14 hours ago, Patong2021 said:

And now we know that the vehicle and the driver are uninsured. Wonderful.

If this occurred in Singapore or Japan or UK or Australia, the vehicle insurer would cover the cost of repairs under the Comprehensive or All perils section, less the deductible. The insurer would then subrogate against the responsible party, if identifiable.

Sorry to see this happen to anyone, but this is why vehicles are insured. Neither the vehicle owner, nor the driver saw the need for insurance. OK. Now deal they can with the issues that arise from being self insured.

There's no indication that the taxi was uninsured, it's very likely that the driver was responsible for any excess on the policy, or deductible as you refer to it.

9 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

There's no indication that the taxi was uninsured, it's very likely that the driver was responsible for any excess on the policy, or deductible as you refer to it.

And here you are to argue for the sake of arguing. Did you read the article? If the driver is responsible for a deductible then why is does the article state; seeking compensation for the damage and Wongprakob noted ........he is responsible for covering the repair costs. If there was insurance, he would not have to cover the repair costs.

The tourists were the usual jerks that Thailand unfortunately does get, so nothing new.

But on the other hand, knowing how the taxi (and most services) cheat even regular foreign customers, how do we know that the taxi fellow was not trying to ripp off the foreigners in overcharging (not for the ride) but for the repairs ? Maybe the tourists did not want to be taken for a...ride !!!?

23 hours ago, BritManToo said:

Think it was a guy wearing a frock!

Bob?🙃🙃

On 1/29/2026 at 11:17 AM, Woke to Sounds said:

Brits?

Why do you think that?

The bloke in the stripes certainly doesn't sound British.

On 1/28/2026 at 6:53 PM, snoop1130 said:

Wongprakob noted the importance of resolving the matter since the taxi is rented, and he is responsible for covering the repair costs.

The 300 baht tourist charge should cover that, put it to good use. That’ll pop right back out.

On 1/28/2026 at 12:35 PM, Gottfrid said:

If the idiot foreigners damage something they should need to pay.

Which one do you say should pay?

Say you are walking along a street in Thailand one day / night and a drunk tourists starts an altercation with you in which you defend yourself, and in the process get pushed into an object and it breaks. Should you pay the owner for the damage, or the the other guy, or both of you?

17 hours ago, RayC said:

Why do you think that?

The bloke in the stripes certainly doesn't sound British.

Because most dust ups here are instigated by Brits?

Second, Brits are well aware of the so called New World Order - just look at what's happening in the UK - and the chap wore the tee shirt to prove it.

💯0% in

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Which one do you say should pay?

Say you are walking along a street in Thailand one day / night and a drunk tourists starts an altercation with you in which you defend yourself, and in the process get pushed into an object and it breaks. Should you pay the owner for the damage, or the the other guy, or both of you?

So is this about one guy walking around and another one suddenly just attack?

Get real!

Maybe the damage already there like jet ski scam?

2 hours ago, Woke to Sounds said:

Because most dust ups here are instigated by Brits?

Second, Brits are well aware of the so called New World Order - just look at what's happening in the UK - and the chap wore the tee shirt to prove it.

💯0% in

I doubt that there is much data to back up the claim that most dust-ups in Pattaya involve Brits, so pretty flimsy and superficial evidence.

As I said previously, in this particular instance the fellow in the striped shirt doesn't have a British accent.

10 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

So is this about one guy walking around and another one suddenly just attack?

Get real!

I put a scenario to you, and it wasn't about a sudden attack. I used the word altercation.

If you were pushed by someone else into a window, or onto a table, thus breaking the window or table, according to you, who should pay for the broken window or table?

2 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

I put a scenario to you, and it wasn't about a sudden attack. I used the word altercation.

If you were pushed by someone else into a window, or onto a table, thus breaking the window or table, according to you, who should pay for the broken window or table?

Meaningless discussion boy! One of them have to pay, as they can´t push the obligation over between each other. Did it stand something about the thing you are talking about in the news article connected to this thread? If so, I advise you to voice you concern to the right entity?

37 minutes ago, Gottfrid said:

Meaningless discussion boy! One of them have to pay, as they can´t push the obligation over between each other. Did it stand something about the thing you are talking about in the news article connected to this thread? If so, I advise you to voice you concern to the right entity?

So, that means your initial post about it was BS. They ALL shouldn't have to pay, only the offending party. Glad we cleared that up. 🙂

11 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

So, that means your initial post about it was BS. They ALL shouldn't have to pay, only the offending party. Glad we cleared that up. 🙂

I don´t have a clue about what you cleared up in your own mind, but it seems unrelated to my initial post that you refer to. Look below.

On 1/28/2026 at 7:35 PM, Gottfrid said:

Stupid comment! If the idiot foreigners damage something they should need to pay. It´s amazing how many idiots and uncontrolled people we have to read about every day. Animals understand each other better! And you, seem to understand nothing!

Here it stands if the idiot foreigners damage something. If the case now is that both can´t be liable for the damage, that simply means one of the two should need to pay. Never stands that ALL have to pay, only the foreigners/foreigner (That´s what you are hooked on and feel the need to pick on) that are liable for the damage. The sentence can also be seen in a wider perspective, where it relates to more than only this single incident. Glas, I could be able to explain that to you! 🙂

7 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

I don´t have a clue

Clearly, English is not your first language, so I will try to explain myself better.

7 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

Here it stands if the idiot foreigners damage something.

What if one foreigner was the assailant, and the other foreigner the victim of the assault?

Should the victim have to pay for the damage also?

I can't be more clearer.

You used the words "idiot foreigners" and suggested they all should have to pay for the damage. I don't see it that way.

17 hours ago, KhunHeineken said:

Clearly, English is not your first language, so I will try to explain myself better.

What if one foreigner was the assailant, and the other foreigner the victim of the assault?

Should the victim have to pay for the damage also?

I can't be more clearer.

You used the words "idiot foreigners" and suggested they all should have to pay for the damage. I don't see it that way.

No, English is not my first language. That´s why we don´t comment on that as it is an international forum.

I already posted the explanation for you quote. Now, same as for the other post. Go play with somebody else.

7 hours ago, Gottfrid said:

No, English is not my first language.

Yes, I could tell, but it's fine. As you say, it's an international forum.

Now, about the part where YOU attribute blame to ALL people involved.

You defected the questions I put to you, which is also fine. I think members can see you have no idea.

NEVER get involved with fights. Never try and break them up. If you seen the mental cases fighting, get your taxi the hell out of there asap. Of course it is their fault but you have no way of getting money out of them.