On 12/4/2025 at 2:22 AM, Georgealbert said:

The driver, 39-year-old Jarunan, told police she had been travelling from Lam Luk Ka district in Pathum Thani to meet a friend at a local supermarket. She stated that she saw Routledge crossing ahead and assumed the woman would reach the traffic island before the vehicle approached. According to her account, the victim unexpectedly stopped walking, leaving her unable to brake in time to avoid the collision.

Typical Thai driving.  Let's not let off the gas at all.  

21 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No it wasn't...    the woman might not have stopped in the driver path - but she ran across the road into the path of the oncoming Fortuna - there really was nothing the Fortuna driver could have done to avoid the accident.

 

The only reckless actions the video shows is that of the pedestrian taking a huge risk by running across the road when there is oncoming traffic - sadly, 100% her own fault.

"there really was nothing the Fortuner driver could have done to avoid the accident."

 

I have to disagree. She could have stamped on the brakes or moved over into the left lane (which was free of traffic).

 

The video shows that no evasive action was taken, which leads me to suspect that her attention was elsewhere. 

 

I hope the police have checked her phone records.

4 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

"there really was nothing the Fortuner driver could have done to avoid the accident."

 

I have to disagree. She could have stamped on the brakes or moved over into the left lane (which was free of traffic).

 

The video shows that no evasive action was taken, which leads me to suspect that her attention was elsewhere. 

 

I hope the police have checked her phone records.

 

After viewing the video from the camera which was attached to some utility pole...

It is obvious that the driver did NOT react before the collision.

 

There is a very high probability of the driver having been watching the phone, and manipulating the phone, rather than driving.

 

This is clearly careless, reckless, irrepsonsible driving with an 8000 pound truck.

 

The driver needs to sit and think about this, for a minimum of 10 years, in solitary confinement.

 

She must never drive again.

 

Why?

 

Because, it's impossible to cure dumb.

 

Also, this is basically a deep-seated personality trait that cannot be cured.

She thinks it OK to drive a huge truck, and not attend to the operation of the vehicle.

 

What an idiot.

And, idiocy cannot be cured.

 

58 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

After viewing the video from the camera which was attached to some utility pole...

It is obvious that the driver did NOT react before the collision.

 

There is a very high probability of the driver having been watching the phone, and manipulating the phone, rather than driving.

 

This is clearly careless, reckless, irrepsonsible driving with an 8000 pound truck.

 

The driver needs to sit and think about this, for a minimum of 10 years, in solitary confinement.

 

She must never drive again.

 

Why?

 

Because, it's impossible to cure dumb.

 

Also, this is basically a deep-seated personality trait that cannot be cured.

She thinks it OK to drive a huge truck, and not attend to the operation of the vehicle.

 

What an idiot.

And, idiocy cannot be cured.

 

 

What videos are you guys watching ?

 

The only video I see ( is in this Op ) - taken by a dash-cam of a car travelling in the opposite direction. 

 

It shows that the woman runs across the road into the path of the oncoming car - given the timing - the driver had very little time to react - the woman was unavoidable when she stepped across into the path of the Fortuna

I don't think its fair to expect that the Fortuna driver should 'expect' that the woman was going to just continue walking across the road like that.

 

Perhaps other videos show that she had a lot more time ?

15 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

What videos are you guys watching ?

 

The only video I see ( is in this Op ) - taken by a dash-cam of a car travelling in the opposite direction. 

 

It shows that the woman runs across the road into the path of the oncoming car - given the timing - the driver had very little time to react - the woman was unavoidable when she stepped across into the path of the Fortuna

I don't think its fair to expect that the Fortuna driver should 'expect' that the woman was going to just continue walking across the road like that.

 

Perhaps other videos show that she had a lot more time ?

If a pedestrian stepped out in front of me, even if just a few metres in front, I would have jumped on the brakes and/or swerved to avoid her (if I was paying attention).

In the video, albeit not great quality, it is clear that the Fortuner did not swerve or brake (braking would show a dip of the car's front end). 

IMO the Fortuner driver did not see the pedestrian. We can speculate on the reason for this - I hope the police have checked her phone records.

 

6 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

If a pedestrian stepped out in front of me, even if just a few metres in front, I would have jumped on the brakes and/or swerved to avoid her (if I was paying attention).

In the video, albeit not great quality, it is clear that the Fortuner did not swerve or brake (braking would show a dip of the car's front end). 

IMO the Fortuner driver did not see the pedestrian. We can speculate on the reason for this - I hope the police have checked her phone records.

 

 

What video are you watching ? (the cam car opposite direction where the girl screams) - the quality is very poor - its impossible to see the fortuner dipping under braking or not on that video.

 

Obviously no swerving - but there was no time to.

 

I'm inclined to agree - the Fortuner driver didn't see the pedestrian, or simply didn't expect her to step out in front of her like that.

 

 

41 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Perhaps other videos show that she had a lot more time ?

 

Yes, the driver of the white car had a LOT of time to stop, if only the driver had been paying attention, and watching the road ahead.

The video is clear.

 

You need to find the video reported in the other news source.

This has been seen by many here.

 

6 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Yes, the driver of the white car had a LOT of time to stop, if only the driver had been paying attention, and watching the road ahead.

The video is clear.

 

You need to find the video reported in the other news source.

This has been seen by many here.

 

 

Quantify that if you can ? ...   by stating a LOT of time.. are you stating 10 seconds ?  or something less...

 

EDIT: OK I've seen the other video on Khaosod.

At 4 seconds - the woman crosses from lane 1 into lane 2.

Impact is at 6 seconds.

 

At best - the driver had 2 seconds to react - but there was no avoiding the impact if the woman was walking straight into her path.

 

I see that the driver didn't brake (or the brake lights didn't come on).

I agree with the comments that the driver must have been distracted - as there appears to be no reaction. 

 

BUT - I do not agree that it was the Fortuna driver fault - there was no way for her to avoid the pedestrian even if she had braked earlier.

 

Maybe if she was going slower she 'could' have braked enough such that the impact was not deadly - but that involves a lot of 'what-if'... 

 

44 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

The only video I see ( is in this Op ) -

 

Just google the other news source, another local news source, which shows the video from a camera installed in a utility pole.

This shows very clearly the moments, at least 10 seconds before the collision.

 

The driver did not brake until the moment of collision.

The driver did not even swerve to the left until after the collision.

 

The video is absolutely clear on this point.

 

Also, a very good quality video it is.

 

 

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

IMO - its less than 1 second between the woman running across lane 2 into the drivers vision....  and impact.

 

This has absolutely ZERO to do with your opinion.

 

This is a video we are talking about.

 

You have not yet seen the video.

 

Before you provide your opinion, then first watch the entire video.

 

We are not referring to the dash-cam video, which is really not very helpful, and does not show the lead-up to the accident, for several seconds before the collision.

 

Why would you provide an opinion on something you have not seen?

This is not logical.

 

Logic should tell you:

 

a.  Watch the correct video.

B. Then, feel free to share your opinion.

 

As to quantifying, what is it that you want quantified.

 

This has NOTHING to do with quantification.

 

So, once again...can you please....

 

WATCH THE VIDEO

 

Then.

 

Feel free to provide us with your opinion.

 

Is this not the logical approach?

 

Why do things ass-backwards, and wind up with an erroneous conclusion and opinion?

 

 

On 12/4/2025 at 9:56 AM, AndyAndyAndy said:

If there is no pedestrian crossing it should not be drivers fault. 

 

I'm always very wary of driving in the far right lane, because I know some people just absent-mindedly walk onto the road and if that happens, there is simply no way to avoid them. This seems to have been the case here, it wasn't a zebra crossing and she failed to look left before stepping onto the road – as far as I can see, the driver is not at fault.

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

This seems to have been the case here, it wasn't a zebra crossing and she failed to look left before stepping onto the road – as far as I can see, the driver is not at fault.

 

FALSE.

 

The driver had plenty of time to stop, if the driver had been paying attention and looking ahead, which is crucial for safety when operating a vehicle.

 

The woman crossing the street crossed one lane of traffic, and then had almost reached the point of safety where there is grass, the island.  However, the driver was not paying attention, and just plowed into the 75-yo.

The video taken from the camera attached to the utility pole is a clear as day about this point.

 

Watch the video.

Then express your opinion.

 

The dash-cam video here included with this topic is NOT difinitive.

You need to watch the other better and longer video if you really want to see the facts.

 

If you do not want to see the facts, then no need to watch.

And, then, maybe it was a ham-sandwich that caused the accident.

 

Or, you should examine the best data and video available.

 

UPS to you, of course.

 

 

1 minute ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

FALSE.

 

The driver had plenty of time to stop, if the driver had been paying attention and looking ahead, which is crucial for safety when operating a vehicle.

 

The woman crossing the street crossed one lane of traffic, and then had almost reached the point of safety where there is grass, the island.  However, the driver was not paying attention, and just plowed into the 75-yo.

The video taken from the camera attached to the utility pole is a clear as day about this point.

 

Watch the video.

Then express your opinion.

 

The dash-cam video here included with this topic is NOT difinitive.

You need to watch the other better and longer video if you really want to see the facts.

 

If you do not want to see the facts, then no need to watch.

And, then, maybe it was a ham-sandwich that caused the accident.

 

Or, you should examine the best data and video available.

 

UPS to you, of course.

 

 

 

Do you mind providing that other video?

5 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Do you mind providing that other video?

 

Do you mind stretching your brain and googling it as I suggested earlier?

 

Because, we are not permitted to provide links to other news sources or forums on TV, I think.

 

If I was able to locate this video using google, as have many other here, so very easily, are you now trying to tell me that you are incapable?

 

The hint is that it is a different new source, with the initials 

 

The headline is "BRITISH WOMAN, 75, KILLED IN THAILAND CAR ACCIDENT; HUSBAND GRIEVES... "

 

Google that headline, and also add the news source, beginning with the first initial K.

 

What could be simpler. 

 

Then, watch the video, and then...

What is your opinion after seeing the better video and knowing the facts.???

Just now, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Do you mind stretching your brain and googling it as I suggested earlier?

 

Because, we are not permitted to provide links to other news sources or forums on TV, I think.

 

If I was able to locate this video using google, as have many other here, so very easily, are you now trying to tell me that you are incapable?

 

The hint is that it is a different new source, with the initials 

 

The headline is "BRITISH WOMAN, 75, KILLED IN THAILAND CAR ACCIDENT; HUSBAND GRIEVES... "

 

Google that headline, and also add the news source, beginning with the first initial K.

 

What could be simpler. 

 

Then, watch the video, and then...

What is your option after seeing the better video and knowing the facts.???

 

I will watch it now, Gamma, no stress.

 

Having watched the dashcam video again, I can already say that I made a mistake in my first post, she was coming from the left, not the right.

5 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

Do you mind stretching your brain and googling it as I suggested earlier?

 

Because, we are not permitted to provide links to other news sources or forums on TV, I think.

 

If I was able to locate this video using google, as have many other here, so very easily, are you now trying to tell me that you are incapable?

 

The hint is that it is a different new source, with the initials 

 

The headline is "BRITISH WOMAN, 75, KILLED IN THAILAND CAR ACCIDENT; HUSBAND GRIEVES... "

 

Google that headline, and also add the news source, beginning with the first initial K.

 

What could be simpler. 

 

Then, watch the video, and then...

What is your option after seeing the better video and knowing the facts.???

 

Just watched it and I agree with you, the driver had plenty of time to stop and was obviously distracted, probably on her phone.

16 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

This has absolutely ZERO to do with your opinion.

 

This is a video we are talking about.

 

You have not yet seen the video.

 

Before you provide your opinion, then first watch the entire video.

 

This has 'everything' to do with our opinions - its a forum where we 'discuss' our opinions. 

 

16 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

We are not referring to the dash-cam video, which is really not very helpful, and does not show the lead-up to the accident, for several seconds before the collision.

 

Agreed.

 

16 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Why would you provide an opinion on something you have not seen?

This is not logical.

 

Logic should tell you:

 

a.  Watch the correct video.

B. Then, feel free to share your opinion.

 

Agreed - I mentioned in an earlier comment IF there was another video because there were strong opinions that differed from mine.

 

16 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

As to quantifying, what is it that you want quantified.

 

'Tons' of time...  If you are going to accuse someone of blame - do some with a little more than such a vague comment.

 

16 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

This has NOTHING to do with quantification.

 

It has everything to do with quantification - the amount of time the driver had to act is key to all of us who might draw an opinion on the incident.

 

 

16 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

So, once again...can you please....

 

WATCH THE VIDEO

 

I watched it - (hence the edited comment)

 

 

16 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Then.

 

Feel free to provide us with your opinion.

 

Is this not the logical approach?

 

Why do things ass-backwards, and wind up with an erroneous conclusion and opinion?

 

Already... 

1 minute ago, rattlesnake said:

 

Just watched it and I agree with you, the driver had plenty of time to stop and was obviously distracted, probably on her phone.

 

It was still very dangerous of the pedestrian to cross so slowly with an oncoming vehicle doing what seems to be 40/50 km/h. This unfortunate woman was probably distracted too. But ultimately, the driver lost control of her vehicle and is, as far as I know, legally at fault.

13 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

FALSE.

 

The driver had plenty of time to stop, if the driver had been paying attention and looking ahead, which is crucial for safety when operating a vehicle.

 

The woman crossing the street crossed one lane of traffic, and then had almost reached the point of safety where there is grass, the island.  However, the driver was not paying attention, and just plowed into the 75-yo.

The video taken from the camera attached to the utility pole is a clear as day about this point.

 

Watch the video.

Then express your opinion.

 

The dash-cam video here included with this topic is NOT difinitive.

You need to watch the other better and longer video if you really want to see the facts.

 

If you do not want to see the facts, then no need to watch.

And, then, maybe it was a ham-sandwich that caused the accident.

 

Or, you should examine the best data and video available.

 

UPS to you, of course.

 

You seem to think its ok to cross a 3 lane road with fast moving traffic... 

 

The 'other' video (Khaosod) shows the driver did not have 'plenty' of time, or 'tons' of time.

 

The driver had less than 2 seconds - from the pedestrian stepping out of lane one into lane two and impact.

 

I don't think anyone driving down lane three in the same situation would expect a person to continue walking across the street directly into their path - the actions of the lady were almost suicidal - RIP to her and condolences to her husband - but looking to blame the Fortuner driver here is wrong.

10 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Google that headline, and also add the news source, beginning with the first initial K.

 

What could be simpler. 

 

What could be simpler ???  -   You being less cryptic - its pathetic. 

 

The video is no Khaosod...  here.. >>> https://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/2025/12/03/british-woman-75-killed-in-thailand-car-accident-husband-grieves/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

32 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

BUT - I do not agree that it was the Fortuna driver fault - there was no way for her to avoid the pedestrian even if she had braked earlier.

 

IMO if she had been watching the road, she would have had time to jam the brakes and stop, there is a motorbike on the left lane casually going at what appears to be the typical Thai speed of 40 km/h, this is not a high speed impact.

7 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

Just watched it and I agree with you, the driver had plenty of time to stop and was obviously distracted, probably on her phone.

 

I think the driver was just driving the same way many do here... 

 

Braking is the last course of action - that behavior is very common. 

 

I suspect that by the time the driver actually saw the pedestrian, she figured the pedestrian was 'timing' her way across the road and would wait for her (the fortuner) to pass, before stepping across. 

 

Certainly no one expects a person to step out across into the path of a quickly moving vehicle 

 

Maybe the woman was distracted, on the phone etc...  Or maybe its simply that she didn't expect the woman to step across her path....

 

.... either way - a person is responsible for her own safety when crossing the road, and this was not a crossing...  its tragic - but the woman is the sole cause of her own demise (as brutal as that sounds).

2 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

IMO if she had been watching the road, she would have had time to jam the brakes and stop, there is a motorbike on the left lane casually going at what appears to be the typical Thai speed of 40 km/h, this is not a high speed impact.

 

I'm not so sure... 

 

A car travelling at 80kmh covers 45 meters in two seconds.

 

You are 'judging' the situation with 'hindsight' and removing the 'human factor' - no one expects a person to walk out in front of them like this... 

 

So... by the time the driver might have made that realisation - there is no time to react. 

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I think the driver was just driving the same way many do here... 

 

Braking is the last course of action - that behavior is very common. 

 

I suspect that by the time the driver actually saw the pedestrian, she figured the pedestrian was 'timing' her way across the road and would wait for her (the fortuner) to pass, before stepping across. 

 

Certainly no one expects a person to step out across into the path of a quickly moving vehicle 

 

Maybe the woman was distracted, on the phone etc...  Or maybe its simply that she didn't expect the woman to step across her path....

 

.... either way - a person is responsible for her own safety when crossing the road, and this was not a crossing...  its tragic - but the woman is the sole cause of her own demise (as brutal as that sounds).

 

I agree.

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

It was still very dangerous of the pedestrian to cross so slowly with an oncoming vehicle doing what seems to be 40/50 km/h. This unfortunate woman was probably distracted too. But ultimately, the driver lost control of her vehicle and is, as far as I know, legally at fault.

 

How did the driver 'lose control of the vehicle' exactly ??? 

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I'm not so sure... 

 

A car travelling at 80kmh covers 45 meters in two seconds.

 

You are 'judging' the situation with 'hindsight' and removing the 'human factor' - no one expects a person to walk out in front of them like this... 

 

So... by the time the driver might have made that realisation - there is no time to react. 

 

 

 

 

This actually happened to me before, a very similar situation and I avoided impact – but I strive to practise defensive driving in the sense that I always expect the worst and therefore gain that split second that makes the difference (not that an unfortunate accident couldn't happen to me: take your eyes off the road for a second for whatever reason and if something occurs just at that moment…).
This seems to be an unfortunate set of circumstances, but I do agree that the pedestrian should never have crossed at that moment. For whatever reason she mustn't have seen that car (white vehicle + sun in her eyes?).

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

How did the driver 'lose control of the vehicle' exactly ??? 

 

I'm talking in legal terms, like if the guy in front of you jams the brakes and you ram into them, even if they technically caused the accident, you legally lost control of your vehicle and are responsible.

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

no one expects a person to walk out in front of them like this... 

 

As you said, a Thai might not but I certainly would, if she had been watching the road properly, she would have seen the pedestrian initiate the crossing and prepared herself for an emergency stop by preemptively placing her foot on the brake, also hand on the horn to snap her out of her daydream if needed.

19 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

29 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

How did the driver 'lose control of the vehicle' exactly ??? 

 

I'm talking in legal terms, like if the guy in front of you jams the brakes and you ram into them, even if they technically caused the accident, you legally lost control of your vehicle and are responsible.

 

IF a lamp-post suddenly falls across the road, that doesn’t mean you’ve ‘lost control’ in the legal sense.
IF a pedestrian darts into your path, that doesn’t mean you’ve ‘lost control’.
IF another car swerves in front of you and brakes abruptly, that doesn’t mean you’ve ‘lost control’.

 

These are sudden, unforeseeable hazards that even a careful driver might be unable to avoid. What matters is whether a reasonable driver could have reacted differently - not whether the impact itself proves any fault on the drivers part.

 

In stating "loss of control" it seems legalese is being morphed to suit an interpretation of the situation rather than reflecting the actual circumstances or whether a reasonable driver could have avoided the hazard.

16 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

As you said, a Thai might not but I certainly would, if she had been watching the road properly, she would have seen the pedestrian initiate the crossing and prepared herself for an emergency stop by preemptively placing her foot on the brake, also hand on the horn to snap her out of her daydream if needed.

 

No one is imperfect - its impossible to state what we would have or might have done in the same sitation. 

 

I've inadvertently gone through red lights a couple of times (poorly positioned)... I've 'nearly' had accidents that would have been my fault if it were not for luck and a couple of extra meters. 

 

Anyone claiming ‘this wouldn’t have happened to me’ with the benefit of hindsight is indulging a little too much in the ‘hubris juice’... In reality, I suspect that in the same situation, many of us would not have avoided hitting this lady. To be honest, the impact may well have been completely unavoidable....