Report Pattaya Motorbike Drivers Protest Strict Helmet Law Fines

[watchcat]

13 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why should people have to wear a helmet if they don't want to? 

 

No problems there, IF they pay the hospital bills themself

[LennyW]

Give it a couple of weeks and the local plod will be back to privately pocketing whatever they can get!, the official 2000 will quickly be forgotten!

[mikebell]

21 hours ago, smedly said:

are you serious, standing on beach road outside soi 9 is far from proper police work

I am not serious except when I hold up Pattaya's invisible police for scrutiny.  It is my contention that the local (village) policeman is the 1st example of corruption that the average Thai meets in his lifetime.  Everything flows downhill from this in every walk of Thai society.

[smedly]

4 minutes ago, mikebell said:

I am not serious except when I hold up Pattaya's invisible police for scrutiny.  It is my contention that the local (village) policeman is the 1st example of corruption that the average Thai meets in his lifetime.  Everything flows downhill from this in every walk of Thai society.

agree

[Grusa]

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Now carrying your own shower cap as an occasional M/C taxi user is not a bad idea.  Doubles up as an alternative to carrying an umbrella for the odd rain shower too. 

And, you can use it as a sick bag, to cover your feet (well, one anyway) when its wet underfoot, to pick up dog poo, and to stop oil getting everywhere when you change an oil filter. An essential for Songkran.... your phone, your wallet, your hair can all  be protected from a soaking by these insanely cheap items. Or, fill it with water and throw it! All you need is a creative imagination.

Oh sorry, I have wandered off topic!

Whilst driving, until a few days ago in Pattaya I noted while stopped at red lights, perhaps 10% helmet wearing. Suddenly it has shot up to over 60%. So, some are paying attention!

[ricklev]

https://www.lazada.co.th/products/hlshower-caps-100200300-pieces-shower-caps-disposable-shower-caps-waterproof-caps-plastic-caps-hotel-shower-caps-i3323970618-s12330137010.html?

[Seppius]

So, is it 2000 or 1000 fine for no helmet 1 person?

[richard_smith237]

20 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why should people have to wear a helmet if they don't want to? 

 

Not doing so (helmet wearing) doesn't only impact themselves if a rider comes off and get seriously injured or die, needs long term medical care etc...  there is a long line of people it can impact....

 

Family loss of a breadwinner – A father dies in a crash without a helmet, leaving his family struggling to cope financially and emotionally.

 

Becoming a long-term burden if disabled – A young man suffers a brain injury and requires lifelong care from his elderly parents.

 

Psychological trauma to others involved in the accident – A driver is haunted by guilt after hitting a cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered fatal injuries.

 

Increased pressure on emergency services – Paramedics spend extra time and resources stabilising an unhelmeted rider with preventable head trauma.

 

Higher healthcare costs shared by society – An unhelmeted crash victim racks up hundreds of thousands in medical bills covered by taxpayers.

 

Reduced productivity and economic contribution – A previously employed person is left unable to work after a preventable head injury.

 

Strain on healthcare infrastructure – ICU beds are occupied for longer by patients with severe brain trauma that a helmet could’ve prevented.

 

Emotional toll on witnesses – A passer-by watches a motorcyclist suffer fatal head injuries, resulting in lasting emotional distress.

 

Encouraging unsafe behaviour in others – A teenager mimics his older brother by riding without a helmet and ends up in intensive care.

 

Loss of life that could otherwise contribute to community and society – A young volunteer dies in a bike crash, leaving local projects without their lead organiser (yeah, I know questionable).

 

 

[richard_smith237]

15 hours ago, AustinRacing said:

I’d like to see expats in pattaya fined double the fine. Pissing me off seeing old farts riding bikes with no helmet. Almost guaranteed they’d wear them in their home country ie they know better than the local Somchai. 

 

What’s the mentality behind this?.....  Why should expats be fined double for committing exactly the same offence as Thai citizens?

 

Why are you assuming Thai people don’t know better? That’s not only wrong, it’s insulting.

 

Thais are well aware that helmets and seatbelts save lives. It’s not ignorance at play, but rather habit, emotion, or sheer complacency overriding logic.

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Not doing so (helmet wearing) doesn't only impact themselves if a rider comes off and get seriously injured or die, needs long term medical care etc...  there is a long line of people it can impact....

 

Family loss of a breadwinner – A father dies in a crash without a helmet, leaving his family struggling to cope financially and emotionally.

 

Becoming a long-term burden if disabled – A young man suffers a brain injury and requires lifelong care from his elderly parents.

 

Psychological trauma to others involved in the accident – A driver is haunted by guilt after hitting a cyclist who wasn't wearing a helmet and suffered fatal injuries.

 

Increased pressure on emergency services – Paramedics spend extra time and resources stabilising an unhelmeted rider with preventable head trauma.

 

Higher healthcare costs shared by society – An unhelmeted crash victim racks up hundreds of thousands in medical bills covered by taxpayers.

 

Reduced productivity and economic contribution – A previously employed person is left unable to work after a preventable head injury.

 

Strain on healthcare infrastructure – ICU beds are occupied for longer by patients with severe brain trauma that a helmet could’ve prevented.

 

Emotional toll on witnesses – A passer-by watches a motorcyclist suffer fatal head injuries, resulting in lasting emotional distress.

 

Encouraging unsafe behaviour in others – A teenager mimics his older brother by riding without a helmet and ends up in intensive care.

 

Loss of life that could otherwise contribute to community and society – A young volunteer dies in a bike crash, leaving local projects without their lead organiser (yeah, I know questionable).

 

 

Family loss of a breadwinner – You could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together. 

Becoming a long-term burden if disabled -Then let his parents convince him to wear a helmet.

Psychological trauma to others involved in the accident –You could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together. 

Increased pressure on emergency services –You could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together. 

Higher healthcare costs shared by society – Why should his healthcare costs be shared by society? And again, you could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together.

Strain on healthcare infrastructure – Sure, but given the number that die at the scene, it's a good bet it would be a wash. 

Emotional toll on witnesses – And again, you could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together.

Encouraging unsafe behavior in others –A good reason to wear a helmet, not a good reason for a law. 

Loss of life that could otherwise contribute to community and society – And again, you could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together.

 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

What’s the mentality behind this?.....  Why should expats be fined double for committing exactly the same offence as Thai citizens?

 

Why are you assuming Thai people don’t know better? That’s not only wrong, it’s insulting.

 

Thais are well aware that helmets and seatbelts save lives. It’s not ignorance at play, but rather habit, emotion, or sheer complacency overriding logic.

The thinking is that a fine has to hurt to be effective. If the fine for not wearing a helmet was ten-baht, it would not influence people that did not want to wear a helmet, and did not care about the law, to actually wear a helmet. 

 

Rich people do not care as much about small fines as do poor people. Expats riding motorcycle are generally richer than Thais riding motorcycles. 

[AustinRacing]

13 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

What’s the mentality behind this?.....  Why should expats be fined double for committing exactly the same offence as Thai citizens?

 

Why are you assuming Thai people don’t know better? That’s not only wrong, it’s insulting.

 

Thais are well aware that helmets and seatbelts save lives. It’s not ignorance at play, but rather habit, emotion, or sheer complacency overriding logic.

Well road safety enforcement and education in most expat countries is strong enough that ensures everyone is well aware hence people develop positive habits. But in Thailand they put that behind them. Thai people do not know better. That is not to say they are totally ignorant. Therefore the bad habit they’ve developed stems from poor education and enforcement. As old habits die hard it will take some time to change their habits. Getting back to expats I think those who know better should lead by example rather than be lazy and uneducate themselves. 

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Family loss of a breadwinner – You could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together. 

 

Exactly — you could extend the same logic to countless other behaviours: how someone rides, whether they ride at night or in the rain, if they’ve been drinking, their diet, how they cross the road… it’s all part of the broader risk spectrum.

But here’s the distinction: for many, riding a motorcycle isn’t a choice of luxury, it’s a necessity. Choosing not to wear a helmet, however, crosses a line — it’s no longer a calculated risk, it’s negligence.

So while the arguments may seem to overlap at a glance, when you break them down through a balanced and practical lens, they’re not quite the same.

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Becoming a long-term burden if disabled -Then let his parents convince him to wear a helmet.

 

Agreed... OR just have the police enforce existing laws... Or would you have parents enforce all other laws too ?

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Psychological trauma to others involved in the accident –You could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together. 

 

YOU could.. but it wouldn't be a very good argument, as discussed above: [while the arguments may seem to overlap at a glance, when you break them down through a balanced and practical lens, they’re not quite the same.]

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Increased pressure on emergency services –You could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together. 

 

Again...  not when viewed through a balanced and practical lens.

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Higher healthcare costs shared by society – Why should his healthcare costs be shared by society? And again, you could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together.

 

Because thats they way a national health care system works. Should you be prevented from having children because your 'Genetic testing' shows a sociability to alcoholism or cancer ? - we have to be very careful where we draw these lines...  Perhaps omit from health care anyone driving without a solid reason.. i.e. just going for a drive (in a car)...   

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Strain on healthcare infrastructure – Sure, but given the number that die at the scene, it's a good bet it would be a wash. 

 

There is still an additional strain from not helmet wearing - that can't be ignored. 

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Emotional toll on witnesses – And again, you could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together.

 

Not really - not if that 'same rider' would have just fallen over and got back up again.

 

You are arguing absolutes in a world where a sliding scale of injures can occur.

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Encouraging unsafe behavior in others –A good reason to wear a helmet, not a good reason for a law. 

 

Its a perfect reason to enforce the law that many don't follow  - which is what this discussion is about.

 

6 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Loss of life that could otherwise contribute to community and society – And again, you could make the same argument for outlawing motorcycles all together.

 

Sure, you could make that argument - but as already outlined, it wouldn’t hold much weight.

If we go down that road, we’d be lumping helmet laws in with a whole mêlée of risky behaviours: drinking, poor diet, lack of exercise… what next? Ban pies? Fine people for not jogging?

 

The difference is, those risks are typically long-term and personal. Riding without a helmet is an immediate, high-impact decision that can devastate not only the individual, but everyone around them — from emergency services to their own family, whereas riding a motorcycle is a necessity for many, not wearing a helmet is simply an option they chose.

 

So yes, we all live with risk, but some choices push far beyond reasonable tolerance -  and riding without a helmet is one of them - its beyond the line in the sand from a 'moral perspective' but more importantly, from a legal perspective..... and thats why enforcement should be unwavering...  

 

 

 

The arguments I’ve laid out simply underline a key truth: not wearing a helmet isn’t something that impacts only the rider, as some conveniently like to believe.

 

When someone suffers a preventable head injury or worse, the consequences ripple far beyond the individual - families, bystanders, emergency services, and even the wider community often bear the fallout.

 

And no, pointing to other risky behaviours - like riding itself doesn’t negate the issue. That line of reasoning is a distraction, a way of dodging the real point: some risks, like choosing not to wear a helmet, are reckless, immediate, and entirely avoidable.

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, AustinRacing said:

Getting back to expats I think those who know better should lead by example rather than be lazy and uneducate themselves. 

 

I agree... lead by example...   but I would also argue that it is law enforcement that leads and enforces that example without tolerance. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

On 6/4/2025 at 9:07 AM, SAFETY FIRST said:

It's crazy. 

 

The ex purposely reaches over, clipping her seat belt into the buckle to stop the alarm before driving the car, she then sits over the buckled seat belt. 😂

 

 

Yep.. In-laws have the same... 

 

I hate getting in taxi's that don't have a seatbelt - and refuse to use them if I'm going to be on an expressway and expect to travel at a reasonable speed.

 

I was in a Grab the other day...  and I hadn't 'yet' secured my seatbelt before the 'pinging' went off... The driver handed me a 'seatbelt' blank that stops the noise !!!...    I've seen them online, and now realise people are stupid enough to go to such efforts not to wear a seatbelt !!!

 

Luckly my Wife is very much on board, no kids etc in the car without a belt.

We did have the discussion when my son was born - I see our son in a car once, without a car seat, and thats it, we move to UK...   fortunately, she was and always has been 100% on board with that.

We're not completely neurotic - there are times its not always possible, but usually a good alternative can be found.

There are other sensible practicalities...  its sometimes safer to travel 1km down the road in a taxi without a seatbelt than it is to try and walk with 4 year old down the road that has no sidewalk / pavement etc...  

 

So... common sense is key - and not wearing a seatbelt when one is available, or not wearing a helmet at all contravenes that common sense.

 

 

[StandardIssue]

Suphon, a 47-year-old motorbike taxi driver, voiced his frustration: “We can’t force customers to wear shared helmets. If we do, they just walk away or don’t take the ride. We lose income either way,” he explained. Suphon and fellow drivers feel the 2,000 baht fine is excessive under the current economic conditions.

 

If he winds up in an accident and the rider gets killed, I'd wager that would really hurt his "profits"

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Exactly — you could extend the same logic to countless other behaviours: how someone rides, whether they ride at night or in the rain, if they’ve been drinking, their diet, how they cross the road… it’s all part of the broader risk spectrum.

But here’s the distinction: for many, riding a motorcycle isn’t a choice of luxury, it’s a necessity. Choosing not to wear a helmet, however, crosses a line — it’s no longer a calculated risk, it’s negligence.

So while the arguments may seem to overlap at a glance, when you break them down through a balanced and practical lens, they’re not quite the same.

Are there no busses? 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed... OR just have the police enforce existing laws... Or would you have parents enforce all other laws too ?

Red herring. We are talking about why there should be a law, not how it should be enforced. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

YOU could.. but it wouldn't be a very good argument, as discussed above: [while the arguments may seem to overlap at a glance, when you break them down through a balanced and practical lens, they’re not quite the same.]

 

 

Again...  not when viewed through a balanced and practical lens.

And again, are there no busses? 

 

Why not mandate speed limiters on motorcycles such that they can't exceed 40km/h. That would save more lives than helmets. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Because thats they way a national health care system works. Should you be prevented from having children because your 'Genetic testing' shows a sociability to alcoholism or cancer ? - we have to be very careful where we draw these lines...  Perhaps omit from health care anyone driving without a solid reason.. i.e. just going for a drive (in a car)...   

 

 

There is still an additional strain from not helmet wearing - that can't be ignored. 

I am against socialized medicine. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Not really - not if that 'same rider' would have just fallen over and got back up again.

Virtually on one dies or even gets injured from "falling over" on a motorcycle. Really brittle-boned old guys maybe. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You are arguing absolutes in a world where a sliding scale of injures can occur.

 

 

Its a perfect reason to enforce the law that many don't follow  - which is what this discussion is about.

Again, we are discussing why the law, not whether it should be enforced. I think all laws should generally be obeyed and enforced. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

Sure, you could make that argument - but as already outlined, it wouldn’t hold much weight.

If we go down that road, we’d be lumping helmet laws in with a whole mêlée of risky behaviours: drinking, poor diet, lack of exercise… what next? Ban pies? Fine people for not jogging?

 

The difference is, those risks are typically long-term and personal. Riding without a helmet is an immediate, high-impact decision that can devastate not only the individual, but everyone around them — from emergency services to their own family, whereas riding a motorcycle is a necessity for many, not wearing a helmet is simply an option they chose.

 

So yes, we all live with risk, but some choices push far beyond reasonable tolerance -  and riding without a helmet is one of them - its beyond the line in the sand from a 'moral perspective' but more importantly, from a legal perspective..... and thats why enforcement should be unwavering...  

 

 

 

The arguments I’ve laid out simply underline a key truth: not wearing a helmet isn’t something that impacts only the rider, as some conveniently like to believe.

 

When someone suffers a preventable head injury or worse, the consequences ripple far beyond the individual - families, bystanders, emergency services, and even the wider community often bear the fallout.

 

And no, pointing to other risky behaviours - like riding itself doesn’t negate the issue. That line of reasoning is a distraction, a way of dodging the real point: some risks, like choosing not to wear a helmet, are reckless, immediate, and entirely avoidable.

So why not mandate leathers, boots and other safety gear? I lot more hospitable beds tied up with broken bones and road-rash than head trauma. 

 

Go to an emergency room and see what percentage of the cases there are motorcycle related. 

 

Let's mandate speed-limiters along with the helmets. 

[Mason45]

Most male tourists wear a condom before having sex with a total stranger so why cant they keep a light weight shower cap in their bag if they're going to share a helmut from a motor bike taxi rider. Better still buy a pair of good fitting sports shoes and walk,

[Yellowtail]

Just now, Mason45 said:

Most male tourists wear a condom before having sex with a total stranger so why cant they keep a light weight shower cap in their bag if they're going to share a helmut from a motor bike taxi rider. Better still buy a pair of good fitting sports shoes and walk,

Hey, why not make a law that compels everyone to wear condoms? 

[AustinRacing]

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I agree... lead by example...   but I would also argue that it is law enforcement that leads and enforces that example without tolerance. 

 

 

Totally agree. Behavior change comes from the top. I remember in oz seat belt and alcohol enforcement took a while to implement. With persistence they did so much so when I’d get in the car and start it, my 6year old would chastise me for starting the car before putting the seatbelt on. Over here the parent rides with the 6year old kid neither wearing helmet passing police. Forget the parent, but how do we expect the kid to behave later on?

[Lacessit]

On 6/4/2025 at 10:26 AM, smedly said:

this will have zero impact on the deaths on Thai roads, like I said before - a helmet would have little impact on the majority of mb accidents seen every day on Thai roads, it is carnage and brutal, perhaps a focus on drink driving - speeding - careless driving etc etc would have greater effect, a cheap plastic helmet will do nothing

 

and for the record - I approve of wearing a quality helmet which will do nothing to protect against beinging rear end by a drunk in a pick-up truck

 

 

Statistics show Thais who ride two wheels are three times more likely to suffer death or serious injury if they have no head protection.

 

Between 2020 and 2024, 84% of Thais hospitalized after a motorbike/scooter accident were not wearing a helmet.

 

As for getting rear-ended by a drunk, it's far more likely to happen at night. It's why I don't go out then.

[Yellowtail]

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Statistics show Thais who ride two wheels are three times more likely to suffer death or serious injury if they have no head protection.

What statistics? 

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

Between 2020 and 2024, 84% of Thais hospitalized after a motorbike/scooter accident were not wearing a helmet.

Regardless of what they were hospitalized for, yes? 

11 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

As for getting rear-ended by a drunk, it's far more likely to happen at night. It's why I don't go out then.

 

I am all for wearing helmets, I am just against laws that mandate it. 

[quake]

30 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

I am all for wearing helmets, I am just against laws that mandate it. 

 

Agree.

But we should have it as law for kids on bikes. 

Adults can smash their brains out all day long.

No worries.

[richard_smith237]

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Are there no busses? 

 

No where near as convenient - thats why motorcycles are so popular here.

 

 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Red herring. We are talking about why there should be a law, not how it should be enforced. 

And again, are there no busses? 

 

You changed the topic ?...  There should be a law on helmets for obvious reasons.

There is not need for a law on licensed legal motorcycle riders for obvious reasons.

Busses - already covered - silly counter point really.

 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Why not mandate speed limiters on motorcycles such that they can't exceed 40km/h. That would save more lives than helmets. 

 

Which implies the only or most motorcycle accidents are a result of speed - thats not quite true.

 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I am against socialized medicine. 

Virtually on one dies or even gets injured from "falling over" on a motorcycle. Really brittle-boned old guys maybe. 

 

They do if they don't have a helmet - thats kind of the whole point !!! 

 

 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Again, we are discussing why the law, not whether it should be enforced. I think all laws should generally be obeyed and enforced. 

 

Agreed...   And a helmet law makes perfect sense - I think one has to be rather stupid to object to such a law.

 

 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

So why not mandate leathers, boots and other safety gear? I lot more hospitable beds tied up with broken bones and road-rash than head trauma. 

 

I agree... in fact when I ride - or rather whenever hitting a main road I'll wear:

- Riding boots (sneaker style that are reinforced)

- Full face helmet

- Riding glove

- Mesh MC protective Riding Jacket (shoulder, elbow and back protector)

 

But - the kid is expensive... First start with common sense stuff - Helmets...   Be sensible and enforce existing laws rather than suggesting new regulations that are well out or reach for most of society anyway - that lacks awareness of reality.

 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Go to an emergency room and see what percentage of the cases there are motorcycle related. 

 

Agree - it could be quite a lot.

 

 

4 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

Let's mandate speed-limiters along with the helmets. 

 

Why not have all traffic travel at 30kmh everywhere...    Where is your line ?

 

One of the most dangerous things to do as a motorcyclist is to ride amongst traffic at a far slower speed - you 'become the hazard' that everyone else can hit - its far safer to ride at the speed of the flowing traffic...   thus your 'speed limiter' idea is fundamentally flawed. 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No where near as convenient - thats why motorcycles are so popular here.

Yes, but I thought you wanted to save lives, no? What's a little inconvenience? 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

You changed the topic ?...  There should be a law on helmets for obvious reasons.

There is not need for a law on licensed legal motorcycle riders for obvious reasons.

Busses - already covered - silly counter point really.

Claiming "for obvious reasons" is a pretty lame argument. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Which implies the only or most motorcycle accidents are a result of speed - thats not quite true.

Not at all. It is claiming that most serious injuries on motorcycles are a result of speed, regardless of what caused the accident. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

They do if they don't have a helmet - thats kind of the whole point !!! 

Now you're just lying. I would not ride a motorcycle on the street without a helmet, but I bet I've dumped at least 20 and probably 50 times without a helmet without and serious injury. The last time I was not so lucky. 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Agreed...   And a helmet law makes perfect sense - I think one has to be rather stupid to object to such a law.

I think you're pretty stupid as well. Is that where we're at? 

2 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I agree... in fact when I ride - or rather whenever hitting a main road I'll wear:

- Riding boots (sneaker style that are reinforced)

- Full face helmet

- Riding glove

- Mesh MC protective Riding Jacket (shoulder, elbow and back protector)

 

But - the kid is expensive... First start with common sense stuff - Helmets...   Be sensible and enforce existing laws rather than suggesting new regulations that are well out or reach for most of society anyway - that lacks awareness of reality.

 

 

Agree - it could be quite a lot.

 

 

 

Why not have all traffic travel at 30kmh everywhere...    Where is your line ?

 

One of the most dangerous things to do as a motorcyclist is to ride amongst traffic at a far slower speed - you 'become the hazard' that everyone else can hit - its far safer to ride at the speed of the flowing traffic...   thus your 'speed limiter' idea is fundamentally flawed. 

Most of the places I drive, the cars are moving slowly, and the bikes are shagging a** between them. 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I am all for wearing helmets, I am just against laws that mandate it. 

 

I firmly believe that laws mandating the use of proper safety equipment - such as helmets - are of critical importance, and not merely for the protection of the individual who chooses to ride.

 

Consider the following scenarios:

 

Scenario A: A motorcyclist recklessly pulls out of an alley without looking. My wife, driving her car, is unable to stop in time and hits him. He isn't wearing a helmet. His head strikes the ground with fatal consequences. Though entirely blameless, my wife is left emotionally traumatised by an incident that could have been survivable.

 

Scenario B: Same situation, but this time the motorcyclist is wearing a certified, protective helmet. He hits the ground, sustains minor injuries - perhaps a few bruises - but walks away. No lasting harm, no trauma for my wife.

 

 

Now let’s imagine a more complicated scenario:

 

Scenario C: My wife changes lanes, unaware of a motorcyclist speeding up the inside. She clips him. He loses control, is not wearing a helmet, and suffers fatal or life-altering head injuries. My wife is devastated, but now also legally liable for compensation, despite the fact that the extent of his injuries was entirely avoidable by wearing a helmet.

 

Scenario D: Identical circumstances, but this time the rider is wearing a proper helmet. He comes off the bike, but the injuries are minor. There may be medical costs, but they’re manageable and typically covered by insurance.

 

The key point here is this: the rider’s decision not to wear a helmet doesn’t just affect him - it potentially affects everyone around him. We all make mistakes from time to time while driving. It’s part of being human. But should we really be forced to bear the emotional and legal consequences of someone else’s negligence in not taking basic precautions for their own safety?

 

 

Therefore, in the event of an accident where fault lies with the driver, but the severity of the motorcyclist’s injuries is clearly exacerbated by their decision to wear a substandard or no helmet at all - surely, there should be legal grounds to limit liability.

 

The consequences of someone refusing to take responsibility for their own safety should not be unfairly shifted onto others who do - thats why laws exist...  to protect others from people who simply do not see the big picture.... 

[richard_smith237]

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, but I thought you wanted to save lives, no? What's a little inconvenience? 

 

There's clearly a line in the sand, one of them is practicality, the other is common sense - you seem intent on crossing both in this discussion.

 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Claiming "for obvious reasons" is a pretty lame argument. 

 

It avoids going down a rabbit-hole of daft 'whatifery'...   (which we are starting to do)

 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Not at all. It is claiming that most serious injuries on motorcycles are a result of speed, regardless of what caused the accident. 

 

Sure...  speed of someone else too...    

 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Now you're just lying. I would not ride a motorcycle on the street without a helmet, but I bet I've dumped at least 20 and probably 50 times without a helmet without and serious injury. The last time I was not so lucky. 

I think you're pretty stupid as well. Is that where we're at? 

 

IF you are not wearing a helmet - yes, thats where we are at....      

 

Approximately 20,000 MC road deaths... Est. 40-50% would be saved if wearing a proper helmet.

 

 

3 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Most of the places I drive, the cars are moving slowly, and the bikes are shagging a** between them. 

 

Driver training too...     "shagging a**" with a helmet is less deadly than without.

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

There's clearly a line in the sand, one of them is practicality, the other is common sense - you seem intent on crossing both in this discussion.

 

 

It avoids going down a rabbit-hole of daft 'whatifery'...   (which we are starting to do)

 

 

Sure...  speed of someone else too...    

 

 

IF you are not wearing a helmet - yes, thats where we are at....      

 

Approximately 20,000 MC road deaths... Est. 40-50% would be saved if wearing a proper helmet.

 

 

 

Driver training too...     "shagging a**" with a helmet is less deadly than without.

So, you just pull numbers out of your a** and run with them, nice. 

[safarimike11]

On 6/3/2025 at 4:51 PM, snoop1130 said:

Photo via Pattaya Mail

 

Motorbike taxi drivers in Pattaya are in uproar over the introduction of steep fines for not wearing helmets. The Royal Thai Police began strictly enforcing Section 122 of the Land Traffic Act on June 1st, which mandates helmet use for both riders and passengers. Violators of this rule are now facing fines up to 2,000 baht, with the penalty doubling to 4,000 baht if a passenger is caught without a helmet.

 

While this crackdown has been largely applauded in Bangkok, where it appears to be successfully implemented in areas like Suthisan and Wang Thonglang with minimal violations, the reaction in Pattaya is starkly different. The law's implementation in this busy tourist destination has proven challenging, as many passengers, unaware of the local law or concerned about using shared helmets for hygiene reasons, often refuse to wear them.

 

Suphon, a 47-year-old motorbike taxi driver, voiced his frustration: “We can’t force customers to wear shared helmets. If we do, they just walk away or don’t take the ride. We lose income either way,” he explained. Suphon and fellow drivers feel the 2,000 baht fine is excessive under the current economic conditions.

 

While acknowledging the importance of safety, Suphon suggested that a more reasonable fine range of 400 to 500 baht would be less punitive for drivers whose livelihoods are already precarious. “We agree that helmets save lives, but 2,000 baht is too much. Right now, people are struggling just to put food on the table,” he added.

 

The sentiment is echoed in Nakhon Ratchasima, where residents report insufficient public awareness about the enforcement of this strict rule. Many claim to have been caught off guard, only learning of the law after being hit with hefty fines.

 

Motorbike taxi drivers across these regions are calling for the government to consider lowering the penalties and enhancing communication about the law to avoid exacerbating economic hardship. They argue that while improving road safety is crucial, the current punitive measures may worsen the financial burdens faced by drivers and could be counterproductive if not paired with educational measures and practical implementation strategies.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from The Thaiger 2025-06-03

 

 

My take on this is that the fine should be 400 baht for not wearing a helmet (and 500 baht for riding on the pavement - which is what I was fined several years ago). 2,000 baht is stupid and excessive; they probably earn well under 1,000 baht a day.

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

So, you just pull numbers out of your a** and run with them, nice. 

 

Apologies the simplistic nuance needed greater explanation and you thought numbers were made up.

Nope... those numbers are factual: 

 

WHO Estimate: ~25,000 road fatalities a year on Thailands roads.

80% of Thailands road fatalities are motorcyclists.

Western Nations: 37-42% reduced fatality impact by wearing helmets.

Vietnam: Estimated up to 50% reduced fatality impact by wearing helmets.

 

Thus: A fair assumption based on these facts: 40-50% reduced fatality impact by wearing helmets for Thailand.

i.e. approximately anywhere between 8,000 and 10,000 lives in Thailand each year could be saved by wearing a decent helmet alone.