4 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

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.

 

That's why I said "as far as I know", because I certainly am not sure. I just know that being considered legally at fault is not always what one might logically think. In France, if the vehicle in front of you brakes and you ram into them, you are legally at fault because you lost control of your vehicle, because you should have anticipated by maintaining a safe distance – I recall discussing this with an Aussie and a Brit who told me it was the same in their respective countries.

In this case, will it be decided the driver was at fault? She doesn't seem to be overspeeding but I don't see any brake lights (though in broad daylight, it's hard to tell).

26 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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…).

 

Ah… the bold claim of a 20/20 hindsight ‘expert,’ speaking with absolute certainty about events they never faced in real time....

... Everyone likes to believe they are the perfect driver. In fact, studies show that the vast majority of drivers genuinely think they are above average - let that sink in for a moment... Now imagine all of those self-proclaimed ‘flawless’ drivers faced an impossible, split-second hazard: a pedestrian... The truth is, perfection in such moments is a fantasy - most of us would react just like anyone else, and sometimes, no reaction could prevent the unavoidable....

 

26 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

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?).

 

Agreed...   so in the same circumstances, would the sun have avoided your eyes, because you are sure such an incident would not happen to you - you are better driver, right ??? (devils advocate).

11 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

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....

 

In my opinion and experience, it was avoidable. But as I said in my earlier post: "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…"

Just now, rattlesnake said:

That's why I said "as far as I know", because I certainly am not sure. I just know that being considered legally at fault is not always what one might logically think. In France, if the vehicle in front of you brakes and you ram into them, you are legally at fault because you lost control of your vehicle, because you should have anticipated by maintaining a safe distance – I recall discussing this with an Aussie and a Brit who told me it was the same in their respective countries.

In this case, will it be decided the driver was at fault? She doesn't seem to be overspeeding but I don't see any brake lights (though in broad daylight, it's hard to tell).

 

No - thats not true. Its 'here say'...     there are plenty of situations whereby the following car is not automatically at fault... 

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Ah… the bold claim of a 20/20 hindsight ‘expert,’ speaking with absolute certainty about events they never faced in real time....

... Everyone likes to believe they are the perfect driver. In fact, studies show that the vast majority of drivers genuinely think they are above average - let that sink in for a moment... Now imagine all of those self-proclaimed ‘flawless’ drivers faced an impossible, split-second hazard: a pedestrian... The truth is, perfection in such moments is a fantasy - most of us would react just like anyone else, and sometimes, no reaction could prevent the unavoidable....

 

 

Agreed...   so in the same circumstances, would the sun have avoided your eyes, because you are sure such an incident would not happen to you - you are better driver, right ??? (devils advocate).

 

But I am not sure it could not happen to me, Richard. As I have now said twice, it could.

1 minute ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No - thats not true. Its 'here say'...     there are plenty of situations whereby the following car is not automatically at fault... 

 

It's definitely not hearsay in France regarding the rear-ending, I know that for a fact.

15 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

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. 

 

Last August, in France, I was on an empty mountain road, I came out of a parking area and started driving on the left lane (too used to Thailand)… I quickly realised my mistake and came back on the right one, but gave my two passengers a bit of a fright. 

13 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

No - thats not true. Its 'here say'...     there are plenty of situations whereby the following car is not automatically at fault... 

 

It's definitely not hearsay in France regarding the rear-ending, I know that for a fact.

 

Its not fact.. In France, the rear driver is almost always presumed at fault, but clear evidence of sudden or illegal action by the front driver can shift or share responsibility...    Thats your fact.

On 12/4/2025 at 3:35 AM, Georgealbert said:

Mrs Routledge, who lived nearby with her husband David, had been running across the road toward a traffic island when the crash happened

At 75 years old trying to "run" across a busy road is effectively playing chicken, 

9 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Its not fact.. In France, the rear driver is almost always presumed at fault, but clear evidence of sudden or illegal action by the front driver can shift or share responsibility...    Thats your fact.

 

In general, even if the front driver came to a halt unnecessarily, you're not supposed to be close enough to rear-end them, and if you do, you have legally lost control of your vehicle and are at fault, that is a fact (you could check out the UK to see if that Brit was right when he told me it was the same there) – obviously, exceptional circumstances could void this principle, but let's not be excessively pedantic, shall we?
I hypothetically transposed this rationale to the subject of this thread, but was being more speculative than assertive…

6 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

In general, even if the front driver came to a halt unnecessarily, you're not supposed to be close enough to rear-end them, and if you do, you have legally lost control of your vehicle and are at fault, that is a fact (you could check out the UK to see if that Brit was right when he told me it was the same there) – obviously, exceptional circumstances could void this principle, but let's not be excessively pedantic, shall we?
I hypothetically transposed this rationale to the subject of this thread, but was being more speculative than assertive…

 

Yes - lets not be pedantic...

 

The driver of the Fortuner had no more lost control of her vehicle when a pedestrian stepped out in front of her than had a lamp post fallen into the road... 

 

 

 

 

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

And, idiocy cannot be cured.

You said it!

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

obviously, exceptional circumstances could void this principle, but let's not be excessively pedantic, shall we?

 

On this subject - its why a dash cam is recommended to prove those 'exceptional circumstances' and avoid things like insurance scams. 

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

3 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

And, idiocy cannot be cured.

You said it!

 

Indeed he did...   Got to love it when a poster shoots himself in the mouth with both feet !!!! 

1 hour ago, GammaGlobulin said:

 

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

Nonsense. 

 https://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/2025/12/03/british-woman-75-killed-in-thailand-car-accident-husband-grieves/

16 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

Yes - lets not be pedantic...

 

The driver of the Fortuner had no more lost control of her vehicle when a pedestrian stepped out in front of her than had a lamp post fallen into the road... 

 

 

 

 

 

I've just reread the Khaosod article:

 

The driver, Jarunan, 40, an online vendor, remained at the scene in shock. She told police she had made a U-turn when she saw the British woman running across the road toward a traffic island. Godwin suddenly stopped, Jarunan said, leaving her no time to brake before the vehicle struck the victim.

 

So the driver claims she saw the pedestrian running across the road, and that the cause of the accident was that she stopped running. Therefore, according to the driver herself, it was not an unexpected appearance, but a calculated maneuver which failed because the other party did not behave as expected.

This claim is not really supported by the video footage. Even if the pedestrian did stop at the last moment (hard to tell as the Fortuner blocks the view), the driver was planning on avoiding her by a hair's width, which is reckless in any case.

Or (and I tend to favour this hypothesis) she didn't see her because she was looking at her phone or whatever, and just made up a story on the spur of the moment to limit her responsibility.

14 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

On this subject - its why a dash cam is recommended to prove those 'exceptional circumstances' and avoid things like insurance scams. 

 

Absolutely indispensable indeed.

58 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

In France, if the vehicle in front of you brakes and you ram into them, you are legally at fault because you lost control of your vehicle, because you should have anticipated by maintaining a safe distance – I recall discussing this with an Aussie and a Brit who told me it was the same in their respective countries.

You, the Australian and the Briton are all wrong, it is not an absolute that the following driver is always at fault, there are exceptions (in all three countries) such as brake-checking or an unreasonable or reckless stop by the driver in front.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

It's definitely not hearsay in France regarding the rear-ending, I know that for a fact.

You don't, 100% blame for the following driver is not necessarily the case.

1 minute ago, Liverpool Lou said:

You, the Australian and the Briton are all wrong, it is not an absolute that the following driver is always at fault, there are exceptions (in all three countries) such as brake-checking or an unreasonable or reckless stop by the driver in front.

 

Obviously if the front vehicle just came to a screeching halt 'for fun' or under the influence of drugs or booze, then you'd not be responsible for rear-ending them.

 

I was (obviously) referring to common circumstances where the vehicle avoids an obstacle and you rear-end them, then it's your fault. This example is telling because most people think it's the front vehicle's fault. It is not (at least not in France).

The CCTV footage.

 

9 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

 

I've just reread the Khaosod article:

 

The driver, Jarunan, 40, an online vendor, remained at the scene in shock. She told police she had made a U-turn when she saw the British woman running across the road toward a traffic island. Godwin suddenly stopped, Jarunan said, leaving her no time to brake before the vehicle struck the victim.

 

So the driver claims she saw the pedestrian running across the road, and that the cause of the accident was that she stopped running. Therefore, according to the driver herself, it was not an unexpected appearance, but a calculated maneuver which failed because the other party did not behave as expected.

This claim is not really supported by the video footage. Even if the pedestrian did stop at the last moment (hard to tell as the Fortuner blocks the view), the driver was planning on avoiding her by a hair's width, which is reckless in any case.

Or (and I tend to favour this hypothesis) she didn't see her because she was looking at her phone or whatever, and just made up a story on the spur of the moment to limit her responsibility.

 

I suspect the driver’s shock would have significantly affected the accuracy of her initial witness statement.

 

What you seem to imply is that the driver clearly saw the pedestrian crossing, and that the woman’s presence in the rightmost lane was somehow predictable or calculable. I think thats unfair.

 

The driver’s claim that the pedestrian crossed and then “stopped” in the rightmost lane is clearly untrue - but I suspect that inconsistency comes far more from shock and poor recollection than from deliberate fabrication.

 

What we can see is that the Fortuner driver never applied the brakes. That leads to two plausible explanations in my view:

a) She never saw the pedestrian at all − perhaps due to distraction, as you’ve already noted.

b) She assumed the pedestrian would continue her path and cross behind the Fortuner, as many people here do when they ‘time’ themselves between passing vehicles... effectively, real-life 'Frogger'.

 

Given the timing, the pedestrian’s walking pace, and the way she entered the road without appearing to look, I struggle to see how meaningful fault can be placed on the Fortuner driver. Her driving does not strike me as reckless in any realistic sense.

 

And before anyone quotes the charge of “reckless driving”: in Thailand this is standard procedure whenever a fatality occurs. Charges are routinely filed initially and later dropped when proper assessment shows no clear fault.

 

 

Below is the screen-shot from when the fortuner driver might have realistically 'been able to see the crossing pedestrian and impact - there is very little time (about a second - maybe two at most).

 

Also not: brake lights are not visible on the Fortuner (4th picture) - the Fortuner is braking at this stage - maybe the brake lights are not working, or the video quality simply does now show the brake lights - thus we cannot use the 'video' as clear information that the Fortuner driver did not react / brake - though given the movement of the car - it does appear that there was no reaction from the driver until after impact - but this doesn't imply fault, IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

There was enough time for the driver to react and hit the brakes. It is obvious she did not do that because she was looking at her phone or something else. Clearly at one point in time the pedestrian did not see the white vehicle because when she looked it was blocked from her view by the black vehicle that had slowed down. The driver of the vehicle at that same moment did not see her because she was blocked from her view.  Thais have a poor metal approach to driving, and she would not have had the thought - 'I wonder why that black vehicle is slowing down'.  She would then have looked down at her phone (whatever) as she accelerated forward and did not see the pedestrian at all - she felt the car hit her and then reacted.  Culpable driving causing death - 20+ years in jail (I hope).

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

 

I suspect the driver’s shock would have significantly affected the accuracy of her initial witness statement.

 

What you seem to imply is that the driver clearly saw the pedestrian crossing, and that the woman’s presence in the rightmost lane was somehow predictable or calculable. I think thats unfair.

 

The driver’s claim that the pedestrian crossed and then “stopped” in the rightmost lane is clearly untrue - but I suspect that inconsistency comes far more from shock and poor recollection than from deliberate fabrication.

 

What we can see is that the Fortuner driver never applied the brakes. That leads to two plausible explanations in my view:

a) She never saw the pedestrian at all − perhaps due to distraction, as you’ve already noted.

b) She assumed the pedestrian would continue her path and cross behind the Fortuner, as many people here do when they ‘time’ themselves between passing vehicles... effectively, real-life 'Frogger'.

 

Given the timing, the pedestrian’s walking pace, and the way she entered the road without appearing to look, I struggle to see how meaningful fault can be placed on the Fortuner driver. Her driving does not strike me as reckless in any realistic sense.

 

And before anyone quotes the charge of “reckless driving”: in Thailand this is standard procedure whenever a fatality occurs. Charges are routinely filed initially and later dropped when proper assessment shows no clear fault.

 

 

Below is the screen-shot from when the fortuner driver might have realistically 'been able to see the crossing pedestrian and impact - there is very little time (about a second - maybe two at most).

 

Also not: brake lights are not visible on the Fortuner (4th picture) - the Fortuner is braking at this stage - maybe the brake lights are not working, or the video quality simply does now show the brake lights - thus we cannot use the 'video' as clear information that the Fortuner driver did not react / brake - though given the movement of the car - it does appear that there was no reaction from the driver until after impact - but this doesn't imply fault, IMO.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

What you seem to imply is that the driver clearly saw the pedestrian crossing, and that the woman’s presence in the rightmost lane was somehow predictable or calculable. I think thats unfair.

 

No, I think she probably did not see her at all because she wasn't paying attention and generally doesn't have that mindset of thinking such a thing could happen, which is typical in Thailand, where the prevailing principle is that the bigger, faster vehicle does what it wants to do and others adapt.

 

It is worth having another look at the second video, the dashcam one, after having familiarised oneself with the CCTV one:

 

- The pedestrian's pace is steady and she does not stop or even slow down

- The car does not attempt to brake or swerve

 

To me, from the CCTV footage, the pedestrian was in the  the driver's line of sight from the 2nd second of the video, 3 seconds before impact.

 

 

News reports (such as from The Independent) indicate the car was going at high speed, but I think it was doing 60 max, the moped on the leftmost lane is clearly going at the typical Thai speed of approx. 40.

 

Therefore, IMO the driver would have seen the pedestrian and stopped if she was paying attention. It is likely she was distracted by something and only looked up upon impact. The shock of realising what she had done, combined with awareness that she was in the wrong, could have led her to twist the reality of what happened in an attempt to mitigate her responsibility.

 

Conclusion:

 - The pedestrian behaved very dangerously and was probably daydreaming and/or not aware of the oncoming vehicle for some reason

- In any case, the Fortuner driver should have seen her and stopped as this was an avoidable accident

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

No, I think she probably did not see her at all because she wasn't paying attention and generally doesn't have that mindset of thinking such a thing could happen, which is typical in Thailand, where the prevailing principle is that the bigger, faster vehicle does what it wants to do and others adapt.

 

It is worth having another look at the second video, the dashcam one, after having familiarised oneself with the CCTV one:

 

- The pedestrian's pace is steady and she does not stop or even slow down

- The car does not attempt to brake or swerve

 

To me, from the CCTV footage, the pedestrian was in the  the driver's line of sight from the 2nd second of the video, 3 seconds before impact.

 

 

That line of sight is with perfect 20/20 hindsight that something happened - we can't judge from that and have to include the human factor that no one expects someone to be walking across a busy road without looking...

... Thus, firstly the driver may or may not see something to the left up ahead in front of the black car. It then takes more time to register the 'something' as a human, then it takes a little more time to register that 'something' as a human walking out into the road and not stopping... 

 

The unexpected nature is a key factor in the 'non-reaction' here.

 

If I'm being honest with myself - I don't think the reality of the situation would have registered with me until way too late - it easy to say with 20/20 hind sight that we 'should' have noticed - but reality is quite different.

 

 

9 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

News reports (such as from The Independent) indicate the car was going at high speed, but I think it was doing 60 max, the moped on the leftmost lane is clearly going at the typical Thai speed of approx. 40.

 

Therefore, IMO the driver would have seen the pedestrian and stopped if she was paying attention. It is likely she was distracted by something and only looked up upon impact. The shock of realising what she had done, combined with awareness that she was in the wrong, could have led her to twist the reality of what happened in an attempt to mitigate her responsibility.

 

Conclusion:

 - The pedestrian behaved very dangerously and was probably daydreaming and/or not aware of the oncoming vehicle for some reason

- In any case, the Fortuner driver should have seen her and stopped as this was an avoidable accident

 

Partially agree: 

- Pedestrian crossed without regard for her own safety. 

- I don't think its realistic to expect that the Fortuner driver could have stopped in time - that would only be possible if there was a 'second go around' and she could 'identify' the hazard instantly.

- I also agree that there is a strong possibility that the driver was distracted (but there is no proof of that).

 

- I don't think this was avoidable - this is the very reason I had a dash cam - a motorcycle, a pedestrian or a car does something unavoidable. 

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

That line of sight is with perfect 20/20 hindsight that something happened - we can't judge from that and have to include the human factor that no one expects someone to be walking across a busy road without looking...

 

I don't want to sound presumptuous or be the 'expert with 20/20 hindsight', but I actually am prepared for such occurrences when driving in Thailand, and I distinctly recall two situations where it did happen to me. You'd be surprised to see the number of Westerners who cross the road recklessly in holiday destinations, either because they have had a drink, are from countries where they drive on the right and look the wrong way, are distracted/euphoric because they are on holiday… (I appreciate that the British woman from this story does not fall into these categories).

 

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

If I'm being honest with myself - I don't think the reality of the situation would have registered with me until way too late - it easy to say with 20/20 hind sight that we 'should' have noticed - but reality is quite different.

 

It's impossible to know how we would have reacted. I wouldn't say the driver has been reckless, but IMO she is clearly at fault.

 

24 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

- I don't think this was avoidable - this is the very reason I had a dash cam - a motorcycle, a pedestrian or a car does something unavoidable. 

 

She probably has a dashcam herself. It's a shame these stories are never followed up on, it would be interesting to know the conclusions of the police/insurance inquiry.

Unless extreme negligence on the part of the driver, no driver should be charged with 'death by vehicle'.   Certainly not this situation.   Every excellent driver isn't always looking forward, as I'm constantly checking my mirror, especially in the kind of traffic she was in.  And while just making a U-turn.  You simply don't expect someone to step in the fast lane of 90 kph traffic.

 

People are ignoring the obvious, she wasn't suppose to even be on the road, and 3 lanes at that.

 

I almost took out some gal crossing the road, and amazing I didn't along with the PoPo truck getting ready to pass me on the right.  I just missed her, and she did a dead stop, so the PoPo missed, as she stood in between us.   And we were cruising, me 80-90, him getting ready to pass.

 

I barely had time to touch my brakes, If not, I would have killed her.  We both pulled over had a chuckle and were amazed she lived 

On 12/5/2025 at 11:24 AM, Bday Prang said:

At 75 years old trying to "run" across a busy road is effectively playing chicken, 

If she ran even just a little she would have been safe. Or looked at the direction of traffic. 

 

Why is a 75 year old crossing 4 lane roads like this I mean common

1 hour ago, Harsh Jones said:

If she ran even just a little she would have been safe.

see how fast you can run when you reach 75

54 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

see how fast you can run when you reach 75

I won't be illegally crossing 4 lane roads in 3rd world countries when I'm 75

 

 Even now at 41, if I decided to do a runner on that road , id be fully aware of the danger.

 

She seemed to think she had the right of way which she kinda does.(per Canadian law) Just not in the way that she thinks