3 hours ago, kwilco said:

I broadly agree with your overall assessment.

One point that often gets lost is simple exposure: roughly half the vehicles on Thai roads are motorcycles. That alone creates a high-risk mix, with two-wheelers sharing space with much larger and heavier vehicles, often in dense traffic.

Helmet use is improving, but it remains a major problem. Riders without helmets are dramatically more likely to die in a crash—around three times more likely according to multiple studies—and far more prone to traumatic brain injuries. Globally, helmets are known to reduce both mortality and severity of injury; the issue in Thailand is not a lack of evidence, but a failure to address the risk consistently through enforcement, education, and road culture.

Foreigners’ behaviour on Thai roads also deserves scrutiny. Many do things here they would never attempt at home: riding without licences, without experience, and without protective clothing, because they believe they’re in “paradise” and normal rules somehow don’t apply. That combination of inexperience, complacency, and poor equipment predictably ends badly.

Anyone thinking of riding here should consider spending an hour in a Thai A&E department. You’ll see a steady stream of road rash, fractures, dressing changes—and those who don’t walk out again. One injury that’s rarely mentioned is foot trauma from crashes while wearing flip-flops. (thongs/jandals) - These injuries can be life-changing, sometimes resulting in permanent mobility problems.

Another uncomfortable reality is the variability of emergency care. Thailand’s pre-hospital emergency system is well below international standards: partially trained first responders, inconsistent ambulance services, and emergency departments that some hospitals regard as “unprofitable”—to the extent that many facilities don’t even have a proper A&E.

Finally, insurance is often misunderstood. The compulsory insurance bundled with road tax offers only minimal cover. Tourists must check their travel insurance carefully: many policies exclude motorcycle riding entirely, or impose engine-size limits (often 125cc). Given that many rental bikes exceed this, insurers are quick to deny claims—even if the police or other parties don’t raise an issue.

In short, experienced riders who understand the risks and manage them carefully can ride here safely—but the statistics, injuries, and insurance realities are not abstract numbers. They’re visible every day on Thai roads and in Thai hospitals.

Lo and behold, I agree with something kwilco said… 😄

Spot on.

9 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

You mean "you" are paying, then hoping your insurance repays you afterwards, and covers some, or all of the costs.

No, that's not what I mean.

8 hours ago, ravip said:

Just asking as I don't know anything about this.

In a similar situation: foreigner/tourist, accident/sudden illness, no insurance/cash in hand is hospitalized - will he be treated free of charge and discharged at zero cost?

In emergency situations all Thai hospitals are obliged to stabilise/treat the injured initially, regardless of ability to pay (first 72 hours?) as the cost of that is reimbursed to th hospital. Subsequent treatment will be billed

7 hours ago, stupidfarang said:

We all know Insurance companies are there to make a profit and to dispute any claim in anyway they can so they do not need to pay out.

We all know Insurance companies are there to make a profit and to dispute any claim in anyway they can so they do not need to pay out illegitimate claims. The vast majority of all insurance claims across the board are paid out successfully, if they weren't ther'd be no insurance industry.

Yawn.

Same old merry go round.

Young foreigner. Motorbike. Travel insurance. Accident. Hospital bill. Deny claim. Go Fund Me. Begging in the media.

It's been up there with lock your things in the room safe if you take home company, and don't fall in love with a bar girl, yet, they still come here and get on a motorbike, because, "it won't happen to me."

The article stated "he was stationary on the roadside." It would have been interesting for the insurance company if 20 seconds earlier he got off the saddle of the motorbike and was now deemed a pedestrian.

6 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I hate dealing with insurance companies - its never simple.

It is if you comply with all the policy conditions, those who don't are the ones who make it difficult for themselves.

1 hour ago, stupidfarang said:

when you look at the number of deaths for motorbike riders, it offers a different perspective and would challenge that it is safer to ride a bike in Thailand.

In 2023, 6,335 motorcyclists were killed in the United States, marking the highest number of fatalities since record-keeping began in 1975 and representing 15% of all traffic deaths that year.

The Thai Health Promotion Foundation states that, on average, about 70 people die each day as a result of road accidents in Thailand, with 74% being motorbike riders and passengers. Of the 20,000 people killed on roads each year in Thailand, 15,000 of them are motorcyclists, accounting for three out of four fatalities. Aug 31, 2025

Interesting bit on deaths in hospital

In Thailand, when a person dies in a hospital following a road accident, the official cause of death (COD) listed is the specific medical condition or injury that initiated the sequence of morbid events leading to death, such as "craniocerebral injury" or "blunt force trauma". The death is also classified as a road traffic death if it occurs within 30 days of the accident.

The great thing about statistics is that it allows you to view data from multiple perspectives. Twice as many Thais died on the road as in the US. Got that. That is a 'raw stat'; comparing two raw numbers. Deaths per 1,000 bikes here is around 0.626 and is 0.73 in the US. As stated above that is because there are 2.6 times the number of bikes in Thailand compared to the US. If China topped the charts in total deaths or accidents, it would be easy to say that was due to the large population. Here we have a larger population of bikes and daily bike-riders.

Looking at raw numbers is typically misleading until some 'normalised' data is added for clarity. So I would repeat that 15,000 deaths from 23 million bikes used daily, compares favourably to 8.7 million bikes where daily usage is very likely to be less prevalent. I have looked up usage data and it exposes another huge difference:

US bikes have an average of 2,000 miles usage per annum.
Thai bikes have an average of 10,000.

This allows us to calculate the number of accidents per miles ridden.

US deaths per billion motorcycle miles: 364

Thai deaths per billion motorcycle miles: 63

So from this view, Thailand is significantly safer despite the raw number being higher. Those numbers will be inaccurate, but not so wrong as to swing the results the other way. You know the phrase, "roughly right, not precisely wrong." The ratio might might drop from 5.7:1 to say 3:1

You are 100% correct about accounting for road deaths - RTP have some explaining to do...

6 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

Riding bikes here is a fool's errand.

Which idiot told you that? You should tell them to 1, grow a pair, and 2, learn how to ride before trying...

9 hours ago, ravip said:

Great and invaluable advice for all AN members!

No. The stupidity about insurance is typical of idiots who do not read or understand documents.

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

One has to question the ethics of the Thai healthcare industry when confronted with someone who can't pay.

Why should they pay the cost of uninsured people. The hospitals would have to pass on the costs to other patients.

1 hour ago, rattlesnake said:

If you have formal motorcycle training, a Thai driving licence, practice defensive driving and wear a full-face certified helmet, you will most likely be fine. A good insurance coverage will pay for everything in case of an accident.

I've survived thus far riding a motorcycle and road bike for 20 years. It's not as bad as looks if you can accept there is no right of way and the learn the dangerous ways people drive. I've still had some close calls due to no fault of my own (being passed at high speeds very close) which is always a risk you can't avoid.

8 hours ago, NoDisplayName said:

From facebook comments:

this guy had a travel insurance through his credit card company but he had no motorbike licence.

He wasn't stopped! He crossed a lane and got hit. Police reported that he was guilty after looking at cctv.

Just seen the video. Why did his sister then say she saw the full video and that he was stationary at the side of the road?

The video shows he was on his bike riding .

35 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I hate dealing with insurance companies - its never simple.

It is if you comply with all the policy conditions, those who don't are the ones who make it difficult for themselves.

No - this is not simply a matter of policyholders failing to read or comply with policy documentation.

Insurance policies are often drafted in a manner that makes genuine understanding difficult for a lay reader. They span multiple sections with dense cross-referencing sections. Following such chains requires a particular mindset and a familiarity with legal drafting that most ordinary policyholders do not possess. Many of these documents are plainly not written with ease of comprehension in mind.

While some insurers are better than others, I have spent decades trying to secure the most reasonable policies for my family and myself, and it has never been a simple process.

The best policy I ever had was through a previous employer - a Cigna Global policy under which there were effectively no questions asked and virtually everything was covered. The closest equivalent available at a personal level exceeded USD 10,000 per year. You do, indeed, get what you pay for - but that is a substantial sum. As a result, shopping around becomes unavoidable, and navigating policy terms is a labyrinthine exercise.

With my current insurer, it took two months of negotiation to have pre-existing conditions relating to joint injuries and previous ligament tears removed. When I transitioned from a company policy to a personal policy with the same insurer, they treated it as an entirely separate level of cover and refused to allow a direct rollover of my underwriting history. As a consequence, injures and treatment undery my company cover were considered pre-existing conditions, despite no material change in my currently medical circumstances.

So no - this is not merely about complying with policy conditions. Insurers do not make this process simple.

8 hours ago, DualSportBiker said:

Riding in Thailand is safer than you think. Most people are distracted by the headline stats; ~80% of both road accidents and road fatalities are bikes. 20,000+++ per year is horrendous - no argument there. However, there are nearly 23 million registered bikes here verses 9, 3.5 and 1.3 in the US, France and UK respectively. Bikes here are ridden daily as most users' only transport. Usage patterns in the US, France and the UK are very different. Most use their bikes for recreation, not obligatory daily use. The severity of the accidents here are due to not wearing helmets; 84% of Thai bikers hospitalised were not wearing helmets. More small accidents end up in hospital as almost nobody wears 'all the gear'.

When looking at the number of accidents per 1,000 bikes, it turns out that Thailand is very slightly safer than the US . But it is still 3x as dangerous as France or the UK.

Riders with genuine experience are more than likely to ride here in complete safety if they stick to some basic principles. Only those who can't ride, or can't understand numbers, or both, think that Thailand is especially dangerous.

Oh and yes, one needs specific insurance to ride here, especially as a tourist. That insurance hinges on having the correct permits to ride which the insurance companies are duty bound to confirm/deny before buying. You pay your pennies, you makes your choice...

Good points - our individual risk profile varies and is significantly less than the aggregate stats suggest if we do not...

... Ride while drunk

... Speed, recklessly, without attention, take chances

... Ride at night

... never in flipflops

And always ensuring we

... Wear a decent helmet

... Riding jacket

... Gloves

... Ride defensively

Of course - short rides on a scooter we don't want to be kitted up - AGATT... But, thats when accidents happen - at least cut the risk profile while not doing so at speed, while drunk or while taking chances without a helmet in flipflops !!

When we ride and cut the risk - we are still at great risk compared to driving, but our individual risk profile is significantly reduced compared to the national aggregate stats - that doesn't prevent a truck hitting us while stationary at the traffic lights - but such terrible luck can happen in a car though we are better protected.

1 hour ago, DualSportBiker said:

The great thing about statistics is that it allows you to view data from multiple perspectives. Twice as many Thais died on the road as in the US. Got that. That is a 'raw stat'; comparing two raw numbers. Deaths per 1,000 bikes here is around 0.626 and is 0.73 in the US. As stated above that is because there are 2.6 times the number of bikes in Thailand compared to the US. If China topped the charts in total deaths or accidents, it would be easy to say that was due to the large population. Here we have a larger population of bikes and daily bike-riders.

Looking at raw numbers is typically misleading until some 'normalised' data is added for clarity. So I would repeat that 15,000 deaths from 23 million bikes used daily, compares favourably to 8.7 million bikes where daily usage is very likely to be less prevalent. I have looked up usage data and it exposes another huge difference:

US bikes have an average of 2,000 miles usage per annum.
Thai bikes have an average of 10,000.

This allows us to calculate the number of accidents per miles ridden.

US deaths per billion motorcycle miles: 364

Thai deaths per billion motorcycle miles: 63

So from this view, Thailand is significantly safer despite the raw number being higher. Those numbers will be inaccurate, but not so wrong as to swing the results the other way. You know the phrase, "roughly right, not precisely wrong." The ratio might might drop from 5.7:1 to say 3:1

You are 100% correct about accounting for road deaths - RTP have some explaining to do...

Which idiot told you that? You should tell them to 1, grow a pair, and 2, learn how to ride before trying...

Good points again....

When crunching the stats for 4 wheeled vehicles - Thailand is also safer than the US.

But the numbers miss the amount of mileage driven which might swing things the other way as I expect drivers in the US (of cars) cover more mileage than the average driver here.

7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I have an injury - and after seeing the Dr with an MRI about treatment etc - surgery recommended - I stupidly told him of a surgical repair a few years ago (same joint / separate issue) - this went into the Dr's notes: Now I have a 'pre-existing condition' and I'm not covered - so I can't risk going back to that hospital for surgery and will have to start the process again with a different hospital that doesn't share the same info.

For someone given to lecturing people on all things moral, that's quite the self incrimination: Calling for dishonesty. A previous surgical procedure would become evident if another procedure for the part was done or during an autopsy. Once discovered it could result in all related claims denied and/or all coverage "void ab initio" cancelled as of inception. Declaring a pre-existing condition ensures coverage for unrelated events is available. Conditions that are stable can often be covered. One cannot reasonably expect an insurer to accept to provide coverage for an ongoing issue unless given the opportunity to underwrite the exposure accurately. Holding back material fact in a contract is illegal.

13 hours ago, webfact said:

His insurance has refused to pay

Not sure exactly why, perhaps the accident was his fault.

Anyway, pay the hospital bill, keep OFF the motorbikes, go home and sort out the issue with your insurance company.

33 minutes ago, Patong2021 said:

8 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

I have an injury - and after seeing the Dr with an MRI about treatment etc - surgery recommended - I stupidly told him of a surgical repair a few years ago (same joint / separate issue) - this went into the Dr's notes: Now I have a 'pre-existing condition' and I'm not covered - so I can't risk going back to that hospital for surgery and will have to start the process again with a different hospital that doesn't share the same info.

For someone given to lecturing people on all things moral, that's quite the self incrimination: Calling for dishonesty. A previous surgical procedure would become evident if another procedure for the part was done or during an autopsy. Once discovered it could result in all related claims denied and/or all coverage "void ab initio" cancelled as of inception. Declaring a pre-existing condition ensures coverage for unrelated events is available. Conditions that are stable can often be covered. One cannot reasonably expect an insurer to accept to provide coverage for an ongoing issue unless given the opportunity to underwrite the exposure accurately. Holding back material fact in a contract is illegal.

I've no argument against that - you are correct. I'll add that I'm comfortable making a claim for a procedure that I had no idea was necessary when taking out insurance - up until 6 months ago I was playing football 2x per week.

The procedure / surgery is 'investigatory' as an MRI is inconclusive, yet a joint is periodically locking, painfully so (Surgeon suspects some 'debris may need cleaning out' - hence suggests the 'investigation').

7 hours ago, stupidfarang said:

Interesting bit on deaths in hospital

In Thailand, when a person dies in a hospital following a road accident, the official cause of death (COD) listed is the specific medical condition or injury that initiated the sequence of morbid events leading to death, such as "craniocerebral injury" or "blunt force trauma". The death is also classified as a road traffic death if it occurs within 30 days of the accident.

"There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics" – especially regarding road safety in Thailand.... the 2 most common "myths" are that only deaths at the scene are recorded and only deaths within 30 days are counted...

I’m not sure this is as clear-cut as you’re suggesting, especially regarding the “30-day rule” and who, in practice, is applying it.

On paper, yes: if someone dies in hospital after a road crash, the medical cause of death will usually be recorded as the proximate injury (e.g. craniocerebral injury, blunt force trauma). Whether that death is also consistently captured as a road-traffic fatality within 30 days is the unresolved issue.

The real problem is that there is no single body in Thailand collecting and reconciling road-death statistics in a uniform way.

Some key points that are often glossed over:

• Multiple agencies, multiple purposes

Road-death data comes from police reports, hospital records, death certificates, insurance claims (notably RVP), and public-health databases. Each uses different definitions, timeframes, and reporting incentives.

Here’s a summary of stat gathering in Thailand…

• Police vs health data

Police data is event-based and heavily weighted toward on-scene or immediate deaths. Public-health data is outcome-based and slower to compile. These two systems are not reliably synchronised.

• Under-counting of delayed deaths

This is precisely where the “30-day rule” becomes questionable in practice. Victims who die days or weeks later in hospital are often missing from police tallies and daily road-toll figures, even if the medical cause is injury-related.

• WHO vs national figures

The WHO has repeatedly estimated Thai road deaths to be significantly higher than official ministry or police figures (by as much as ~40% in some years), largely because of delayed deaths, underreporting, and data fragmentation.

• Insurance data often tells a different story

Figures from the Road Accident Victims Protection Company are frequently higher than police data and are often considered more comprehensive—but still don’t fully align with public-health totals.

• Selective reporting periods

The “Seven Dangerous Days” campaigns highlight another issue: enforcement and data collection suddenly improve during New Year and Songkran, implying they are not consistent year-round.

So the key question is this: - Who exactly is enforcing or auditing the 30-day classification across all these systems—and where is that reconciliation happening?

Until Thailand has a genuinely integrated national database linking police, hospital, insurance, and death-registration records, it’s simply not accurate to suggest that road-death statistics are internally consistent or that the 30-day rule is uniformly applied.

There’s broad agreement that Thailand has a severe road-safety problem—especially involving motorcycles—but the exact numbers depend heavily on which dataset you choose and what it excludes.

4 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

Why should they pay the cost of uninsured people. The hospitals would have to pass on the costs to other patients.

So you are saying they should let the uninsured die of their injuries? - Where do they put them? In bed or just stack them up in the cellar...or dispatch them with a lethal injection?

7 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

No. The stupidity about insurance is typical of idiots who do not read or understand documents.

Sorry for that post. Seems my sarcasm was missed by all!

10 hours ago, Sir Dude said:

So many assumptions and clearly you are full of sh*t that knows nothing... you know nothing of my situation and should go F yourself.

Sir, I now understand very well why YOU call yourself Sir - no one respects what's in the gutter.

Credit card insurance? No license? Driving like a monkey?

Rest in pieces 💔

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

"There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics" – especially regarding road safety in Thailand.... the 2 most common "myths" are that only deaths at the scene are recorded and only deaths within 30 days are counted...

I’m not sure this is as clear-cut as you’re suggesting, especially regarding the “30-day rule” and who, in practice, is applying it.

On paper, yes: if someone dies in hospital after a road crash, the medical cause of death will usually be recorded as the proximate injury (e.g. craniocerebral injury, blunt force trauma). Whether that death is also consistently captured as a road-traffic fatality within 30 days is the unresolved issue.

The real problem is that there is no single body in Thailand collecting and reconciling road-death statistics in a uniform way.

Some key points that are often glossed over:

• Multiple agencies, multiple purposes

Road-death data comes from police reports, hospital records, death certificates, insurance claims (notably RVP), and public-health databases. Each uses different definitions, timeframes, and reporting incentives.

Here’s a summary of stat gathering in Thailand…

• Police vs health data

Police data is event-based and heavily weighted toward on-scene or immediate deaths. Public-health data is outcome-based and slower to compile. These two systems are not reliably synchronised.

• Under-counting of delayed deaths

This is precisely where the “30-day rule” becomes questionable in practice. Victims who die days or weeks later in hospital are often missing from police tallies and daily road-toll figures, even if the medical cause is injury-related.

• WHO vs national figures

The WHO has repeatedly estimated Thai road deaths to be significantly higher than official ministry or police figures (by as much as ~40% in some years), largely because of delayed deaths, underreporting, and data fragmentation.

• Insurance data often tells a different story

Figures from the Road Accident Victims Protection Company are frequently higher than police data and are often considered more comprehensive—but still don’t fully align with public-health totals.

• Selective reporting periods

The “Seven Dangerous Days” campaigns highlight another issue: enforcement and data collection suddenly improve during New Year and Songkran, implying they are not consistent year-round.

So the key question is this: - Who exactly is enforcing or auditing the 30-day classification across all these systems—and where is that reconciliation happening?

Until Thailand has a genuinely integrated national database linking police, hospital, insurance, and death-registration records, it’s simply not accurate to suggest that road-death statistics are internally consistent or that the 30-day rule is uniformly applied.

There’s broad agreement that Thailand has a severe road-safety problem—especially involving motorcycles—but the exact numbers depend heavily on which dataset you choose and what it excludes.

agree with what you say about collecting of data

13 hours ago, stevenl said:

The same story on Facebook. There is CCTV footage, showing him crossing the road on his bike. The Belgian guy was to blame for the accident.
I'll see if I can get hold of the video.

Video is on a French language Belgian website, so I can't link.

one thing over the years i have learned here
Always when a poster posts something about how this of that happened to him and it was not his fault, 90% of the time it was an he figured he would get sympathy here

Sorry, it does not work that way

Emergency care here in phuket is on par with any western nation and even in the us they will ask for insurance or a cc to cover you.

2 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

Ultimately, you are paying, if you get reimbursed wonderful (absolutely no guarantee of that here), but us "rich" farangs are expected to pay our bills once we enter the hospital.

in many cases. My insurance paid all my hospital

Probably right

7 minutes ago, lordgrinz said:

Ultimately, you are paying, if you get reimbursed wonderful (absolutely no guarantee of that here), but us "rich" farangs are expected to pay our bills once we enter the hospital. "Damages", meaning vehicle damages? Even those are covered by your first class insurance, they go after the other guy later, but I doubt Somchai will ever pay up. But medical? Yeah, good luck collecting on that from the other party before you enter and exit a hospital.

2 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Which part about 'That's why you have insurance. They will pay, hospital and vehicle, and if the other party is at fault, go after that other party.' did you not understand?

9 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

You mean "you" are paying, then hoping your insurance repays you afterwards, and covers some, or all of the costs.

In my experience the insurance pays first. Sometimes people get weird insurance that in many cases might be too cheap to be true insurance. Many even are deceived into thinking expensive insurance that hospitals have never interacted with are better. The buyer is sold that western types of insurance packages are more dependable but not so easy outside of big cities.

I go with insurance companies the hospitals deal with all throughout each day. No waiting for reimbursement confirmation while you're in extreme pain. They know the process and have contact numbers scribbled on notepads. The payment process is simple for hospitals and don't get why some purchase these harder to get reimbursed insurance packages at a huge premium in many cases.

"1.5 million baht for additional related costs" - interesting ........

The question is did he have a license to ride the motor bike / scooter if not the insurance has every right to refuse to pay out had he said he was riding pillion then he would of been covered

17 hours ago, stupidfarang said:

If you do not have the following<

1) a motor bike licence from your own country

2) a International licence to cover you overseas

3) if you have a motor bike licence from your own country but did not get the International licence to cover you while overseas

Then the Insurance will not pay out.

We know that many tourists arrive and hire a bike without a licence then expect the insurance to pay out if in an accident.

We all know Insurance companies are there to make a profit and to dispute any claim in anyway they can so they do not need to pay out.

Agreed.

The first onus is on the hirer to make sure that they have all necessary licences. No question about that.

But I also think that there should be some responsibility placed on the person or company that hires out the bike. Imagine trying to hire a bike or car in the West without a proper licence. It just wouldn’t happen.

Thailand can moan all it wants about unlicensed/uninsured tourists, but they could help themselves AND the tourists by having just the smallest amount of regulation on hiring out bikes.

8 hours ago, DonniePeverley said:

Just seen the video. Why did his sister then say she saw the full video and that he was stationary at the side of the road?

The video shows he was on his bike riding .

Because she is trying to get more symphony and therefore more money

20 hours ago, lordgrinz said:

One....don't ride a motorcycle in Thailand......two.....don't trust insurance companies......three.....pick a better and safer country to travel in....Thailand is dangerous for travelling in/on any vehicle, and you will be held hostage until you pay your medical bill. Also, no matter who is at fault, you will pay!

100% correct, except you don't even have to be riding a motorcycle, last year a friend of mine got wiped out from behind while walking on a pavement by a Win taxi rider. The rider got a 5,000 baht fine..

He refused to pay the hospital bill and she was visited by the police in hospital, to settle the cost before being released.