On 10/11/2025 at 10:39 PM, Patong2021 said:

 

 

 

 

Who are you to dictate what should be the norm in a foreign culture and society? Should have, would have, could have. Are you going to  remedy the  socio economic conditions that cause young people to be out and about? The  kids selling baubles and flowers at the night market should not be doing that at 9 PM on a school day, but they do.  The boy did nothing wrong. He was the victim. 

You are like so many of the other old white farangs who are lashing out and blaming a kid, in some cases because they are projecting their own insecurity, aware that they too drive drunk or are bad drivers, it's always the fault of the young people. You know nothing about the deceased or the reasons why he was out on his motorbike, but you are quick to point the finger and blame the victim. 

Yes, in a perfect world, a 13 year old should be  in a nice home sleeping on clean sheets and having had a warm nutritious meal, in a clean and comfortable home. Unfortunately, life is not like that for millions of Thais. If it was, the farangs who come for the easy sex and the low cost lifestyle would have to go elsewhere.

 

 

Who am I to dictate....?

 

I am a law abiding citizen who respects both the culture and laws/rules of Thailand.

 

You have to be some kind of feckin moron to believe that "the boy did nothing wrong here" Of course he bl00dy did - he was riding a motocy illegally. At no point did I blame him. but he broke the law and paid the ultimate price because another Thai also broke the law. Those are the irrefutable facts.

 

You are in a group of the worst Farangs who think they can pick and chose which laws they like  - pathetic!

 

Of course there are wider social issues but that does not change the fact that rules and laws are there for the protection of the people. If one of these two had adhered to the laws of Thailand there would not have been a death.

On 10/11/2025 at 5:54 AM, emptypockets said:

13 year old riding a motorbike at 1 in the morning.

Very sad.

 

 

It really shows negligence on the part of the parents  I believe.

 

 

5 minutes ago, In Full Agreement said:

 

 

It really shows negligence on the part of the parents  I believe.

 

 

 

 

Whilst I certainly agree with you I also think it goes a lot farther than  just poor parenting.

 

If laws are not enforced and rules are not followed then we will continue to see 14,000 motorcycle deaths every year.

 

 

Of course, it goes beyond just driving laws and parenting........the corruption, non-adherence to laws and lack of enforcement of perfectly appropriate laws is part of a bigger issue.

 

Change via education and proper law enforcement is the only way; it worked in Saigon where they fined and confiscated the bikes of riders not wearing helmets and they now have 99% compliance  - the officer who told me that said "now we just have to stop them riding on the sidewalks"

On 10/10/2025 at 11:08 PM, Georgealbert said:

Authorities reiterated that drunk driving remains a major cause of fatalities in Thailand and urged drivers to adhere to traffic laws

Really! Don’t you think it is time to get real when even your own cops don’t adhere to traffic laws

 

RIP the boy sincere condolences to his family

14 hours ago, hotandsticky said:

 

 

Who am I to dictate....?

 

I am a law abiding citizen who respects both the culture and laws/rules of Thailand.

 

You have to be some kind of feckin moron to believe that "the boy did nothing wrong here" Of course he bl00dy did - he was riding a motocy illegally. At no point did I blame him. but he broke the law and paid the ultimate price because another Thai also broke the law. Those are the irrefutable facts.

 

You are in a group of the worst Farangs who think they can pick and chose which laws they like  - pathetic!

 

Of course there are wider social issues but that does not change the fact that rules and laws are there for the protection of the people. If one of these two had adhered to the laws of Thailand there would not have been a death.

If you wish to use the law to defend the indefensible you should at the very least have a basic comprehension of the law and how it applies in situations such as this. You obviously do not undertsand the difference between a regulatory penalty and a criminal penalty.  Unauthorized parking and some inappropriate or wrongful driving actions, are regulatory offences.

 

- The victim was a minor and unlicensed. This was not a criminal offence. It was a breach of the licensing regulations.  A violation is subject to civil penalty of up to 2,000 baht. A fine is not mandatory. The regulation in this circumstance only states that there is a possible maximum penalty. A court may dismiss a charge, or simply reprimand an accused.

 

- The vehicle that collided with the victim was;

    i. Driving in the wrong direction.

   ii. Operated by a Driver who was under the influence of alcohol

   iii. Most likely operated at excessive speed, based upon the collision damage sustained by the vehicle, the victim injuries and where the victim was found. If excessive speed is demonstrated, then this compounds the driver's responsibility.

 

- The alleged licensing state of the collision victim does not in any way alleviate, nor reduce the legal liability of the driver. As soon as it is established that the driver was DUI, this will places the burden responsibility on the driver. The other characteristics of the driver compound the driver's wrongdoing. The only criminal wrongdoing is that of the driver if he was drunk, speeding and driving in the wrong direction.

 

This is not a question of me picking and choosing of applying which law to apply. Rather it is you who is seeking to transfer responsibility for this  collision to the victim. You cannot use an alleged minor highway code wrongdoing of the victim to excuse a criminal act. The criminal act  is the DUI, (if proven). The negligent  acts would be speeding  in the wrong direction.

 

Your argument is no different than blaming a farang on overstay, who is struck down by a drunk speeding driver who runs a red light. The logic you have used concludes that the farang run down was responsible because he was on overstay and a "criminal".

On 10/12/2025 at 10:06 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

Not necessarily, the damage is the result of two vehicles hitting each other head-on (but it's irrelevant as the pickup was going in the wrong direction, against the traffic), so the impact speed is the combination of the two vehicles' speeds,  The boy may well have been speeding, also.

Please refer to the collision impact educational materials that hold extensive reference photos for vehicle collisions. The clean indentation , windscreen damages and location of the corpse all indicate a specific type of collision.  Had there been  a different scenario, I would have mentioned that possibility. A characteristic of two objects moving at speed is that the motorbike driver is often disembodied and thrown in a different way. The information provided suggests the pickup hitting a stationary or slow moving vehicle. The pickup truck neither swerved nor attempted evasive action as is demonstrated by the midpoint clean impact indentation. Had the motorbike or truck attempted evasive action, we would see a wider amount of damage. The photos offered indicate a head on impact, witht the motorbike slicing into the front of the truck. The motorbike's headlamp and side lights would have been evident, and the pickup truck's light would have fully illuminated the motorbike.

On 10/12/2025 at 10:00 AM, Liverpool Lou said:

By definition he wasn't responsible! So what if he "was on an errand" or "returning home", are those exemptions from the law?

Up to a judge to decide, if the moto driver was issued with an infraction. The regulations allow for discretion.

51 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

If you wish to use the law to defend the indefensible you should at the very least have a basic comprehension of the law and how it applies in situations such as this. You obviously do not undertsand the difference between a regulatory penalty and a criminal penalty.  Unauthorized parking and some inappropriate or wrongful driving actions, are regulatory offences.

 

- The victim was a minor and unlicensed. This was not a criminal offence. It was a breach of the licensing regulations.  A violation is subject to civil penalty of up to 2,000 baht. A fine is not mandatory. The regulation in this circumstance only states that there is a possible maximum penalty. A court may dismiss a charge, or simply reprimand an accused.

 

- The vehicle that collided with the victim was;

    i. Driving in the wrong direction.

   ii. Operated by a Driver who was under the influence of alcohol

   iii. Most likely operated at excessive speed, based upon the collision damage sustained by the vehicle, the victim injuries and where the victim was found. If excessive speed is demonstrated, then this compounds the driver's responsibility.

 

- The alleged licensing state of the collision victim does not in any way alleviate, nor reduce the legal liability of the driver. As soon as it is established that the driver was DUI, this will places the burden responsibility on the driver. The other characteristics of the driver compound the driver's wrongdoing. The only criminal wrongdoing is that of the driver if he was drunk, speeding and driving in the wrong direction.

 

This is not a question of me picking and choosing of applying which law to apply. Rather it is you who is seeking to transfer responsibility for this  collision to the victim. You cannot use an alleged minor highway code wrongdoing of the victim to excuse a criminal act. The criminal act  is the DUI, (if proven). The negligent  acts would be speeding  in the wrong direction.

 

At this stage, you might as well argue that he wasn’t riding his bike but walking crossing the road... 

 

I think we can all agree that the deceased’s death isn’t directly his fault. There’s a broader societal responsibility to protect the vulnerable from the recklessness of others.

 

Much of that duty falls, or should fall, on policing – but it also depends on parenting and the moral fabric of society itself. All of those, it seems, failed here (apologists will hate that - but there's not getting around it).

 

Your argument, as it stands, implies that if my seven-year-old were to take my car while I was passed out drunk, go for a joyride, and get killed by a lorry driving the wrong way – also driven by someone drunk – I would somehow bear no responsibility. That’s absurd. Of course I would be accountable. The situation is nuanced, but when that sort of failure becomes commonplace, it’s entirely fair to say society has failed.

 

That doesn’t absolve the drunk driver going the wrong way of blame, but it’s foolish – naive, even – to view fault through such a narrow, blinkered lens.

 

51 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

Your argument is no different than blaming a farang on overstay, who is struck down by a drunk speeding driver who runs a red light. The logic you have used concludes that the farang run down was responsible because he was on overstay and a "criminal".

 

No... thats a strawman argument, without the man or the straw.... 

 

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Please refer to the collision impact educational materials that hold extensive reference photos for vehicle collisions. The clean indentation , windscreen damages and location of the corpse all indicate a specific type of collision.  Had there been  a different scenario, I would have mentioned that possibility. A characteristic of two objects moving at speed is that the motorbike driver is often disembodied and thrown in a different way. The information provided suggests the pickup hitting a stationary or slow moving vehicle. The pickup truck neither swerved nor attempted evasive action as is demonstrated by the midpoint clean impact indentation. Had the motorbike or truck attempted evasive action, we would see a wider amount of damage. The photos offered indicate a head on impact, witht the motorbike slicing into the front of the truck. The motorbike's headlamp and side lights would have been evident, and the pickup truck's light would have fully illuminated the motorbike.

Please refer to the OP.

Yes, we know that it was a head-on collision involving a drunk pickup driver travelling the wrong way against traffic...no one is disputing that!   So there was apparently no evasive action (even though you were not there, nor have examined the vehicles), so what?

2 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

On 10/12/2025 at 9:00 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

By definition he wasn't responsible! So what if he "was on an errand" or "returning home", are those exemptions from the law?

Up to a judge to decide, if the moto driver was issued with an infraction. The regulations allow for discretion.

No, it is not up to a judge to decide that a 13-year illegally operating a motorbike is exempt from complying with the law because he was "running an errand" or "returning home", don't be so ridiculous.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

At this stage, you might as well argue that he wasn’t riding his bike but walking crossing the road... 

 

I think we can all agree that the deceased’s death isn’t directly his fault. There’s a broader societal responsibility to protect the vulnerable from the recklessness of others.

 

Much of that duty falls, or should fall, on policing – but it also depends on parenting and the moral fabric of society itself. All of those, it seems, failed here (apologists will hate that - but there's not getting around it).

 

Your argument, as it stands, implies that if my seven-year-old were to take my car while I was passed out drunk, go for a joyride, and get killed by a lorry driving the wrong way – also driven by someone drunk – I would somehow bear no responsibility. That’s absurd. Of course I would be accountable. The situation is nuanced, but when that sort of failure becomes commonplace, it’s entirely fair to say society has failed.

 

That doesn’t absolve the drunk driver going the wrong way of blame, but it’s foolish – naive, even – to view fault through such a narrow, blinkered lens.

 

No... thats a strawman argument, without the man or the straw.... 

I agree with every word.

4 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

No, it is not up to a judge to decide that a 13-year illegally operating a motorbike is exempt from complying with the law because he was "running an errand" or "returning home", don't be so ridiculous.

 

Now you are changing  your argument, but it is still irrelevant. No one said that the deceased could use running an errand or returning a home to avoid having a driver's license. it is you who is claiming that the deceased was a criminal and responsible for the  collision.  Do read the regulations and penalty section that applies to vehicle licensing. There is no minimum penalty. A judge can apply or waive a penalty.  Licensing is a regulation. The failure of a juvenile to have a motor vehicle license is a violation of motor vehicle regulations. More importantly, juvenile law takes precedence and there cannot be a criminal finding against the victim in a case like this. Whether or not the deceased had a license, does not matter. The responsible party was described as drunk, and driving the wrong way down a road. The deceased could have been doing handstands in the middle of the road and it would not matter because of the  vehicle driver's drunken condition and action. The burden was on the vehicle driver to drive in the correct direction and to be sober. The 13 year old's status of a licensed driver neither relives, nor minimizes the driver's guilt.

On 10/11/2025 at 5:54 AM, emptypockets said:

13 year old riding a motorbike at 1 in the morning.

 

Late night studying for exams. 

1 hour ago, Patong2021 said:

Now you are changing  your argument, but it is still irrelevant. No one said that the deceased could use running an errand or returning a home to avoid having a driver's license.

One poster did suggest that - that is why I responded as I did to his comment originally.   I am not "changing" anything.