seconds.

 

It took him 5 or more seconds to try to retrieve the object ? how do you you know that ? - you don't of course you are making things up in an attempt to strengthen your argument. 

- Attempting to retrieve the item has risks.

- Attempting to slow to a stop on the shoulder also has risks... 

 

As I wrote - 'sometimes there is no perfect solution to an issue' - you managed to cut that from your quotes.

 

22 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

That was a really weird reply. Valid metric???? Please just tell the truth. You had accidents during such long timeframe, so you just had to write something silly to avoid admitting that.

 

Of course I have...   two of them I was stationary (cars hit me in a car park)....  two of them I was moving, one my fault (when I was 17), another over here, not my fault....

... You think that provides any proof that I am a worse driver than you ?...    

 

If you don't know what 'valid metric' means - look it up.... Time is not a valid metric (measurement) for experience of the drivers on the roads....

- If you had taken advanced drivers courses, Police response driving etc under high levels of training and examination standards, that would be a valid metric by which to measure your driving standards by... 

... but just because you 'think' you are a great driver it doesn't mean you are, you're providing a good example of the Dunning Kruger effect.

 

[Gottfrid]

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Attempting to slow to a stop on the shoulder also has risks

Not if the brakes still works.

 

14 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You think that provides any proof that I am a worse driver than you ?

YES, but you seem to be oblivious to that fact. However, you very lucky guy, 4 accidents and blame others for 3 of them.

[richard_smith237]

1 hour ago, Gottfrid said:

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Attempting to slow to a stop on the shoulder also has risks

Not if the brakes still works.

 

Sure - lets play 'whatifery' now... 

 

'if something like this happens - maintain composure' (as you wrote earlier) - there is no sure fire course of action, no SOP as you want to imply, there are still too many variables... 

 

Maybe the driver in this case attempted to slow already and couldn't, hence his attempt to remove the object.

 

If something is in the footwell, it may or may not roll under the pedals - any action depends on the specific issue - whereas your comments seem 'fixed' on one solution which may not be possible depending on the individual situation and you are going down the rabbit hole of doubling down on that rather than thinking critically.

 

1 hour ago, Gottfrid said:

 

15 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

You think that provides any proof that I am a worse driver than you ?

YES, but you seem to be oblivious to that fact.

 

You have just highlighted why are you are solid example of the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.... I bet you think you are one of the best drivers on the roads...  Would you even admit there are better drivers ?  - I bet you don't even accept that statistics prove your driving standard is now entering decline due to your age and over the coming decade will get worse.

 

1 hour ago, Gottfrid said:

However, you very lucky guy, 4 accidents and blame others for 3 of them.

 

I didn't blame anyone - Insurance / Police did.

 

The three same accidents that were not my fault would happen to you in the same situation, but your immediate reaction to that comment will be to falsely believe you wouldn't be in any of those situations, further highlighting flawed thinking.

 

In all of your comments to criticise the Swedes actions with the sanctimony of 20/20 hindsight you omitted to mention that something should never have been 'present' to roll into the passengers footwell in the first place, thus missing the most important facet...   Clearly, you are not the excellent driver you think you are if you miss such points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[delgarcon]

On 4/16/2025 at 3:03 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

Why 'fine him' ?....   it was an accident, he made a silly mistake...  They happen all the time all over the world...

 

Its the same as if someone pulled out in front of someone else - its an an accident, no one gets fined for those sort of events.

 

He wasn't speeding or drunk etc... 

 

Its called driving without due care and attention where I come from.

 

[Gottfrid]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Sure - lets play 'whatifery' now... 

 

'if something like this happens - maintain composure' (as you wrote earlier) - there is no sure fire course of action, no SOP as you want to imply, there are still too many variables... 

 

Maybe the driver in this case attempted to slow already and couldn't, hence his attempt to remove the object.

 

If something is in the footwell, it may or may not roll under the pedals - any action depends on the specific issue - whereas your comments seem 'fixed' on one solution which may not be possible depending on the individual situation and you are going down the rabbit hole of doubling down on that rather than thinking critically.

 

 

You have just highlighted why are you are solid example of the 'Dunning Kruger effect'.... I bet you think you are one of the best drivers on the roads...  Would you even admit there are better drivers ?  - I bet you don't even accept that statistics prove your driving standard is now entering decline due to your age and over the coming decade will get worse.

 

 

I didn't blame anyone - Insurance / Police did.

 

The three same accidents that were not my fault would happen to you in the same situation, but your immediate reaction to that comment will be to falsely believe you wouldn't be in any of those situations, further highlighting flawed thinking.

 

In all of your comments to criticise the Swedes actions with the sanctimony of 20/20 hindsight you omitted to mention that something should never have been 'present' to roll into the passengers footwell in the first place, thus missing the most important facet...   Clearly, you are not the excellent driver you think you are if you miss such points.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

First Richard, you always continue nagging as an old bitter woman who hasn´t got any for 10 years.

Just to amuse you, I will be open to other solution. Let´s say the break does not work because the bottle is there. Then it will not be possible to let go of the break and steer the car slowly into the shoulder until it finally stops, or even better, apply the handbrake soft and slowly to lower the speed of the car?

Now take a cup of tea more, look bitter and come up with a new nagging approach. Why not start with, as I already pointed out to make your post sound a little bit over and superior to others?

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

First Richard, you always continue nagging as an old bitter woman who hasn´t got any for 10 years.

 

Pathetic attempt to fire a shot - bit sad really...

 

4 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Just to amuse you, I will be open to other solution. Let´s say the break does not work because the bottle is there. Then it will not be possible to let go of the break and steer the car slowly into the shoulder until it finally stops, or even better, apply the handbrake soft and slowly to lower the speed of the car?

 

Most cars are automatic, most modern cars don't have a classic handbrakethat can be applied.

 

And you call yourself a decent driver without considering that ??  

 

4 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Now take a cup of tea more, look bitter and come up with a new nagging approach. Why not start with, as I already pointed out to make your post sound a little bit over and superior to others?

 

Now sharpen up and understand that there are too many variables - like many of your comments, your criticism was flawed and made with 20/20 sanctimonious hindsight, highlighting you are quick to pass judgement without really thinking.

[Gottfrid]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

Now sharpen up and understand that there are too many variables - like many of your comments, your criticism was flawed and made with 20/20 sanctimonious hindsight, highlighting you are quick to pass judgement without really thinking.

In your world it is. Otherwise you cannot tell yourself you are right. We are lucky that you think soo much.

[metisdead]

A post with an inflammatory insulting comment has been removed:

• Be polite and respectful to other users.
• Avoid flaming, trolling, or stalking other members.

[emptypockets]

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Most cars are automatic, most modern cars don't have a classic handbrakethat can be applied.

No, they are not. All have a secondary braking system.

[richard_smith237]

12 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

No, they are not. All have a secondary braking system.

 

I'm happy to stand corrected...    

 

For the past 15 years or so, all my cars (4 of them) have had an e-brake that's basically a switch that is applied when stationary - a parking brake.

 

What you seem to suggest it that the e-brake can be applied while the vehicle is in motion, as a secondary braking system - which, if so, is excellent...   Something I never knew before (someone will be along soon to tell us they knew that - but I don't think its wide knowledge that the e-brake can be used as a secondary braking system if the pedals fail or get obstructed).

 

 

 

 

[emptypockets]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm happy to stand corrected...    

 

For the past 15 years or so, all my cars (4 of them) have had an e-brake that's basically a switch that is applied when stationary - a parking brake.

 

What you seem to suggest it that the e-brake can be applied while the vehicle is in motion, as a secondary braking system - which, if so, is excellent... 

 

 

 

 

Correct....and all sorts of alarms sound but the brake still functions. Often with a pulsing action if I recall correctly.

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, emptypockets said:

Correct....and all sorts of alarms sound but the brake still functions. Often with a pulsing action if I recall correctly.

 

I wonder how hard the e-brake brakes then...  is it like slamming on the anchors as hard as possible ?? 

 

.... and I'm guessing it applies brakes evenly to all 4 wheels, rather than just the two rear wheels as per the standard hand-brake on older cars.

 

I assume the ABS still works with this system...    and of course the brake lights light up to warn followers (which didn't occur with the standard handbrake in my older cars).

 

 

[Briggsy]

Swedes tend to become raging alcoholics once they leave Sweden. Just ask any Dane.

 

I hope the police breathalysed Mr Mats and I suggest it might have been a good idea to examine the bottle of "water".

[emptypockets]

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I wonder how hard the e-brake brakes then...  is it like slamming on the anchors as hard as possible ?? 

 

.... and I'm guessing it applies brakes evenly to all 4 wheels, rather than just the two rear wheels as per the standard hand-brake on older cars.

 

I assume the ABS still works with this system...    and of course the brake lights light up to warn followers (which didn't occur with the standard handbrake in my older cars).

 

 

Can't really answer you definitively. I just tried it out on a work car due to my inate ten year old boys curiosity at 59 years old. But ,yes, the car did slow down under what seemed a lot of electronic protest.

[kwilco]

On 4/16/2025 at 3:59 AM, Gottfrid said:

Total dork! He should of course had stoped the car to pick up the bottle. 

I assume this is because you are such a superb driver yourself and not because you have no idea what human error actually is?

[kwilco]

Single-vehicle rollovers aren’t especially common in Thailand, but there are a few factors that can increase the likelihood of them happening.
One major factor is vehicle type. Pickup trucks, which are very popular here, have a higher centre of gravity compared to sedans. This makes them more prone to tipping over in certain situations.
Another contributing factor is the condition and layout of the roads. When a pickup hits the edge of the road—especially where there's a drop or a soft shoulder—it’s very easy for the vehicle to roll. The typical reaction is for the driver to instinctively yank the wheel to get back on the road, which can tip the truck even more aggressively.
What happens next depends heavily on speed and what's around the road—things like lamp posts, trees, or barriers. In the case I’m thinking of, the vehicle struck a lamp post. If the verge had been clearer, or if there were Armco barriers in place, the damage might have been reduced significantly.
It's important to remember that most accidents are caused by what’s termed “human error.” That doesn’t mean “stupidity”—it just means that people make mistakes. We all do. It could be glancing at a phone, adjusting the radio, getting distracted by something outside the vehicle, even sneezing. Eating or drinking while driving is also a very common factor.

  

[Gottfrid]

11 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

but I don't think its wide knowledge that the e-brake can be used as a secondary braking system if the pedals fail or get obstructed

I actually doesn´t matter if you knew it or not. It just shows there are more options. Now try and fail this this one too.

[Gottfrid]

6 hours ago, kwilco said:

I assume this is because you are such a superb driver yourself and not because you have no idea what human error actually is?

Yes, I know what it is. It´s a milder expression of stupidity, because some need to live in a soft and sheltered world that keeps them out of the harsh reality.