Report Pattaya Motorbike Drivers Protest Strict Helmet Law Fines

[phetphet]

I saw loads of Burmese being pulled up last Sunday for not wearing helmets. I felt sorry for them as they only earn a pittance. Taking what must be almost a weeks wages from them seems like overkill.

[richard_smith237]

6 minutes ago, safarimike11 said:

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.

 

Thats the whole point of the fine...  to make the fine so prohibitive it forces their behavior. 

Now we obviously should expect to see the BiB follow their own laws. 

Riding on the pavement too.... (as you mentioned).

 

 

What you suggests: Would be similar to suggesting that Taxi drivers in the UK should not be charged: 

 

Driving ban: Minimum 12-month disqualification, increased to 3 years if it’s a second offence within 10 years.

Fine: Up to £5,000, though usually capped at the statutory maximum (often less, depending on income).

Imprisonment: Up to 6 months in serious cases or where there are aggravating factors (e.g. high BAC, driving passengers, causing an accident).

Community Order: Such as unpaid work, rehabilitation courses, or curfews.

 

The idea of the law is preventative...  not someting to turn a blind eye to because someone can't afford the law.

The very reasons so many break the law here in the first place is because they feel they can get away with it so easily or the fines are insignificant.

 

 

 

 

[Yellowtail]

10 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

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.

 

 

Does the law already mandate riders wear helmets? 

 

If so, how is passing a helmet law going to reduce deaths? 

[richard_smith237]

5 minutes ago, phetphet said:

I saw loads of Burmese being pulled up last Sunday for not wearing helmets. I felt sorry for them as they only earn a pittance. Taking what must be almost a weeks wages from them seems like overkill.

 

Dying on a road is 'overkill'...    How many of those Burmese labourers will now get a helmet - that may save lives.

 

How man people would be alive today, how many families would not have been devastated - had strict enforcement taken place 10 years ago etc ???    the numbers of people who might not have been impacts (i.e. friends, families, spouses, loved ones etc) would have been not just in the 10's of thousands, but 100's of thousands. 

 

 

But, I also agree with the underlying sentiment that labourers maybe considered low hanging fruit and easier targets - IF the BiB are to enforce this rule fairly - then it most be done with a broad-brush, sweeping, nationwide without bias or favour.... 

 

 

[richard_smith237]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Does the law already mandate riders wear helmets? 

 

If so, how is passing a helmet law going to reduce deaths? 

 

I think you are trying to argue square is round...  and not making a much sense.... 

 

Yes - perfectly good Laws exist - they are not being adequately enforced - this thread is about increasing the penalty and enforcement for breaking helmet laws. 

 

IF this is carried out effectively, lives will be saved.

 

IF you don't think so, then we are so far apart on this topic that there really is no middle ground on which to find basis for intelligent interaction. 

 

 

 

 

[safarimike11]

On 6/3/2025 at 7:21 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

 

Its the same with seatbelts...    I won't let the inlaws (or anyone else) in my car without putting their seatbelt on...  yet every week they visit us, they turn up and leave without wearing their seatbelt in their own car.

 

I see the same for so many Thai's here... theoretically well educated - yet go to the SkyLane or a bicycle even and we see them all wearing their $300 bicycle helmets !!.. 

 

 

I used to allow my wife's brother-in-law to drive my car, until I noticed that he left the seatbelt bucked on the seat: e.g. he fastened the seatbelt together and then sat in the car. 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think you are trying to argue square is round...  and not making a much sense.... 

 

Yes - perfectly good Laws exist - they are not being adequately enforced - this thread is about increasing the penalty and enforcement for breaking helmet laws. 

 

IF this is carried out effectively, lives will be saved.

 

IF you don't think so, then we are so far apart on this topic that there really is no middle ground on which to find basis for intelligent interaction. 

 

And IF your aunt would have had balls, she'd have been your uncle. 

 

There are any number of laws that if enforced, would save lives. 

 

How many lives would be banning alcohol and drugs save? Let's do that. 

 

How about enforcing all the murder laws as while we're at it? 

 

[Yellowtail]

2 minutes ago, safarimike11 said:

I used to allow my wife's brother-in-law to drive my car, until I noticed that he left the seatbelt bucked on the seat: e.g. he fastened the seatbelt together and then sat in the car. 

I have not seen anyone do that since the '80s. 

[richard_smith237]

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

And IF your aunt would have had balls, she'd have been your uncle. 

 

Thank-you Max Verstappen - but thats just a half witted rhetorical dodge, not an argument. It dismisses real-world discussions under the guise of cynicism...

 

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

There are any number of laws that if enforced, would save lives. 

 

How many lives would be banning alcohol and drugs save? Let's do that. 

 

Yes, many laws could save lives if they were perfectly enforced - but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enforce the ones that are realistic, targeted, and effective. Helmet laws (the subject of this discussion), for instance, are simple to implement, cost-effective, and have been proven to save lives. They're not theoretical. They're not “if only.” They are practical measures with measurable outcomes.

 

As for banning alcohol and drugs - we’ve tried that. Prohibition created more problems than it solved. It's a false equivalence to compare public health legislation like helmet laws to sweeping moral crusades that ignore human behaviour and societal context.

 

17 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

How about enforcing all the murder laws as while we're at it? 

 

Your comparison to murder laws is fundamentally misplaced. Murder laws are reactive by nature - they don’t prevent someone from committing the act; they simply define the punishment after the fact. You can’t legislate away intent.

No one seriously believes that having a law against murder will stop every violent impulse. What murder laws do is set a societal boundary - they don't physically protect a person from being killed in the moment.

 

Helmet laws, by contrast, are preventative. They reduce the severity of injury before a crash happens. Wearing a helmet doesn't stop accidents, but it does significantly increase a rider's chance of surviving one. That’s the key distinction: helmet laws protect the person from harm, while murder laws punish the perpetrator after the harm has already been done.

 

It's the difference between locking your door to deter burglars, and calling the police after you’ve been robbed. One is a preventive measure; the other is a reactive consequence.

 

So to suggest that helmet laws are on the same level as murder laws is to confuse behaviour regulation with harm mitigation.

 

We can’t enforce what someone might do in the context of violent crime - but we can certainly enforce what someone chooses to wear on their head before getting on a bike. That’s not just enforceable - it’s common sense, and more a rather glaring absence of common sense on your part if that is your argument.

[Yellowtail]

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Thank-you Max Verstappen - but thats just a half witted rhetorical dodge, not an argument. It dismisses real-world discussions under the guise of cynicism...

 

 

Yes, many laws could save lives if they were perfectly enforced - but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t enforce the ones that are realistic, targeted, and effective. Helmet laws (the subject of this discussion), for instance, are simple to implement, cost-effective, and have been proven to save lives. They're not theoretical. They're not “if only.” They are practical measures with measurable outcomes.

 

As for banning alcohol and drugs - we’ve tried that. Prohibition created more problems than it solved. It's a false equivalence to compare public health legislation like helmet laws to sweeping moral crusades that ignore human behaviour and societal context.

 

 

Your comparison to murder laws is fundamentally misplaced. Murder laws are reactive by nature - they don’t prevent someone from committing the act; they simply define the punishment after the fact. You can’t legislate away intent.

No one seriously believes that having a law against murder will stop every violent impulse. What murder laws do is set a societal boundary - they don't physically protect a person from being killed in the moment.

 

Helmet laws, by contrast, are preventative. They reduce the severity of injury before a crash happens. Wearing a helmet doesn't stop accidents, but it does significantly increase a rider's chance of surviving one. That’s the key distinction: helmet laws protect the person from harm, while murder laws punish the perpetrator after the harm has already been done.

 

It's the difference between locking your door to deter burglars, and calling the police after you’ve been robbed. One is a preventive measure; the other is a reactive consequence.

 

So to suggest that helmet laws are on the same level as murder laws is to confuse behaviour regulation with harm mitigation.

 

We can’t enforce what someone might do in the context of violent crime - but we can certainly enforce what someone chooses to wear on their head before getting on a bike. That’s not just enforceable - it’s common sense, and more a rather glaring absence of common sense on your part if that is your argument.

Oh, it's just common sense, what a great argument, I'll have to remember that.

[richard_smith237]

35 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Oh, it's just common sense, what a great argument, I'll have to remember that.

 

You don't think its common sense that helmet laws are enforced ???

 

You're certainly not presenting your best side at the moment - you're struggling to bring any sense to the discussion... 

[Yellowtail]

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You don't think its common sense that helmet laws are enforced ???

Helmet laws are not enforced. 

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You're certainly not presenting your best side at the moment - you're struggling to bring any sense to the discussion... 

Do you think attempting to belittle me furthers your argument? It only makes you seem weak. 

[richard_smith237]

Just now, Yellowtail said:

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You don't think its common sense that helmet laws are enforced ???

Helmet laws are not enforced. 

 

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

You're certainly not presenting your best side at the moment - you're struggling to bring any sense to the discussion... 

Do you think attempting to belittle me furthers your argument? It only makes you seem weak. 

 

I'm not belittling you Yellowtail - you are doing a perfectly good job that yourself.

 

The whole point of this thread... is that 'Pattaya Motorbike Drivers are Protesting Strict Helmet Law Fines'... 

.. they are protesting stricter enforcement. 

 

[Yellowtail]

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm not belittling you Yellowtail - you are doing a perfectly good job that yourself.

I did not say you were belittling me, I said you were attempting to belittle me. What I was what that I made you sound weak. If you had a cooperant argument, you would not have to resort to such tactics. 

5 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

The whole point of this thread... is that 'Pattaya Motorbike Drivers are Protesting Strict Helmet Law Fines'... 

.. they are protesting stricter enforcement. 

 

So? What do I care about helmet fines?

 

[NoDisplayName]

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

“We agree that helmets save lives, but 2,000 baht is too much.

 

In other words, your life isn't worth $60.

 

I'm fine with that.  But fair's fair.  No helmet = no emergency services and no insurance coverage!

 

In case of accident with head trauma, we kick your expiring corpus into the gutter for the soi dogs.

[jacko45k]

19 hours ago, Grusa said:

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!

Yes I thought that when in town a few days ago

I live in a bit of a village and worry the odd policeman will be enticed by the monetary returns of catching a falang on his way to the 7-11!