4 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

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

Your 1 comment seems to be about how many of the helmets will be actually used. Nothing to do with you. People will either use them of they don't.

My point is why are people who are guests in a country feel the need to criticize or meddle in affairs that are nothing to do with them.

Let locals, our hosts, run their own country.

I don't see any Thai's blabbering on about the customs, conduct or laws in, say, Australia.

As Saint Ambrose said "When you're in Rome, then live in Roman fashion; when you're elsewhere, then live as they live there."

It is not rocket surgery.

10 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Your 1 comment seems to be about how many of the helmets will be actually used. Nothing to do with you. People will either use them of they don't.

My point is why are people who are guests in a country feel the need to criticize or meddle in affairs that are nothing to do with them.

Let locals, our hosts, run their own country.

I don't see any Thai's blabbering on about the customs, conduct or laws in, say, Australia.

As Saint Ambrose said "When you're in Rome, then live in Roman fashion; when you're elsewhere, then live as they live there."

It is not rocket surgery.

It was a question I asked...and a valid question....why did you reply.

14 minutes ago, Aussie999 said:

It was a question I asked...and a valid question....why did you reply.

Mine was a valid statement why did you reply?

I found my hat helmet

8 minutes ago, VocalNeal said:

Mine was a valid statement why did you reply?

I found my hat helmet

Neal, you seem to have a problem, are you ok...hope you have a nice day, now bugga off.

On 5/30/2026 at 5:33 AM, VocalNeal said:

Your 1 comment seems to be about how many of the helmets will be actually used. Nothing to do with you. People will either use them of they don't.

My point is why are people who are guests in a country feel the need to criticize or meddle in affairs that are nothing to do with them.

Let locals, our hosts, run their own country.

I don't see any Thai's blabbering on about the customs, conduct or laws in, say, Australia.

As Saint Ambrose said "When you're in Rome, then live in Roman fashion; when you're elsewhere, then live as they live there."

It is not rocket surgery.

That's a rather strange argument.

It's perfectly acceptable to have opinions about another country's affairs. The real question is whether those opinions are informed, constructive and respectful, or simply patronising.

Road safety isn't a uniquely Thai issue. It's an international field of science and public health. If a country has one of the world's highest rates of motorcycle fatalities, discussing it is no more inappropriate than discussing pollution, disease prevention or workplace safety.

By your logic, nobody should ever criticise anything outside their own borders. History shows how absurd that idea is. People routinely express opinions on wars, human rights, corruption, environmental damage and public health issues in countries other than their own.

As for "When in Rome", it doesn't mean "don't criticise." It means understand the local culture before trying to change it.

In fact, that's precisely my criticism of Helmet Heroes. I believe they have failed to understand important aspects of Thai culture and social behaviour. My argument isn't that foreigners shouldn't have opinions; it's that if foreigners want to influence behaviour in another country, they should first understand the people they are trying to influence.

The irony is that I'm not criticising Thailand here. I'm criticising a foreign-led campaign that I believe is patronising Thais while producing little evidence of meaningful long-term impact.

On 5/30/2026 at 5:33 AM, VocalNeal said:

It is not rocket surgery.

as there's not such thing!

I'm not convinced that last year's safety program was effective.

nationthailand

No more excuses! Bikers without helmets face up to THB 2,...

Starting June 1, 2025, both motorcycle riders and passengers must wear helmets or face a fine of up to 2,000 baht, announced the Royal Thai Police (RTP) on Tuesday.

On 6/3/2026 at 4:23 PM, kwilco said:

I'm criticising a foreign-led campaign that I believe is patronising Thais while producing little evidence of meaningful long-term impact.

I agree with the long term impact part, but the videos that i watched on TikTok about 2 years ago weren't in the least bit patronising. I found the guy to be genuine and kind without any undertones. I believe his love of Thais was his motive as was the desire for clicks no doubt on a social media channel; but that doesn't make him patronising in my eyes.............and the clicks spread the awareness.............

On 5/26/2026 at 11:48 PM, kwilco said:

What conclusions could you draw from looking at Vietnam?

Vietnam introduced a nationally enforced helmet law in 2007 and enforced it consistently and visibly across the country. Compliance rapidly became normalised because people knew the police would actually apply the law. Thailand already has helmet laws, but enforcement is inconsistent, selective and often performative.

 

Ironically, the repeated Helmet Heroes videos themselves demonstrate the problem perfectly — adults are often riding illegally without helmets, children are sometimes unhelmeted too, yet instead of proper enforcement there is a staged roadside intervention involving police and foreigners handing out helmets for cameras and social media.

 

That is not systemic road safety. It is “performative safety” — highly visible action that creates emotional satisfaction without measurable long-term impact.

 

Vietnam also has its own problems. Helmet compliance may exceed 90%, but many riders wear thin low-quality “fashion helmets” mainly to satisfy police checks. Thailand, while having lower compliance, often has better quality helmets among those who do wear them.

 

The real issue in Thailand is not lack of awareness. Everybody already knows helmets are safer. The issue is weak and inconsistent enforcement, poor transport alternatives, economic realities, and a policing culture that still treats traffic law as negotiable.

 

You cannot simply “copy Vietnam” unless Thailand is willing to fundamentally change how traffic policing and road safety enforcement actually operate…. It is the police who in essence are not doingtheir job as part of a holistic road safety  program

 

I think you @kwilco are just jealous you didn't think of this helmut gesture first, and cover it up with all this word salad stuff that is not really interesting...IMHO.

24 minutes ago, Off Piste said:

I agree with the long term impact part, but the videos that i watched on TikTok about 2 years ago weren't in the least bit patronising. I found the guy to be genuine and kind without any undertones. I believe his love of Thais was his motive as was the desire for clicks no doubt on a social media channel; but that doesn't make him patronising in my eyes.............and the clicks spread the awareness.............

I think we're using different definitions of the word "patronising."

Patronising doesn't require bad intentions. In fact, it is often done by people who genuinely believe they are helping. The definition is treating people in a way that appears kind or helpful while implying they are less capable, less informed or in need of guidance from someone "better informed."

The issue isn't whether the man is sincere. I have no reason to doubt he is. The issue is the message being conveyed.

These videos typically show a foreigner stopping Thai families, selecting a child, handing over a helmet in front of the parents, filming the interaction, adding triumphant music and presenting himself as a "Helmet Hero."

The implication is that the foreigner has identified a problem, understands it, and is riding to the rescue. The Thai parents become passive recipients of his wisdom and generosity.

That's where the patronising element comes in.

It also assumes that people don't wear helmets because they are unaware of the risks. Most Thais are perfectly aware that helmets reduce injuries. The reasons for non-compliance are far more complex: heat, comfort, cost, short journeys, family logistics, inconsistent enforcement, availability of suitable helmets for children, and cultural attitudes towards risk.

Simply handing somebody a helmet does not address any of those issues.

There's also a cultural aspect. Publicly stopping parents and then giving safety equipment to their child in front of a camera can easily be interpreted as saying, "You're not looking after your child properly, so I will." In any culture that is a sensitive message; in Thailand, where face and social harmony are important, it can be particularly awkward. The Thai people accept them with the “OK, I’m the scapegoat” response – all part of kreng jai.

The fact that the videos are then uploaded for public consumption makes the dynamic even more questionable. If the objective is road safety, why is the camera so important?

My criticism has never been that helmets are bad or that the organiser is malicious. My criticism is that the campaign seems built around a very Western "saviour" model: identify a problem, intervene publicly, film it, and celebrate the intervention.

Real road safety improvement usually comes from boring things such as enforcement, engineering, education, emergency care and evaluation. Those don't make viral videos, but they save far more lives in the long run.

So yes, I can believe he is genuine and well-intentioned. But good intentions and patronising behaviour are not mutually exclusive. In fact, patronising behaviour is very often motivated by a sincere belief that you know what's best for other people.

 

11 minutes ago, couchpotato said:

I think you @kwilco are just jealous you didn't think of this helmut gesture first, and cover it up with all this word salad stuff that is not really interesting...IMHO.

A classic argument of someone who can't rebut the points, so they invent a pseudo-psychological motive instead.

Apparently discussing road safety policy, cultural awareness, enforcement, evaluation and public health is just "jealousy" now.

It's always amusing when several thousand words of argument are dismissed as "word salad" (i.e., something you can't understand) by someone whose counter-argument consists of "You're jealous."

As for wishing I'd thought of it first, standing in a road with a camera, some dramatic music and a box of helmets wasn't exactly the intellectual breakthrough of the century. You also don't seem aware of the history of road safety in Thailand either.

The irony is that you've contributed nothing whatsoever to the discussion except an ad hominem. If you disagree with my arguments, explain why they're wrong. If not, "you're jealous" is usually a sign you've run out of ideas.

Edited June 5Jun 5 by kwilco

On 5/26/2026 at 9:12 PM, pomchop said:

Go to vietnam and copy exactly what they have done to get/force a huge majority of the populace to wear helmets. No need to recreate the wheel

. I would bet when vietnam decided to enact and enforce helmet laws many said never happen. Go stand on a corner in Saigon or Hanoi and see how many people ride by with no helmet. Then go stand on corner in Bangkok or any Thai city and compare.

would DaNang suffice,?

9 minutes ago, kwilco said:

I think we're using different definitions of the word "patronising."

Patronising doesn't require bad intentions. In fact, it is often done by people who genuinely believe they are helping. The definition is treating people in a way that appears kind or helpful while implying they are less capable, less informed or in need of guidance from someone "better informed."

The issue isn't whether the man is sincere. I have no reason to doubt he is. The issue is the message being conveyed.

These videos typically show a foreigner stopping Thai families, selecting a child, handing over a helmet in front of the parents, filming the interaction, adding triumphant music and presenting himself as a "Helmet Hero."

The implication is that the foreigner has identified a problem, understands it, and is riding to the rescue. The Thai parents become passive recipients of his wisdom and generosity.

That's where the patronising element comes in.

It also assumes that people don't wear helmets because they are unaware of the risks. Most Thais are perfectly aware that helmets reduce injuries. The reasons for non-compliance are far more complex: heat, comfort, cost, short journeys, family logistics, inconsistent enforcement, availability of suitable helmets for children, and cultural attitudes towards risk.

Simply handing somebody a helmet does not address any of those issues.

There's also a cultural aspect. Publicly stopping parents and then giving safety equipment to their child in front of a camera can easily be interpreted as saying, "You're not looking after your child properly, so I will." In any culture that is a sensitive message; in Thailand, where face and social harmony are important, it can be particularly awkward. The Thai people accept them with the “OK, I’m the scapegoat” response – all part of kreng jai.

The fact that the videos are then uploaded for public consumption makes the dynamic even more questionable. If the objective is road safety, why is the camera so important?

My criticism has never been that helmets are bad or that the organiser is malicious. My criticism is that the campaign seems built around a very Western "saviour" model: identify a problem, intervene publicly, film it, and celebrate the intervention.

Real road safety improvement usually comes from boring things such as enforcement, engineering, education, emergency care and evaluation. Those don't make viral videos, but they save far more lives in the long run.

So yes, I can believe he is genuine and well-intentioned. But good intentions and patronising behaviour are not mutually exclusive. In fact, patronising behaviour is very often motivated by a sincere belief that you know what's best for other people.

 

Depending on who you ask, one will always get a different understanding and interpretation of the meaning of the word 'patronising'..... That's a given.............................I think that the only true way to ever know if Thais found it patronising, as after all, it's their opinion that really counts; would be to stop, 200 metres down the road, all the ones who were flagged down by the campaign, (whether accepted a helmet or not) and ask them if they found it patronising. The outcome will also show to some degree whether the foreigner who led the campaign understands Thai culture or not, as I think you doubt that............................

I think one could also reverse the role and assume a scenario of a Muay Thai gym in the UK full of young kids boxing away without proper headgear and a professional Thai, Muay Thai fighter on tour goes into the gym with cameras and entourage and offers better head gear from someone who clearly knows better from a country which clearly knows best and offers the kids for free, this new headgear which will save lives. Would the kids in the gym, their dads, the trainers and owner of the gym feel that was patronising.?..I personally don't think so and in regards to losing face, boxing trainers are up there with their egos and don't take too kindly to being told what should be done......!

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

Depending on who you ask, one will always get a different understanding and interpretation of the meaning of the word 'patronising'..... That's a given.............................I think that the only true way to ever know if Thais found it patronising, as after all, it's their opinion that really counts; would be to stop, 200 metres down the road, all the ones who were flagged down by the campaign, (whether accepted a helmet or not) and ask them if they found it patronising. The outcome will also show to some degree whether the foreigner who led the campaign understands Thai culture or not, as I think you doubt that............................

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

Depending on who you ask, one will always get a different understanding and interpretation of the meaning of the word 'patronising'..... That's a given.............................I think that the only true way to ever know if Thais found it patronising, as after all, it's their opinion that really counts; would be to stop, 200 metres down the road, all the ones who were flagged down by the campaign, (whether accepted a helmet or not) and ask them if they found it patronising. The outcome will also show to some degree whether the foreigner who led the campaign understands Thai culture or not, as I think you doubt that............................

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

Depending on who you ask, one will always get a different understanding and interpretation of the meaning of the word 'patronising'..... That's a given.............................I think that the only true way to ever know if Thais found it patronising, as after all, it's their opinion that really counts; would be to stop, 200 metres down the road, all the ones who were flagged down by the campaign, (whether accepted a helmet or not) and ask them if they found it patronising. The outcome will also show to some degree whether the foreigner who led the campaign understands Thai culture or not, as I think you doubt that............................

"Depending on who you ask, one will always get a different understanding and interpretation of the meaning of the word 'patronising'." No, sir, you won't; it is just simple English.

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

I think one could also reverse the role and assume a scenario of a Muay Thai gym in the UK full of young kids boxing away without proper headgear and a professional Thai, Muay Thai fighter on tour goes into the gym with cameras and entourage and offers better head gear from someone who clearly knows better from a country which clearly knows best and offers the kids for free, this new headgear which will save lives. Would the kids in the gym, their dads, the trainers and owner of the gym feel that was patronising.?..I personally don't think so and in regards to losing face, boxing trainers are up there with their egos and don't take too kindly to being told what should be done......!

why do foreigners come to "patronise" Muay Thai gyms?

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

I think one could also reverse the role and assume a scenario of a Muay Thai gym in the UK full of young kids boxing away without proper headgear and a professional Thai, Muay Thai fighter on tour goes into the gym with cameras and entourage and offers better head gear from someone who clearly knows better from a country which clearly knows best and offers the kids for free, this new headgear which will save lives. Would the kids in the gym, their dads, the trainers and owner of the gym feel that was patronising.?..I personally don't think so and in regards to losing face, boxing trainers are up there with their egos and don't take too kindly to being told what should be done......!

You're really struggling with both the concept of road safety , and the English language...you need to take a break and think things through.

It has been tried before, as soon as the kids run out of money, they will sell the helmet

34 minutes ago, kwilco said:

You're really struggling with both the concept of road safety , and the English language...you need to take a break and think things through.

Perfect example of the meaning of the word 'patronising'....................

38 minutes ago, kwilco said:

"Depending on who you ask, one will always get a different understanding and interpretation of the meaning of the word 'patronising'." No, sir, you won't; it is just simple English.

Beg to differ and that's the beauty of language................

5 hours ago, couchpotato said:

I think you @kwilco are just jealous you didn't think of this helmut gesture first, and cover it up with all this word salad stuff that is not really interesting...IMHO.

Last time I was in Pattaya I bought a rainbow helmet so I could wear it when I called Grab motorbike taxi

It was colourful and stood out and provides a diversity theme , oh don't be homophobic!!!!

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

Beg to differ and that's the beauty of language................

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

Beg to differ and that's the beauty of language................

2 hours ago, Off Piste said:

Beg to differ and that's the beauty of language................

You're talking tripe! Here are some definitions of 'patronising' – language can be beautiful, but it conveys meaning. Please let us know how yours differs and why...

Definitions of Patronising.....

 

'Patronising' (or 'patronising' in US English) is an adjective describing behaviour that shows a superior attitude. It involves treating someone with a false or condescending display of kindness, speaking to them as if they are less intelligent, capable, or important than you

 

 

speaking or behaving towards someone as if they are stupid or not important:

 

acting as if you are more important than other people

 

showing or characterized by a superior attitude towards others : marked by condescension – Merriam-Webster

 

speaking or behaving towards someone in a way that seems superficially friendly but actually displays an underlying sense of superiority. It usually involves talking down to someone or treating them as if they are less capable, intelligent, or important than you

 

 

showing that you think you are better or more intelligent than somebody else (synonym: superior)

 

 

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), patronising (or patronizing) is an adjective used to describe someone who behaves or speaks toward others in a way that seems friendly, but which reveals an underlying feeling of superiority. [1, 2]

It involves treating someone as if they are less intelligent, less capable, or less important than you, often masked as a gesture of kindness or "talking down" to them

 

 

patronize | ˈpatrənʌɪz | (British also patronise) verb [with object] 1 treat in a way that is apparently kind or helpful but that betrays a feeling of superiority: she was determined not to be put down or patronized.

Edited June 5Jun 5 by kwilco

10 hours ago, kwilco said:

as there's not such thing!

Oh dear, oh dear, do try and keep up. Not exactly a portmanteau but it is a mixture of two descriptions.

Thinking people will notice the combination of rocket science and brain surgery to form rocket surgery.

10 hours ago, Mr Awesome said:

No more excuses! Bikers without helmets face up to THB 2,...

Starting June 1, 2025, both motorcycle riders and passengers must wear helmets or face a fine of up to 2,000 baht, announced the Royal Thai Police (RTP) on Tuesday.

That law only applies to motorcycle riders on the street. Riders free-wheeling down the sidewalk face no such restrictions.

7 hours ago, ColeBOzbourne said:

That law only applies to motorcycle riders on the street. Riders free-wheeling down the sidewalk face no such restrictions.

Regardless of where the motorcycle is operated, both the rider and the passenger must legally wear a helmet

8 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Oh dear, oh dear, do try and keep up. Not exactly a portmanteau but it is a mixture of two descriptions.

Thinking people will notice the combination of rocket science and brain surgery to form rocket surgery.

8 hours ago, VocalNeal said:

Oh dear, oh dear, do try and keep up. Not exactly a portmanteau but it is a mixture of two descriptions.

Thinking people will notice the combination of rocket science and brain surgery to form rocket surgery.

thinking people will recognise how stupid that comment is.

13 hours ago, Off Piste said:

Beg to differ and that's the beauty of language................

so show us how you "differ"!

One thing that puzzles me about Helmet Heroes is that handing out free crash helmets is not a new idea. Thailand has seen hundreds of helmet giveaway campaigns over the past 30 years involving police, schools, government agencies, NGOs, manufacturers and private sponsors.

If simply giving people free helmets was the solution, Thailand's helmet problem would have been solved years ago.

The fact that these campaigns keep having to be repeated suggests they are not producing lasting behavioural change.

There is also a practical issue that is rarely discussed. Children's helmets are not a "one-time fix". Children grow. A helmet that fits properly today may be too small in a year or two. Equally, a helmet that is too large offers reduced protection and can even become dangerous in a crash.

Helmets also require maintenance. If they are dropped, damaged, exposed to sunlight for long periods or involved in an impact, their effectiveness can be compromised. Simply handing one over says nothing about whether it will fit properly next year or still be serviceable.

This is why modern road safety focuses on long-term behaviour, enforcement, education and evaluation rather than just distributing equipment.

Before launching another helmet giveaway scheme, I would expect to see evidence that previous schemes worked. How many recipients still wear the helmets six months later? One year later? Three years later? What measurable reduction in injuries resulted?

Without that sort of evaluation, there is a danger that helmet distribution becomes more about creating the appearance of action than demonstrating actual results.

Helmet Heroes show little sign of having researched the problem, or even in their other activities there is no real measurement of the efficacy.

Road safety is a science, not a photo opportunity.

17 hours ago, couchpotato said:

I think you @kwilco are just jealous you didn't think of this helmut gesture first, and cover it up with all this word salad stuff that is not really interesting...IMHO.

Sadly you are unaware that this sort of thing has been attempted (without success) many times before.

Yes, great idea!

Now not need coconut shell to grow orchids

Can use free helmet 😁