3 hours ago, Xonax said:

Well, the driver failed to stop and help the passenger, which is a criminal offense! If first aid response had been provided early, the passenger may have been able to survive the fall.

The deceased guy departed from the back and the driver didn't notice him going and only noticed later

4 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Career?????

A tuk tuk driver?

The kid most certainly wasn't penniless, quite possibly inebriated and unfamiliar with local ATMs.

Spoken like a true Scousa 😂

19 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

The driver stated that while travelling past a hotel at normal speed, he sensed something unusual about the vehicle

The guy had no funds in the ATM, then he tries to jump out of the tuk tuk at the hotel to skip payment and kills himself.

3 minutes ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

The guy had no funds in the ATM, then he tries to jump out of the tuk tuk at the hotel to skip payment and kills himself.

Not really. He rather successfully jumped out of the tuk tuk as it passed his hotel in order to avoid having to walk back from his original pick up location, which is what he should have done in the first place.

6 minutes ago, Upnotover said:

Not really. He rather successfully jumped out of the tuk tuk as it passed his hotel in order to avoid having to walk back from his original pick up location, which is what he should have done in the first place.

But that would be theft, not paying for the fare.

...It Was No Inncocent Act Of Nature...

...A Lad Is Dead All For 100 Baht Or So... (?)

...Wake Up...

...Want Someone To Fly Off Your Motorcycle Or Tuk-Tuk... (?)

...The Easiest Thing...

More to this than is being told and the tuk-tuk driver is lying... if he was legit, he would have stopped and waited for the cops to show and helped out as he could.

The fact that it took him so many days to turn himself in is way suspect... maybe the foreigner did something stupid, or didn't, and was in the process of being threatened/exploited because of the time/circumstances, either way the driver's actions are suspect to say the least... even if the foreigner was being a muppet, he didn't deserve to die for it, the driver could easily have just dropped him at the hotel and called the cops to come and help him sort it out.

I don't buy it. Also looks like he was driving really fast in that photo still as all blurred. However, nothing good happens at those times in such places.

2 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

Spoken like a true Scousa 😂

The guy had no funds in the ATM, then he tries to jump out of the tuk tuk at the hotel to skip payment and kills himself.

This is what the story said, unless there's another one somewhere.................Cairney was found seriously injured after falling from a tuk-tuk and was taken to hospital in a coma.

2 hours ago, Upnotover said:

Not really. He rather successfully jumped out of the tuk tuk as it passed his hotel in order to avoid having to walk back from his original pick up location, which is what he should have done in the first place.

.He later learned that the passenger had fallen from the tuk-tuk and sustained critical injuries.

14 minutes ago, fredwiggy said:

This is what the story said, unless there's another one somewhere.................Cairney was found seriously injured after falling from a tuk-tuk and was taken to hospital in a coma.

.He later learned that the passenger had fallen from the tuk-tuk and sustained critical injuries.

Yep, he tried to escape.

Theft

14 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

More to this than is being told and the tuk-tuk driver is lying... if he was legit, he would have stopped and waited for the cops to show and helped out as he could.

The fact that it took him so many days to turn himself in is way suspect... maybe the foreigner did something stupid, or didn't, and was in the process of being threatened/exploited because of the time/circumstances, either way the driver's actions are suspect to say the least... even if the foreigner was being a muppet, he didn't deserve to die for it, the driver could easily have just dropped him at the hotel and called the cops to come and help him sort it out.

I don't buy it. Also looks like he was driving really fast in that photo still as all blurred. However, nothing good happens at those times in such places.

I'm not convinced this is as clear-cut as some are making out. There is obviously a lot of speculation, but much of the reported sequence of events appears entirely plausible.

Reports, speculation and sequence:

• A British tourist, allegedly heavily intoxicated, takes a tuk-tuk from Bangla Road to The Nature Hotel at Kalim Beach.

• On arrival, he reportedly does not have enough cash to pay the fare.

• The driver then takes him to several ATMs to try to withdraw money, which is not an unusual occurrence in tourist areas.

• After multiple failed attempts, possibly due to insufficient funds, the driver decides to return towards Bangla rather than continue providing a free taxi service.

• At some point, the passenger jumps from the moving tuk-tuk.

• The driver allegedly does not realise this until much later. Frankly, that is not difficult to understand. A noisy vehicle, a drunk passenger in the rear, nighttime traffic, and no expectation that someone will suddenly leap out.

• By the time the driver notices the passenger is gone, he assumes he has simply been ripped off..

• Days later, he sees reports of the death and realises the deceased may have been his passenger, so he goes to the police and explains what happened.

If that sequence is broadly accurate, I struggle to see how "causing death by negligence" is automatically established.

If a passenger voluntarily jumps from a moving vehicle, where is the negligent act by the driver?

Likewise, the allegation of failing to stop and provide assistance seems difficult to reconcile with a driver who genuinely had no idea the passenger had left the vehicle in the first place.

That does not mean the driver is innocent or his story is factual - but it seems quite feasible, as does the speculation - the charges seem extremely harsh.

7 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

I'm not convinced this is as clear-cut as some are making out. There is obviously a lot of speculation, but much of the reported sequence of events appears entirely plausible.

Reports, speculation and sequence:

• A British tourist, allegedly heavily intoxicated, takes a tuk-tuk from Bangla Road to The Nature Hotel at Kalim Beach.

• On arrival, he reportedly does not have enough cash to pay the fare.

• The driver then takes him to several ATMs to try to withdraw money, which is not an unusual occurrence in tourist areas.

• After multiple failed attempts, possibly due to insufficient funds, the driver decides to return towards Bangla rather than continue providing a free taxi service.

• At some point, the passenger jumps from the moving tuk-tuk.

• The driver allegedly does not realise this until much later. Frankly, that is not difficult to understand. A noisy vehicle, a drunk passenger in the rear, nighttime traffic, and no expectation that someone will suddenly leap out.

• By the time the driver notices the passenger is gone, he assumes he has simply been ripped off..

• Days later, he sees reports of the death and realises the deceased may have been his passenger, so he goes to the police and explains what happened.

If that sequence is broadly accurate, I struggle to see how "causing death by negligence" is automatically established.

If a passenger voluntarily jumps from a moving vehicle, where is the negligent act by the driver?

Likewise, the allegation of failing to stop and provide assistance seems difficult to reconcile with a driver who genuinely had no idea the passenger had left the vehicle in the first place.

That does not mean the driver is innocent or his story is factual - but it seems quite feasible, as does the speculation - the charges seem extremely harsh.

You could easily be right, but obviously no-one has a crystal ball (apart from the wise guy section on this forum), so I guess it's all speculation... but there are a few red flags regarding the driver that don't sit right and indictate lies/dishonesty.

The fact that he did a runner for a bunch of days until the pressure got too great indicates that he has something to hide or hoped it would all blow over and go away... the locals really do feel the fear of their cops when something gets serious, that's why they turn themselves in as they know the consequences of not doing so and the benefits of doing so.

To me, the driver was running the odds and taking his chances, first hope to let it blow over and once that looks like it won't work, then it's damage limitation and getting half the sentence chopped by turning himself in, just calculated for the best results, as the alternative is way worse.

That's why I think he is lying/hiding something and it's a red flag... we all know how that works if you have been here long enough. This whole case just feels wrong, even if you can't put you finger on it... all too convenient, something is missing.

21 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

You could easily be right, but obviously no-one has a crystal ball (apart from the wise guy section on this forum), so I guess it's all speculation... but there are a few red flags regarding the driver that don't sit right and indictate lies/dishonesty.

The fact that he did a runner for a bunch of days until the pressure got too great indicates that he has something to hide or hoped it would all blow over and go away... the locals really do feel the fear of their cops when something gets serious, that's why they turn themselves in as they know the consequences of not doing so and the benefits of doing so.

Perhaps, but I suspect the explanation is far simpler.

The driver likely realised the passenger had gone, but assumed he'd simply done a runner after failing to pay. After multiple ATM attempts and no money, that would not be an unreasonable conclusion.

Then a few days later he sees the story in the news, realises it may have been his passenger, and goes to the police.

The delay in coming forward is not necessarily evidence of guilt. It may simply be evidence that he had no idea a fatal incident had occurred.

21 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

To me, the driver was running the odds and taking his chances, first hope to let it blow over and once that looks like it won't work, then it's damage limitation and getting half the sentence chopped by turning himself in, just calculated for the best results, as the alternative is way worse.

Perhaps, but again, it may simply be that the driver had no idea of the lad's condition or the seriousness of what had happened until he saw it reported in the news a few days later.

If he believed the passenger had simply disappeared without paying, there would have been little reason to go to the police until he realised there was a serious incident.

21 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

That's why I think he is lying/hiding something and it's a red flag... we all know how that works if you have been here long enough. This whole case just feels wrong, even if you can't put you finger on it... all too convenient, something is missing.

What exactly "feels wrong" to you?

Are you speculating that the tuk-tuk driver assaulted the boxer? Or that the driving was somehow so reckless that a passenger was thrown from the vehicle?

Both seem considerably less plausible than the simple explanation that an intoxicated passenger, unable to pay, decided to do a runner.

I'm genuinely curious what specific nefarious behaviour you believe the driver engaged in. At the moment, some seem convinced something sinister occurred, yet nobody appears able to explain what that something actually was.

6 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Perhaps, but I suspect the explanation is far simpler.

The driver likely realised the passenger had gone, but assumed he'd simply done a runner after failing to pay. After multiple ATM attempts and no money, that would not be an unreasonable conclusion.

Then a few days later he sees the story in the news, realises it may have been his passenger, and goes to the police.

The delay in coming forward is not necessarily evidence of guilt. It may simply be evidence that he had no idea a fatal incident had occurred.

Perhaps, but again, it may simply be that the driver had no idea of the lad's condition or the seriousness of what had happened until he saw it reported in the news a few days later.

If he believed the passenger had simply disappeared without paying, there would have been little reason to go to the police until he realised there was a serious incident.

What exactly "feels wrong" to you?

Are you speculating that the tuk-tuk driver assaulted the boxer? Or that the driving was somehow so reckless that a passenger was thrown from the vehicle?

Both seem considerably less plausible than the simple explanation that an intoxicated passenger, unable to pay, decided to do a runner.

I'm genuinely curious what specific nefarious behaviour you believe the driver engaged in. At the moment, some seem convinced something sinister occurred, yet nobody appears able to explain what that something actually was.

I'm not going to say too much as no-one actually knows what happened and it's an ongoing investigation... even if we don't hear about the conclusion. However, he should have reported way faster to keep his integrity. Where did the driver think he had gone... became Houdini? I don't think so and he will have heard/read about this incident soon after it happened.

The week-long wait until he turned himself in is a massive red flag in my opinion... just my opinion. I also don't like the fact that the driver didn't just take him to the hotel and call the cops to sort it out... smells of something else, like he was trying to sort it on his own.

I get that you are defending the driver... but in my opinion, there is more to this that meets the eye, and I'm entitled to my opinion, even if it's uncomfortable for some.

A complete video would show how he exited the songthaew ( notTuk-Tuk) To me, it looks like he jumped; his feet hitting the pavement at that speed would have flipped over on his head like that. To fall out of one of those, he would more than likely land on his head first.

34 minutes ago, Sir Dude said:

I'm not going to say too much as no-one actually knows what happened and it's an ongoing investigation... even if we don't hear about the conclusion. However, he should have reported way faster to keep his integrity. Where did the driver think he had gone... became Houdini? I don't think so and he will have heard/read about this incident soon after it happened.

The week-long wait until he turned himself in is a massive red flag in my opinion... just my opinion. I also don't like the fact that the driver didn't just take him to the hotel and call the cops to sort it out... smells of something else, like he was trying to sort it on his own.

I get that you are defending the driver... but in my opinion, there is more to this that meets the eye, and I'm entitled to my opinion, even if it's uncomfortable for some.

Just to answer (with speculation) the discussion:

• I'm guessing the TukTuk driver initially thought the Brit lad had simply done a runner and jumped out at some point while he didn't notice - not something worthy of reporting.

• I didn't realise the TukTuk driver took a week to hand himself in - I thought it was a couple of days.

• IMO - it remains perfectly feasible that the TukTuk driver knew nothing of the seriousness until finding out about it at a later date (i.e. 2 days later or even longer than that).

• Re 'just taking him to the hotel and letting the Cops sort it out' - would the Police have even been bothered or responded over a 300 baht fare (or whatever it was) - I can understand why the TukTuk driver wouldn't bother with the police or hotel at that stage. Additionally - they were already away from the hotel having visited 3 ATM - so I can see why the TukTuk driver simply decided to return to origin.

In most situations I wouldn't be defending a TukTuk driver - I've read of so many scams, beatings etc and think for the most part they are the aggressor - in this situation the story reads differently IMO.

I do still wonder, for the sake of discussion and out of interest - what alternative situation you may speculate occurred - remembering of course that this is all speculation and guess work, and simply an ongoing forum discussion about what might have happened.

8 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

Just to answer (with speculation) the discussion:

• I'm guessing the TukTuk driver initially thought the Brit lad had simply done a runner and jumped out at some point while he didn't notice - not something worthy of reporting.

• I didn't realise the TukTuk driver took a week to hand himself in - I thought it was a couple of days.

• IMO - it remains perfectly feasible that the TukTuk driver knew nothing of the seriousness until finding out about it at a later date (i.e. 2 days later or even longer than that).

• Re 'just taking him to the hotel and letting the Cops sort it out' - would the Police have even been bothered or responded over a 300 baht fare (or whatever it was) - I can understand why the TukTuk driver wouldn't bother with the police or hotel at that stage. Additionally - they were already away from the hotel having visited 3 ATM - so I can see why the TukTuk driver simply decided to return to origin.

In most situations I wouldn't be defending a TukTuk driver - I've read of so many scams, beatings etc and think for the most part they are the aggressor - in this situation the story reads differently IMO.

I do still wonder, for the sake of discussion and out of interest - what alternative situation you may speculate occurred - remembering of course that this is all speculation and guess work, and simply an ongoing forum discussion about what might have happened.

Thank you for your input.

That is not a tuk-tuk, it's a songtaew. If the kid fell out of the back, I don't see how it's the driver's fault. It's sort of your own responsibility to stay seating inside of a songtaew. My bets are the kid was hanging off the back and lost his grip.

18 hours ago, simon43 said:

Why should the tuk-tuk driver have to pay any compensation? This pi ssed up Brit had no money to pay the fare, couldn't get cash out of 3 ATMs, and then jumped off a moving tuk-tuk...... Yet another Darwin award candidate....

That sounds about right. I don't see it being the fault of the Thai driver.

9 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

You will definitely be up for the Kind hearts of the Year awards 2026.

I reserve my pity for impoverished, penniless Burmese orphans, not pi ssed-up Brits deciding to jump off a moving vehicle. Good riddance to that idiot......

18 hours ago, simon43 said:

Why should the tuk-tuk driver have to pay any compensation? This pi ssed up Brit had no money to pay the fare, couldn't get cash out of 3 ATMs, and then jumped off a moving tuk-tuk.....

You saw all this with your own eyes? How do you know the driver wasn't at fault, no driver should allow a drunken passenger without means to pay the fare to fall from their vehicle and drive on without noticing, it smacks of road rage to some.

8 minutes ago, Palatus said:

You saw all this with your own eyes? How do you know the driver wasn't at fault, no driver should allow a drunken passenger without means to pay the fare to fall from their vehicle and drive on without noticing, it smacks of road rage to some.

The full video has already been posted....

8 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

Thanks, and that’s what I was thinking!!

He could have fallen over his feet or even got tangled trying to alight, let's be honest, these tuk tuks aren't the largest passenger transport vehicles.

People on here talking about seat belts, how many people have we seen wearing seat belts in a tuk tuk?

I don't think they have to have seat belts, if memory serves.

Sitting near the door in a baht bus in Pattaya , I just missed falling out when the driver breaded hard on a corner Everyone cried out , but I was really lucky. No one was standing on the platform thankfully. I was not drunk !!

19 minutes ago, simon43 said:

I reserve my pity for impoverished, penniless Burmese orphans, not pi ssed-up Brits deciding to jump off a moving vehicle. Good riddance to that idiot......

Your comments are vile and disgraceful.

8 hours ago, Xonax said:

Well, the driver failed to stop and help the passenger, which is a criminal offense! If first aid response had been provided early, the passenger may have been able to survive the fall.

Presuming he actually saw the guy fall out…….maybe enough CC footage can tell that tale………there are a lot of loosers in this episode, the dead man, his family and girlfriend, the Tuk-Tuk driver and his family, and the Uncle, who the man was probably here visiting……I refrain from any other comment - RIP and Buena Suerte to all.

28 minutes ago, simon43 said:

I reserve my pity for impoverished, penniless Burmese orphans, not pi ssed-up Brits deciding to jump off a moving vehicle. Good riddance to that idiot......

Crass. I'm struggling to imagine how that comment could have sunk any lower.

Sometimes the wisest contribution to a discussion is no contribution at all - your case that can be argued with certainty.

34 minutes ago, connda said:

That is not a tuk-tuk, it's a songtaew. If the kid fell out of the back, I don't see how it's the driver's fault. It's sort of your own responsibility to stay seating inside of a songtaew. My bets are the kid was hanging off the back and lost his grip.

Dealing with semantics for a moment.

Its a TukTuk - in area's of Thailand, Hua Hin, Songkhla Province, Krabi, Phuket - the TukTuks are 4 wheeled Chassis, smaller in Size that the Songtheaw's one would ride in Pattaya where the chassis is 'pickup truck' based.

The photo shows a 'typical' Phuket TukTuk.

Given that there's a video out there somewhere (assuming thats where the 'still' above was lifted) - it would show clearly if the Brit slipped or attempted to 'step off' to fare dodge.

27 minutes ago, Palatus said:

You saw all this with your own eyes? How do you know the driver wasn't at fault, no driver should allow a drunken passenger without means to pay the fare to fall from their vehicle and drive on without noticing, it smacks of road rage to some.

Thats quite a sequence of illogical leaps there - I'll dismantle.

• At the start of the journey, how is a driver supposed to know whether a passenger has the means to pay? The norm is to agree the fare and collect payment at the destination, not demand payment up front.

• The entire night-time transport model exists largely because people have been drinking. The purpose is to get intoxicated people home (for profit of course) - instead of them DUI. That's hardly an unusual circumstance for a tuk-tuk driver to encounter.

• There are also no reports suggesting road rage, confrontation, threats, or any other form of direct conflict.

• Finally, I'm struggling with the suggestion that a driver can somehow "allow" or "prevent" an adult passenger from jumping or falling from a vehicle. In an open-sided tuk-tuk, surely the primary responsibility for remaining seated and holding on surely rests with the passenger.

Unless further facts emerge, much of the criticism being directed at the driver appears to be based on assumptions rather than anything currently reported - given information so far - this appears to be a tragic misjudgement by the British lad.

2 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Crass. I'm struggling to imagine how that comment could have sunk any lower.

Sometimes the wisest contribution to a discussion is no contribution at all - your case that can be argued with certainty.

We are all responsible for ourselves, and getting so drunk that you can't think straight or walk straight is no-one's fault except that lad's fault. Sorry if the truth hurts, but Darwin laid out the concept of evolution and survival of the fittest, and that applies to all species, including humans....

11 minutes ago, simon43 said:

We are all responsible for ourselves, and getting so drunk that you can't think straight or walk straight is no-one's fault except that lad's fault. Sorry if the truth hurts, but Darwin laid out the concept of evolution and survival of the fittest, and that applies to all species, including humans....

How you you know how drunk he was ?

8 hours ago, SAFETY FIRST said:

The guy had no funds in the ATM, then he tries to jump out of the tuk tuk at the hotel to skip payment and kills himself.

That is unfair .

He had no money anyway, so he didn't jump out to avoid paying .

He jumped out to avoid waking back

1. At some point, the passenger jumps from the moving tuk-tuk.

2. The driver allegedly does not realise this until much later.

I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that he knew the guy jumped out (at his hotel) and the driver didn't want to get in an argument with a drunk boxer.

I suspect that what he didn't realize is that the guy hurt himself jumping out. I'd have a hard time faulting him for that.