Enforcement costs a lot of money.

i do not think adults that do not want to wear helmets should have to wear helmets.

21 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Enforcement costs a lot of money.

i do not think adults that do not want to wear helmets should have to wear helmets.

That argument only works if the consequences are purely personal — but they are not.

When somebody smashes their skull open riding without a helmet, the costs are dumped onto everybody else: hospitals, insurance systems, emergency services, families, employers and ultimately the wider economy.

 

Thailand already loses billions of baht every year dealing with road crash injuries, much of it directly linked to unhelmeted motorcyclists suffering traumatic head injuries. Motorcycle deaths account for roughly 80% of road fatalities, and the overwhelming majority of seriously injured riders admitted to hospital were not wearing helmets.

 

This is not simply “an adult making a private choice.” It is a public health issue with enormous social and economic consequences.

 

By your logic, we should also abolish drink-driving laws because “adults should choose for themselves.”

 

As I said before, road safety is a public health issue - Societies enforce seatbelts, helmets and drunk-driving laws because the financial and human costs of preventable injuries are carried by everyone else — including taxpayers, insured motorists, businesses and hospital systems.

And ironically, weak enforcement costs far more money in the long run than proper enforcement ever would.

 

37 minutes ago, nick supreme said:

individuals from the West

can't get away from the race thing? THet is mot likely the problem with attitudes to road safety on this and other threads.

7 hours ago, JustinTyme said:

This lengthy essay is absurd, and the rebuttal is simple and one sentence:

Never let "Perfect" get in the way of "Good"

“Never let ‘good’ get in the way of asking whether something actually works.”

Performative charity and evidence-based road safety are not the same thing.

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

That argument only works if the consequences are purely personal — but they are not.

When somebody smashes their skull open riding without a helmet, the costs are dumped onto everybody else: hospitals, insurance systems, emergency services, families, employers and ultimately the wider economy....

I don't think the costs should be dumped on everyone else.

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

Thailand already loses billions of baht every year dealing with road crash injuries, much of it directly linked to unhelmeted motorcyclists suffering traumatic head injuries. Motorcycle deaths account for roughly 80% of road fatalities, and the overwhelming majority of seriously injured riders admitted to hospital were not wearing helmets.

 

This is not simply “an adult making a private choice.” It is a public health issue with enormous social and economic consequences.

It should not be.

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 By your logic, we should also abolish drink-driving laws because “adults should choose for themselves.”

That's your logic not mine. Drunk drivers kill other people, not just themselves.

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

 As I said before, road safety is a public health issue - Societies enforce seatbelts, helmets and drunk-driving laws because the financial and human costs of preventable injuries are carried by everyone else — including taxpayers, insured motorists, businesses and hospital systems.

And as I said before, I do not think it should be.

16 minutes ago, kwilco said:

And ironically, weak enforcement costs far more money in the long run than proper enforcement ever would.

Based on what?

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think the costs should be dumped on everyone else.

It should not be.

That's your logic not mine. Drunk drivers kill other people, not just themselves.

And as I said before, I do not think it should be.

Based on what?

Your entire argument boils down to “I don’t think it should be that way.”

 

But road safety policy is based on reality, not your personal philosophy.

 

The reality is that catastrophic head injuries from unhelmeted riders cost billions in medical treatment, insurance payouts, lost productivity, emergency response and long-term care. Those costs are spread across society whether you personally approve of it or not. That is how every healthcare and insurance system on earth works.

 

You keep replying with “it shouldn’t be", while completely avoiding the fact that it IS.

 

And your attempt to separate helmet laws from drink-driving laws also collapses immediately. Drunk drivers absolutely do kill themselves as well as others — yet society still regulates that behaviour because the consequences extend far beyond the individual.

 

This is basic public health economics, not ideology.

 

Thailand loses an estimated 6–7% of GDP annually through road crash fatalities and serious injuries. That burden is carried by taxpayers, businesses, hospitals, insurers and families.

So when you ask “based on what?” — based on decades of global road safety data, healthcare economics and actuarial reality.

 

You are arguing with established economics, not with me.

 

 

On 5/26/2026 at 5:37 PM, Gottfrid said:

On 5/26/2026 at 5:37 PM, Gottfrid said:

Could you please make that a bit easier to digest?

Could you please make that a bit easier to digest?

It's a complex topic, and "easy to digest" would mean over-simplification, which of course leads to the over-simplistic solutions and opinions expressed by many on this thread – if you see the topic as simple, then you don't understand the issues, and that's part of the problem I have suggested with Helmet Heroes.

Edited May 28May 28 by kwilco

3 hours ago, kwilco said:

That argument only works if the consequences are purely personal — but they are not.

When somebody smashes their skull open riding without a helmet, the costs are dumped onto everybody else: hospitals, insurance systems, emergency services, families, employers and ultimately the wider economy.

 

Thailand already loses billions of baht every year dealing with road crash injuries, much of it directly linked to unhelmeted motorcyclists suffering traumatic head injuries. Motorcycle deaths account for roughly 80% of road fatalities, and the overwhelming majority of seriously injured riders admitted to hospital were not wearing helmets.

 

This is not simply “an adult making a private choice.” It is a public health issue with enormous social and economic consequences.

 

By your logic, we should also abolish drink-driving laws because “adults should choose for themselves.”

 

As I said before, road safety is a public health issue - Societies enforce seatbelts, helmets and drunk-driving laws because the financial and human costs of preventable injuries are carried by everyone else — including taxpayers, insured motorists, businesses and hospital systems.

And ironically, weak enforcement costs far more money in the long run than proper enforcement ever would.

 

I agree with you on that one, kwilc.

On 5/26/2026 at 1:06 PM, richard_smith237 said:

He genuinely seems to believe he’s the only person allowed to have a valid opinion on road safety in Thailand. Every time someone makes a fair criticism - even when backed by facts or personal experience - he jumps in to dismiss it, lecture everyone, or accuse them of racism instead of addressing the actual point.

Apparently dangerous roads, poor driving standards, lack of enforcement, and insane accident rates can only be discussed if they meet his personal approval first.

What makes it even more tiring is that he constantly copy-pastes the same huge walls of text and recycled commentary he’s clearly documented and worked on beforehand - perhaps in previous work environment / career - To be fair, I do believe he has excellent and valid points on road safety, and I can believe he’s worked in the field before. But having experience doesn’t make someone the sole authority on the subject.

The issue is that he behaves as though nobody else is allowed to make observations unless they align perfectly with his narrative. Threads inevitably end up turning into a pishing contest where he’s telling everyone else how wrong they are instead of having a normal discussion.

To put it mildly, he is unstable.

26 minutes ago, kwilco said:

you resort to “he was a lollipop man.”

Were you? Nothing wrong about it BTW. I will take a lack of response as a "yes".

On 5/27/2026 at 12:40 AM, flexomike said:

On 5/27/2026 at 12:40 AM, flexomike said:

What have you done about it accept post on this forum?

What have you done about it accept post on this forum?

That’s a false dichotomy — as though the only valid contribution is standing in a street handing out helmets for cameras.

Discussion, analysis and challenging ineffective ideas are also forms of action — especially when they are grounded in actual road safety theory rather than emotion and social media optics.

For the record, I worked in the Traffic Engineering Department of a major UK city many years ago and have studied road safety issues for over 30 years. Without accurate data, sound theory and proper evaluation, meaningful policy is impossible.

My thread has so far generated my post has generated 69 posts, 1.7k views in 2 days. which suggests many people recognise there is a serious discussion to be had about whether these highly visible “charity” exercises achieve anything measurable at all.

Road safety is not solved by feel-good gestures. It is solved by evidence-based enforcement, engineering, education, emergency response and evaluation.

Otherwise, we are simply reduced to foreigners standing in roads in Pattaya handing crash helmets to children while the underlying system remains broken.

2 hours ago, Yellowtail said:

I don't think the costs should be dumped on everyone else.

In that case, you're a freedom absolutist, I can appreciate and respect that. Do you think people should pay income tax? (I don't).

8 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

I agree with you on that one, kwilc.

How do you consider that relevent to the discussion on my OP?

Just now, kwilco said:

How do you consider that relevent to the discussion on my OP?

1. I agree that there is a personal responsibility in wearing a helmet, as ultimately, the cost of a catastrophic head injury has to be borne by others: the taxpayers (and that is also the case in Thailand through the 30 baht scheme) and family members/friends. Being in a vegetative state is not merely the consequence of a personal choice, it inflicts years of burden and pain on loved ones and is costly for society.

2. I agree with the premise outlined in your OP: a culture and mentality shift is necessary, and although Helmet Heroes are probably well-intentioned (though I don't know anything about them), to me, ultimately, this type of endeavour is more akin to a PR stunt than anything else. In my view, it is not an effective way to achieve the aforementioned culture and mentality shift which is required for real change.

1 hour ago, kwilco said:

Your entire argument boils down to “I don’t think it should be that way.”

 

But road safety policy is based on reality, not your personal philosophy.

 

The reality is that catastrophic head injuries from unhelmeted riders cost billions in medical treatment, insurance payouts, lost productivity, emergency response and long-term care. Those costs are spread across society whether you personally approve of it or not. That is how every healthcare and insurance system on earth works.

 

You keep replying with “it shouldn’t be", while completely avoiding the fact that it IS.

 

And your attempt to separate helmet laws from drink-driving laws also collapses immediately. Drunk drivers absolutely do kill themselves as well as others — yet society still regulates that behaviour because the consequences extend far beyond the individual.

 

This is basic public health economics, not ideology.

 

Thailand loses an estimated 6–7% of GDP annually through road crash fatalities and serious injuries. That burden is carried by taxpayers, businesses, hospitals, insurers and families.

So when you ask “based on what?” — based on decades of global road safety data, healthcare economics and actuarial reality.

 

You are arguing with established economics, not with me.

 

 

Almost everyone in this discussion believes that people should wear helmets. However, you seem unable to agree with anyone who insists that everyone should do so. What exactly are you trying to prove? Go away.

4 minutes ago, TedG said:

Almost everyone in this discussion believes that people should wear helmets. However, you seem unable to agree with anyone who insists that everyone should do so. What exactly are you trying to prove? Go away.

He has, by his own admission, special needs.

On 3/27/2026 at 5:01 PM, kwilco said:

I’m dyslexic

So we should go easy on him, despite his propensity to alienate just about everyone, including those who agree with him.

Edited May 28May 28 by rattlesnake
Typo.

5 hours ago, kwilco said:

It's a complex topic, and "easy to digest" would mean over-simplification, which of course leads to the over-simplistic solutions and opinions expressed by many on this thread – if you see the topic as simple, then you don't understand the issues, and that's part of the problem I have suggested with Helmet Heroes.

Hey! Wake up! Why do you think I was talking about the topic? Did you miss how everything is structured? Please, just try to think before you post, and just maybe the little baht will fall down.

9 hours ago, kwilco said:

“Never let ‘good’ get in the way of asking whether something actually works.”

Performative charity and evidence-based road safety are not the same thing.

If you are struggling with the question, "which is better, a child wearing a helmet on a motorbike, or a child riding without a helmet on a motorbike?" ... perhaps you need to spend more time examining YOU, and stop worrying about people trying to make the world better, one child at a time.

12 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

Please provide examples of 'white man knows better' undertones in my posts.

Your entire Looking down your nose and "delivering the tablets from on high" excessive essays, reek of "white elitism / look at me." Explaining your attitude to you, would be like trying to explain "being wet" to a fish. Listen, I get that you are simply seeking attention and clicks, which is your right and really what drives the metrics on this site, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck ... or in your case, a bored troll with waaaaaay too much time on your hands, so let's not engage further, because this kind of BS just fuels you, and I am not your entertainment. Have a great weekend ... Signing off from further interaction with you ...

6 hours ago, JustinTyme said:

Your entire Looking down your nose and "delivering the tablets from on high" excessive essays, reek of "white elitism / look at me." Explaining your attitude to you, would be like trying to explain "being wet" to a fish. Listen, I get that you are simply seeking attention and clicks, which is your right and really what drives the metrics on this site, but if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck ... or in your case, a bored troll with waaaaaay too much time on your hands, so let's not engage further, because this kind of BS just fuels you, and I am not your entertainment. Have a great weekend ... Signing off from further interaction with you ...

You're confusing me with someone else as I never write 'essays'; conciseness is key.

That was an excessively defensive diatribe. Relax, man.

26 minutes ago, rattlesnake said:

You're confusing me with someone else as I never write 'essays'; conciseness is key.

That was an excessively defensive diatribe. Relax, man.

OK, thanks for the clarification ... have a great weekend ...

Giving away crash helmets - is this a good idea?

If you expect a crash.....

Then, receiving this gift of life is a very good idea.

1 hour ago, JustinTyme said:

OK, thanks for the clarification ... have a great weekend ...

You too. 👍🏻

19 hours ago, kwilco said:

It's a complex topic, and "easy to digest" would mean over-simplification, which of course leads to the over-simplistic solutions and opinions expressed by many on this thread – if you see the topic as simple, then you don't understand the issues, and that's part of the problem I have suggested with Helmet Heroes.

here's a summary for those who have difficulty with the original.

I keep seeing videos from Pattaya Beach Road of foreigners and police stopping motorcycles and handing crash helmets to children.

Nobody disputes that helmets save lives. The question is whether this sort of campaign actually changes behaviour or simply creates good social media content.

Thailand’s road safety problem is far bigger than helmets alone. It involves poor enforcement, weak infrastructure, inconsistent policing, lack of reliable crash data, overcrowded roads and economic reality. Motorcycles are often family transport, work vehicles and taxis all at once.

Critics argue these roadside helmet handouts risk becoming “performative safety” — highly visible actions that make people feel good without tackling the deeper causes of the problem.

There are also cultural issues. Publicly stopping families in front of police and foreigners can cause embarrassment and loss of face in Thailand, even if people smile politely.

The real issue is not whether helmets are good. Of course they are.

The issue is whether foreign-led roadside interventions are the best and most effective way to improve long-term road safety in Thailand.

 

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

The issue is whether foreign-led roadside interventions are the best and most effective way to improve long-term road safety in Thailand.

I think it's quite clear that it's not, I think very very few would dispute that....

An alternative phrase could be....................The issue is whether foreign-led roadside interventions are better than no foreign-led roadside interventions?

20 hours ago, rattlesnake said:

To put it mildly, he is unstable.

.... it seems  you still haven’t stopped to look at how much time you’re spending online despite all the evidence

 

You are not just browsing but repeatedly posting, defending, and recycling the same claims and nonsense on various threads on ASEAN NOW and other sites too… At some point you need to realise that with you it isn’t “research” or even discussion; it starts looking more like compulsion and gainsaying….

 

You resist the evidence that suggests there’s a recognised pattern. You are addicted – it’s excessive forum use – especially when it becomes obsessive, defensive, and all-consuming – that is often linked to what’s called compulsive internet use syndrome (CIU)... It’s not about being “interested”; it’s about being preoccupied: constantly online, doubling down, unable to disengage even when it’s going nowhere.

 

Your arguments descend down endless “rabbit holes” that you claim as research; you compulsively gainsay any idea you have never considered, distrusting anyone outside your bubble – you have a compulsive need to defend the indefensible the rather than analyse it

 

The internet hasn’t created your mindset, but it has fed it. With you, algorithms, echo chambers, and constant engagement turn it into a loop: more time online → stronger misguided beliefs → more time defending them.

 

At this point, it’s no longer about evidence or discussion. It’s about the maintenance of your Dunning-Kruger-like beliefs and habits.

 

If you look at the topics you are replying to, your posts are always among the top responders, even more than the OPs' – on this thread and on the conspiracy thread and several others – so it’s not just the one thread – you are obsessively everywhere with deeply flawed and uninformed comments. The only person to exceed you is that weird neo-Nazi paranoid racist on ASEAN’s sister forum

 

You should consider logging off for a bit to get some perspective and ask a simple question:

Is this actually thinking — or just repeating? Remember the definition: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

Edited May 29May 29 by kwilco

4 minutes ago, kwilco said:

.... it seems  you still haven’t stopped to look at how much time you’re spending online despite all the evidence

 

You are not just browsing but repeatedly posting, defending, and recycling the same claims and nonsense on various threads on ASEAN NOW and other sites too… At some point you need to realise that with you it isn’t “research” or even discussion; it starts looking more like compulsion and gainsaying….

 

You resist the evidence that suggests there’s a recognised pattern. You are addicted – it’s excessive forum use — especially when it becomes obsessive, defensive, and all-consuming — that is often linked to what’s called compulsive internet use syndrome (CIU)... It’s not about being “interested”; it’s about being preoccupied: constantly online, doubling down, unable to disengage even when it’s going nowhere.

 

Your arguments descend down endless “rabbit holes” that you claim as research; you compulsively gainsay any idea you have never considered, distrusting anyone outside your bubble – you have a compulsive need to defend the indefensible the rather than analyse it

 

The internet hasn’t created your mindset, but it has fed it. With you, algorithms, echo chambers, and constant engagement turn it into a loop: more time online → stronger misguided beliefs → more time defending them.

 

At this point, it’s no longer about evidence or discussion. It’s about the maintenance of your Dunning-Kruger-like beliefs and habits.

 

If you look at the topics you are replying to, your posts are always the

Top responder – on this thread and on the conspiracy thread and several others – so it’s not just the one thread – you are obsessively everywhere with deeply flawed and uninformed comments. The only person to exceed you is that weird neo-Nazi paranoid racist on ASEAN’s sister forum

 

You should consider logging off for a bit to get some perspective and ask a simple question:

Is this actually thinking — or just repeating? Remember the definition "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results"

A decent effort, kwilc. Please note, though, that I am pretty much the only one in this thread who actually agreed with your OP and explained why the rationale is sound… it's the kwilco rabbit hole. 😁

I probably spend 30 minutes posting online on a regular day, if I'm not too busy. I work on my PC so it's easy to open a tab and read/post a reply in a few seconds/minutes.

Keep it up bro.

7 hours ago, Off Piste said:

I think it's quite clear that it's not, I think very very few would dispute that....

An alternative phrase could be....................The issue is whether foreign-led roadside interventions are better than no foreign-led roadside interventions?

7 hours ago, Off Piste said:

I think it's quite clear that it's not, I think very very few would dispute that....

An alternative phrase could be....................The issue is whether foreign-led roadside interventions are better than no foreign-led roadside interventions?

7 hours ago, Off Piste said:

I think it's quite clear that it's not, I think very very few would dispute that....

An alternative phrase could be....................The issue is whether foreign-led roadside interventions are better than no foreign-led roadside interventions?

And if you read my OP, you'll see, I suggest that it isn't, as this "performance" style arguably is not effective

On 5/28/2026 at 10:46 AM, VocalNeal said:

But how many posters on this thread ride motorcycles, How many posters on this thread pay taxes, How many posters on this thread can vote in Thailand. Et al.

Question. Can a US citizen who pays taxes and originally comes from , say, Nebraska. Can they campaign for or advocate for helmet laws in Iowa?

Can a UK citizen advocate for helmet laws in France?

Simply live here and enjoy the hospitality of our hosts and the sunshine and palm tress without complaining.

Your comment makes no sense, and is irrelevant to what I said....please address my comment, and not go off onto a side issue.

On 5/28/2026 at 10:46 AM, VocalNeal said:

But how many posters on this thread ride motorcycles, How many posters on this thread pay taxes, How many posters on this thread can vote in Thailand. Et al.

I can put my hand up for riding a motorcycles and paying taxes, not voting though... I dont even do that in my home country!

Edited May 30May 30 by Ralf001