2 hours ago, TheRealRobin said:

 

I wear a helmet because I know it could save my life in an accident, but I don’t see why wearing a helmet is the state’s business - except in the case of an underage passenger. 

Sustaining injuries unnecessarily is a burden on the health service and the state

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I do not think people should have to wear helmets, but ticketing law people that stop, while letting others just run away seems stupid to me. 

If you don't wear a helmet and sustain head injury then you shouldn't expect the hospital to fix the results of your stupidity. 

12 hours ago, webfact said:

The incident occurred near MBK Centre, where the traffic police allegedly did not establish a formal checkpoint. Instead, they acted upon spotting the passenger without a helmet, leading to a chase and subsequent fall.

 

The affected rider and passenger have filed complaints against the officer involved, questioning the proportionality of his actions.

Isn't this how policing should be done?. A patrolling officers sees an offence and deals with it. That's the way other countries do it. The fact they tried to get away caused the injuries. No Police apologies needed. I would rather the Police patrol and deal with offences witnessed rather than putting check points in the same place every day.

"police intervention led to her head injuries"

The irony.

Helmets prevent both head injuries and police.

21 minutes ago, fittobethaied said:

So, the real root of this problem is that the public actually believes that the only time that police can act on crime is when they are standing in the street at an established formal checkpoint. The fact that a policeman would give chase to an alleged lawbreaker outside of a formal checkpoint is totally foreign to them, so they just naturally assume that the policeman is at fault because he didn't follow the long-established norm for the way police do their job.

 

Back home, traffic violations are not considered crimes unless they lead to someone (or property) being injured.  Helmet law violations are considered civil infractions, not crimes.

 

There's a reason the cop in the OP apologized.  He's in the soup for violating checkpoint policy.

 

 

2 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

This would appear to me to be overreach on the part of the cops, they go from no enforcement one day to chasing people down the next and causing an accident, it's pretty idiotic. 

 

The other thing that comes to mind when looking at the replies on this forum, is that there appear to be a lot of older guys who have been sort of out of touch for a while, and perhaps spending too much time at home in their little bubbles, and their hearts seem to be growing smaller and their compassion seems to be disappearing. What is that all about? 

What the hell are you talking  about .first he was stopped by the police he decided to make a run for it , pretty stupid, if you think that not  stupid then take a hard look at yourself . The police didn’t ram the idiot off the road he crashed what exactly did you think the police were going to do . Now I don’t care if you have a problem with police or senior citizens but two negatives don't make a positive. Now tell me if you got beat up, or someone stole your car or rob you , who would you call you think . 

Grow up. If you don’t want to try that . Keep your mouth shut that way no  one will you are stupid .

3 hours ago, spidermike007 said:

This would appear to me to be overreach on the part of the cops, they go from no enforcement one day to chasing people down the next and causing an accident, it's pretty idiotic. 

 

The other thing that comes to mind when looking at the replies on this forum, is that there appear to be a lot of older guys who have been sort of out of touch for a while, and perhaps spending too much time at home in their little bubbles, and their hearts seem to be growing smaller and their compassion seems to be disappearing. What is that all about? 

Actually, what is idiotic is anyone riding a motorbike in Thailand without a helmet and anyone who supports them with idiotic posts. 

Thai law States that motorbike riders must wear a Helmut for their own safety. That's the law so if you flee a check point trying to avoid a fine and get hurt how can you blame the police. they are employed to uphold the law!!!

Now when are the lazy police going to start fining people talking on their mobiles while driving? How many times are you following a car which is driving very slowly and erratically, when you finally pass them you discover that they are talking on their mobile and paying little or no attention to what's happening around them!!!

 

Rider should be charged with two counts of attempted manslaughter

I'm reading this as a Grab Taxi driver with passenger that had no helmet.

I've never been offered a helmet when riding a motorbike taxi.

 

4 hours ago, Peterphuket said:

At last, there will be stricter action regarding wearing a helmet, and oh, oh, how they will moan again when they refuse to stop and the police still try to apprehend them.

You must be new to Thailand. These new rules will only be enforced occasionally. Nothing will change that you see on the streets. People will still be without helmets and there will be a small risk to get stopped at checkpoints when the police need to get some collections.. 

I am an avid motorcycle rider and it irks me to no end to see kids and parents hauling kids to school without a helmet on and they drive right in front of the traffic police that is at the entrance to school. If Thailand was really serious about the helmet laws. They would follow US standards and take away the bike and make you pay holding fees until you go to a judge and make you call someone to come get you because they will not let you drive away without the helmet. This new rule to charge more just means the police collections will increase.

My guess is it will mostly be enforced on foreigners simply because Thais can not afford to pay so much money. 

4 hours ago, TheRealRobin said:

 

I wear a helmet because I know it could save my life in an accident, but I don’t see why wearing a helmet is the state’s business - except in the case of an underage passenger. 

Presumably then, you don't see why not allowing murder (or any other offence) is any of the state's business, either?   Should the state not be allowed to pass laws?

4 hours ago, PaoloR said:

They were being chased for their failure to stop at a police check - not for their failure to wear a helmet.

Nonsense, they were being chased specifically because they were not wearing helmets and refused to stop 

Back 20 years when I used to ride to work every day, at the end of each month I would almost always encounter a police check point as I approached Bang Na on Sukhumvit Road. It was constructed in such a way that the inner two lanes were blocked by busses, lorries, taxis and cars and there is no U-turn for some distance. The scam was to "catch" motorcyclists in the outside lane with no excuse and pocket the fines.

The sort of behavior by this cop is reminiscent of the scams we had to endure, which are often precluded by a "clamp down" of some type. Giving chase was unnecessary and potentially dangerous in this case.

And before anyone askes, I ALWAYS wear a helmet.

4 hours ago, SS1 said:

 

It's an interesting logic: wear a helmet to protect your head in case it gets smashed to the ground. Solution: the police will try and crush your head to the ground if no helmet?? 

 

So no blame on the motor cycle taxi rider who refused to stop then.

In every western country you are required to wear a helmut by law if you do not wear it then you get pulled over and fined,,, if you run from the police they chase you pull you over and lock you up,, in this country the law states you must wear a helmut if you do not comply then the police can legally stop you fine you or arrest you it's not rocket science 

These people hurt can thank themselves lucky they didn't get worse. 

14 hours ago, webfact said:

The affected rider and passenger have filed complaints against the officer involved, questioning the proportionality of his actions.

 

So the rules are "if we run away, you can't follow."

14 hours ago, webfact said:

The incident occurred near MBK Centre, where the traffic police allegedly did not establish a formal checkpoint. Instead, they acted upon spotting the passenger without a helmet, leading to a chase and subsequent fall.

 

This is exactly what the Police should be doing..  Not 'only' acting when there is a check-point, but actively patrolling and pulling up those who infringe on the law.

 

 

14 hours ago, webfact said:

The affected rider and passenger have filed complaints against the officer involved, questioning the proportionality of his actions.

 

They should be charged with fleeing - falling off their bike is completely the riders fault.

The Passenger should be filing charges against the rider.

 

 

It is stories such as this which highlight how distorted the 'compass' is regarding such regulations.

 

 

 

Unless of course the Police Officer 'kicked them off the bike' which of course can be considered excessive force - but still, the rider should still be charged with fleeing, regardless.

 

Easy Rider, 1969.....Stone, 1974......those were the days.🙃🙃

4 hours ago, Peterphuket said:

At last, there will be stricter action regarding wearing a helmet, and oh, oh, how they will moan again when they refuse to stop and the police still try to apprehend them.

If they all start wearing helmets, what will farangs on AN moan about?

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Nonsense, they were being chased specifically because they were not wearing helmets and refused to stop 

Same as the UK now. Illegal drivers refuse to stop then blame the police when there is an accident. https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/2063127/a1-crash-driver-jailed-Mazyar-Azarbonyad. No licence, no insurance. Two days later he was stopped driving another car.

2 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

There was no official police check.

So what? Are you trying to say that a police officer should only stop you at an official police checkpoint?
Where are you getting this nonsense, notabena as a hollander?

2 minutes ago, Peterphuket said:

So what? Are you trying to say that a police officer should only stop you at an official police checkpoint?
Where are you getting this nonsense, notabena as a hollander?

Don't assume what I am trying to say, I was correcting someone who said there was a police checkpoint.

While in Taiwan years ago on a business trip and riding in a company van I witnessed a police checkpoint where a scooter driver tried to avoid by driving around it. I was shocked when I saw one of the officers at the checkpoint grab the back of the driver's jacket and literally yanked him off the scooter and onto the ground. 

 

As our van was slowly passing through the checkpoint I saw about four officers grab the guy, cuff him, and started taking him to a nearby patrol truck.

 

That was one of my first visits to Taiwan and a business acquaintance there told me that the police took their checkpoints seriously.

5 hours ago, PaoloR said:

They were being chased for their failure to stop at a police check - not for their failure to wear a helmet.

Failure to stop when instructed to may have many reasons (carrying drugs, outstanding warrants etc.). It is considered a far more serious crime in law than failure to wear a helmet and warrants more than a ticket.

Totally agree, but it looks like Comedy Capers and not worth doing it... Just note their license plate .. safe for everybody including the RTP

36 minutes ago, dingdongrb said:

While in Taiwan years ago on a business trip and riding in a company van I witnessed a police checkpoint where a scooter driver tried to avoid by driving around it. I was shocked when I saw one of the officers at the checkpoint grab the back of the driver's jacket and literally yanked him off the scooter and onto the ground. 

 

As our van was slowly passing through the checkpoint I saw about four officers grab the guy, cuff him, and started taking him to a nearby patrol truck.

 

That was one of my first visits to Taiwan and a business acquaintance there told me that the police took their checkpoints seriously.

How they do it in London. 

 

Cops shouldn’t touch them; they should rough them up…if they had their helmets on, they wouldn’t suffer a head injury..

 

good lesson - fleeing the cops and take a fall w/o a helmet….classic Hollywood 

17 hours ago, webfact said:

The woman's brother revealed that the police intervention led to her head injuries and bruising

 

A helmet would have protected her...

17 hours ago, webfact said:

The affected rider and passenger have filed complaints against the officer involved, questioning the proportionality of his actions.

 

Sound like the loony left in the West.  The ones who basically claim that if people don't stop when the police ask them to, they have to just let them go.

The same people criticising the police for chasing them would be the same people whining if the police didn't chase them! 

Damned if they do, damned if they don't.