Eight People Killed In Grisly Bangkok Tollway Accident

[neverdie]

Well, certainly none of this can be settled... perhaps for decades until the owner of the red car is found. Should be about as easy (or difficult depending on who you're cheering for) as finding Kamnan Poh in the mega metropolis of Bangsaen.

Red car? What red car?

The slo-mo of the quite limited highway camera shows no vehicles immediately ahead of these 2 vehicles that hurtle TOGETHER out of view. Then there's several seconds before the nearest following vehicle comes anywhere close.

It sounds like someone is trying to suggest there was a third vehicle involved. Perhaps one of the vehicles had 'red paint' on one (or more) of its panels, suggesting that there was a third vehicle involved.

This would need to be looked at very carefully, especially considering that 'RED PAINT' could have been on that vehicle 'prior' to this incident. If there is 'other' damage to either vehicle & its old damage, a well trained & experience eye will pick up on that.

The evidence on the camera is fairly clear, although it would be better viewed after being enhanced, if possible.

[neverdie]

Please remember that this is an ACCIDENT. She did not want this to happen as well.

Well Put Mate.

It was an accident... there isn't intent... that is the difference between murder and manslaughter...

Daewoo,

You look very silly making such a claim. There are laws that cater towards things like Motor Vehicle Collisions and offences under these laws normally have NOTHING to do with INTENT.

Most offences that relate to the driving of motor vehicles, there is no proof of burden for 'intent'. For example, if you are driving a car & driving over the posted speed limit & you are stopped by the Police and fined. You take it to court, the Police DO NOT have to prove that you were INTENDING TO SPEED, but rather just that you were speeding & were the driver of a motor vehicle on a road (Public street, whatever) at the time.

Even in most places where more serious charges of Dangerous Driving are instigated against people, INTENT to drive dangerously isnt a proof of the offence. Do you understand this?

[NanLaew]

Give her a sense of pride - should she paint 8 little people on her front guard?

No, they go on the forward upper part of the driver door, just below the wing mirror.

(That's where mine are anyway)

[JUDAS]

Please remember that this is an ACCIDENT. She did not want this to happen as well.

No, its a Motor Vehicle COLLISION. This is a well worn path. There are plenty of people running around, sprouting off little snappy statements without realising their little 'theories' are not recognised in a court of law.

People can't just get into a car, virtually a tonne & a half of scrap metal and drive it down the road at high speeds and then when eventually something goes wrong, as it always does turn around and say, "It was an Accident". In any modern society this poor excuse will then be viewed by the authorities as such.

Normally Collisions happen for a reason. Most of the time its due to some form of Negligence on behalf of the driver. On rare occassions something like Mechanical Failure may be the cause and there are others. There is normally always various contributing factors to any motor vehicle collision.

In some instances the level of Negligence is deemed to be more extreme than others. For instance, a driver of a car abiding by all the road rules may misjudge the distance between his/her car and collide with another. This may well be deemed on the lower end of the scale. At the other end of the scale you've got drivers who are DISOBEYING all the road rules, travelling in a manner dangerous to other road users, perhaps at a speed dangerous or perhaps they are effected by some substance, ie; alcohol. Hence the reason why in most societies there are various charges/offences in various 'Acts of parliment' to address these issues.

The situation is, most collisions are not mere accidents and in a majority of them 'fault' can normally be established against one driver or another. Mostly these things do not just happen. Sadly, it appears, most drivers don't think of the consequences until its too late.

In NO COURT in the world that I am aware of where the Police (or prosecuting authority) must prove that a driver involved in a motor vehicle collision wanted the accident to happen. That would be 'intent'. If intent was deemed present at the time of something, then that would be something completely different, ie: Murder. The fact that this driver didnt want this to happen is completely irrelevant. What needs to be addressed and what any court will look at (if it gets that far) is the manner in which this persons car was driven leading up to the time of the collision.

That puts it in a nutshell. The word "accident" does not absolve people from all responsibility for their actions.

[indothai]

Please remember that this is an ACCIDENT. She did not want this to happen as well.

Then what the h-ll was she doing driving on an expressway at the age of 16 with no driving license?

From what I was told based on this mornings TV Talk Show, she admitted that she was speeding because she was in a rush to return the car to her friend. She sped up on the right most lane and as she approched the van she indicated her high beams. The van moved to the middle lane, she then sped up again, but the van returned back to the right lane, it was too late for her to brake in time. -- all this based on the TV Talk Show this morning, based on her parents conversation with the teen. The parents also indicated that they will face responsiblity, but currently because of the "mob mentality" they have had to move to 3 different hospitals. The parents indicated that they have received "bad" calls from people, threatening, etc.... They are very saddened by this incident and haven't had the chance to properly "speak in public" because people are just "out" for them.

All this was translated to me in a short period of time... there are some discrepencies. There is a "mob rule" going... online and offline... I think people should just take a deep breath and take a look around before jumping to conclusions. There are lots of under-aged drivers driving around here.. in cars and motorcycles... all ready to be the next headline.

[neverdie]

That puts it in a nutshell. The word "accident" does not absolve people from all responsibility for their actions.

EXACTLY.

I hate these sort of references when talking about stuff here in Thailand, however heres a bit of trivia for you.

In a number of countries &/or states of various countries a number of years ago Police Departments in those states set about changing the names of their 'specialist units' that investigated motor vehicle collisions. In alot of these places their investigation units were called things like, "Accident Investigation Unit, Accident Investigation Squad" & stuff like that. The trend became to rename to things such as, "Collision investigation, Crash Investigation Squad" etc.

Apparently one of the motivating reasons for doing so had something to do with what people perceived with the word, 'Accident'. The term, Accident seems to imply that the incident was nobodies fault. That can sometimes be the case BUT ITS VERY VERY RARE.

Collisions involving cars, don't just happen, theres normally a reason for it.

Edited December 30, 2010 by neverdie

[neverdie]

There is a "mob rule" going... online and offline...

And in a 'modern' society there is NO PLACE for this sort of thing. People should let the authorities do their jobs, not take the law into their own hands .

Of course, I hate to say it, but the 'little people' don't feel confident that the right things will be done & theres plenty of examples of this happening EVERY DAY.

Corruption is like a 'cancer', it just eats away at the core of society, its no wonder you end up with mob rule

[NanLaew]

Please remember that this is an ACCIDENT. She did not want this to happen as well.

Well Put Mate.

It was an accident... there isn't intent... that is the difference between murder and manslaughter...

Daewoo,

You look very silly making such a claim. There are laws that cater towards things like Motor Vehicle Collisions and offences under these laws normally have NOTHING to do with INTENT.

Most offences that relate to the driving of motor vehicles, there is no proof of burden for 'intent'. For example, if you are driving a car & driving over the posted speed limit & you are stopped by the Police and fined. You take it to court, the Police DO NOT have to prove that you were INTENDING TO SPEED, but rather just that you were speeding & were the driver of a motor vehicle on a road (Public street, whatever) at the time.

Even in most places where more serious charges of Dangerous Driving are instigated against people, INTENT to drive dangerously isnt a proof of the offence. Do you understand this?

So, taking all things into account, hypothetical question #1: In the US, would this one be considered as 9 counts of vehicular manslaughter... or whatever the equivalent in the UK or Australia? If so, on what premise would this be based?

Hypothetical point #2: If the driver was found to be have further diminished responsibility by way of drugs, alcohol, sms'ing or talking on the phone. Would that up the ante to vehicular homicide?

I tried Perry Mason's number but he's in Pattaya for the holidays.

[Heng]

Well, certainly none of this can be settled... perhaps for decades until the owner of the red car is found. Should be about as easy (or difficult depending on who you're cheering for) as finding Kamnan Poh in the mega metropolis of Bangsaen.

Red car? What red car?

The slo-mo of the quite limited highway camera shows no vehicles immediately ahead of these 2 vehicles that hurtle TOGETHER out of view. Then there's several seconds before the nearest following vehicle comes anywhere close.

The red car that they are referring to in the news. Surely it can be disproved easily enough with the tollway camera footage (shouldn't be too hard to track down a few dozen red cars if that) from that evening. Flash memory can also be erased pretty easily though... and all of a sudden there's reasonable doubt.

[NanLaew]

From what I was told based on this mornings TV Talk Show, she admitted that she was speeding because she was in a rush to return the car to her friend. She sped up on the right most lane and as she approched the van she indicated her high beams. The van moved to the middle lane, she then sped up again, but the van returned back to the right lane, it was too late for her to brake in time. -- all this based on the TV Talk Show this morning, based on her parents conversation with the teen. The parents also indicated that they will face responsiblity, but currently because of the "mob mentality" they have had to move to 3 different hospitals. The parents indicated that they have received "bad" calls from people, threatening, etc.... They are very saddened by this incident and haven't had the chance to properly "speak in public" because people are just "out" for them.

All this was translated to me in a short period of time... there are some discrepencies. There is a "mob rule" going... online and offline... I think people should just take a deep breath and take a look around before jumping to conclusions. There are lots of under-aged drivers driving around here.. in cars and motorcycles... all ready to be the next headline.

That would account for the bright flash of headlights captured on the highway cam.

The van moved left but I will bet that the impatient Honda driver had already also decided to go left which resulted in the rear-end shunt which at that velocity, spun both vehicles.

[neverdie]

So, taking all things into account, hypothetical question #1: In the US, would this one be considered as 9 counts of vehicular manslaughter... or whatever the equivalent in the UK or Australia? If so, on what premise would this be based?

Hypothetical point #2: If the driver was found to be have further diminished responsibility by way of drugs, alcohol, sms'ing or talking on the phone. Would that up the ante to vehicular homicide?

I tried Perry Mason's number but he's in Pattaya for the holidays.

I think you are putting the horse before the cart (no offence intended). Often people do this with this sort of thing. There should be & almost most certainly in those countries you referr to, AN INVESTIGATION. A thorough Police Investigation. After that the full extent of offences could be determined then appropriate charges applied.

In some collisions such as this, in my home country, charges might not be laid for months. Many things need to be CORRECTLY established before running off all half cocked & botching things up. Theres no point jumping to conclusions, finalising the investigation and then charging incorrectly & having the entire lot THROWN OUT OF COURT.

The role of Crash Investigation and Collision reconstruction can be an incredibly time consuming one.

[NanLaew]

The red car that they are referring to in the news. Surely it can be disproved easily enough with the tollway camera footage (shouldn't be too hard to track down a few dozen red cars if that) from that evening. Flash memory can also be erased pretty easily though... and all of a sudden there's reasonable doubt.

So did the minibus or the Honda hit this red car, or both?

The 16 year old (or her parents) haven't mentioned it during their alleged breakfast prime time cover my arse time.

What model of red car is it?

A herring maybe?

[SamritT]

From what I was told based on this mornings TV Talk Show, she admitted that she was speeding because she was in a rush to return the car to her friend.  She sped up on the right most lane and as she approched the van she indicated her high beams.  The van moved to the middle lane, she then sped up again, but the van returned back to the right lane, it was too late for her to brake in time. -- all this based on the TV Talk Show this morning, based on her parents conversation with the teen.  The parents also indicated that they will face responsiblity, but currently because of the "mob mentality" they have had to move to 3 different hospitals.  The parents indicated that they have received "bad" calls from people, threatening, etc.... They are very saddened by this incident and haven't had the chance to properly "speak in public" because people are just "out" for them. All this was translated to me in a short period of time... there are some discrepencies.  There is a "mob rule" going... online and offline...  I think people should just take a deep breath and take a look around before jumping to conclusions.  There are lots of under-aged drivers driving around here.. in cars and motorcycles... all ready to be the next headline.

. . . . I told you before. It was an ACCIDENT. She did not want to be involved in the accident, just like you or me. If she knew that the van is to drive recklessly (quote... but the van returned back to the right lane...), she (or you or I) would not try to drive pass the van. Please remember, this could also happen to you or I. Please have mercy on the poor child.

[NanLaew]

So, taking all things into account, hypothetical question #1: In the US, would this one be considered as 9 counts of vehicular manslaughter... or whatever the equivalent in the UK or Australia? If so, on what premise would this be based?

Hypothetical point #2: If the driver was found to be have further diminished responsibility by way of drugs, alcohol, sms'ing or talking on the phone. Would that up the ante to vehicular homicide?

I tried Perry Mason's number but he's in Pattaya for the holidays.

I think you are putting the horse before the cart (no offence intended). Often people do this with this sort of thing. There should be & almost most certainly in those countries you referr to, AN INVESTIGATION. A thorough Police Investigation. After that the full extent of offences could be determined then appropriate charges applied.

In some collisions such as this, in my home country, charges might not be laid for months. Many things need to be CORRECTLY established before running off all half cocked & botching things up. Theres no point jumping to conclusions, finalising the investigation and then charging incorrectly & having the entire lot THROWN OUT OF COURT.

The role of Crash Investigation and Collision reconstruction can be an incredibly time consuming one.

Almost as time consuming as getting your opinion on these two HYPOTHETICAL questions! No offense intended either.

I am not baiting or trolling and my questions are not related directly to this accident. I was just wondering how the charges would be placed in our home countries in the event of a similar accident where the driver has been found guilty of causing death by reckless driving. I accept that intent cannot be a factor but how hard can a prosecutor go after a drivers other actions as 'aggravating' the offence and thus changing things from manslaughter to homicide?

[neverdie]

. . . . I told you before. It was an ACCIDENT. She did not want to be involved in the accident, just like you or me.

& here you go with your constant TROLL posts, I guess that was to be expected.

[Daewoo]

Please remember that this is an ACCIDENT. She did not want this to happen as well.

Well Put Mate.

It was an accident... there isn't intent... that is the difference between murder and manslaughter...

Daewoo,

You look very silly making such a claim. There are laws that cater towards things like Motor Vehicle Collisions and offences under these laws normally have NOTHING to do with INTENT.

Most offences that relate to the driving of motor vehicles, there is no proof of burden for 'intent'. For example, if you are driving a car & driving over the posted speed limit & you are stopped by the Police and fined. You take it to court, the Police DO NOT have to prove that you were INTENDING TO SPEED, but rather just that you were speeding & were the driver of a motor vehicle on a road (Public street, whatever) at the time.

Even in most places where more serious charges of Dangerous Driving are instigated against people, INTENT to drive dangerously isnt a proof of the offence. Do you understand this?

I am not trying to say that a lack of intent absolves her of responsibility... but that being unlicenced, and driving like most every other Thai on the road, and then being involved in a collision does not, IMHO, warrant the viscious attacks, and hang-em-high posts on here...

She made a mistake, lots of mistakes, and she should be held accountable for sure... but this is NOT murder, because there is no intent to harm... If she had rammed the van intentionally, that would be murder... without intent, it is an accident... that is what in Australia changes it to Culpable Driving Causing Death (which is punishable by a jail term) or in the US is Vehicular Manslaughter...

Again, she should be held accountable for her actions, even at the young age of 16... her parent and sister should be held accountable for her actions, as the responsible adults... I have just become tired of the over zealous persecution of this poor girl, who I would hope will feel a terrible burden by these bad choices for the rest of her life...

Heaven knows I have made some stupid decisions in my life... I look back now on how I drove when I was 17 and wonder how I survived...

Cheers,

Daewoo

[Tywais]

For those that can understand Thai there are several Youtube news reports found here

[neverdie]

Almost as time consuming as getting your opinion on these two HYPOTHETICAL questions! No offense intended either.

I am not baiting or trolling and my questions are not related directly to this accident. I was just wondering how the charges would be placed in our home countries in the event of a similar accident where the driver has been found guilty of causing death by reckless driving. I accept that intent cannot be a factor but how hard can a prosecutor go after a drivers other actions as 'aggravating' the offence and thus changing things from manslaughter to homicide?

I'm have no idea what went on up on that road. Ive seen a dodgy few seonds of video clip & then read newspaper reports (CAN BE HIGHLY UNRELAIBLE FOR FACTS) and whats being said on Television, the forum etc etc. I am definately not offering comment on this particular collision but trying to answer your question.

Now, that I understand what you are trying to ask regarding laws in 'other' countries, again, I find it hard to comment WITHOUT specifically referring to one individual law or the other. Im NOT familiar with the exact offences relating to these sort of charges in the USA. Again, in the states of Australia varying laws exist.

As I am aware of a few different laws in various states, perhaps the best example I could give you might go like this:-

In the situation there has been an Collision where someone was killed as a result of that collision. The Police investigation determins that the driver of the offending vehicle was driving at 5km/h & failed to stop and bumped into a motorcyclist at an intersection, the motorcyclist fell over breaks his neck and dies. Police would most likely then charge that driver, if no other circumstances existed with an offence under the Traffic Act, lets use NSW Australia as an example. The charge might be, "Negligent Driving Occassioning Death".

THEN, if circumstances were different and the driver responsible had been driving down the road, swerving accross to the incorrect side of the road, speeding, running red lights, disobeying road rules and then crashes into another motorist and they die as a result, then Police (Again using NSW) may then charge with Offences under the Crimes Act, Offences such as Dangerous Driving Occassioning Death. Normally these charges would also be backed up with Traffic Act charges, but thats just a technical backup charge and it would be filed at court if the first offence was proven.

To THEN GET MORE EXTREME, if the offending driver was say, driving with a blood alcohol content of more than 0.150 grammes of alcohol per 100 millilitres of blood AND/OR travelling in excess of 45km/h over the speed limit AND/OR at the time of the collision was in the process of trying to avoid being apprehended by the Police, then the charged would go up to an even higher criminal charge of 'Aggravated Dangerous Driving Occassioning Death".

From there, depending on how 'extreme' the drivers behaviour actually was, the primary offences might become a straight up, 'Manslaughter' charge under the Crimes Act. Of course, as stated before, if there was 'INTENT to kill someone, then everything charge wise changes again.

NOW, in the USA, they have various 'other' names for charges that relate to vehicular homicide & without studying each of them carefully, I really couldnt comment.

Here in Thailand, I have only read the Land Traffic Act of 1979 & I'm really not sure what other offences or charges that could be preferred in situations such as what I have described above.

[neverdie]

I am not trying to say that a lack of intent absolves her of responsibility... but that being unlicenced, and driving like most every other Thai on the road, and then being involved in a collision does not, IMHO, warrant the viscious attacks, and hang-em-high posts on here...

She made a mistake, lots of mistakes, and she should be held accountable for sure... but this is NOT murder, because there is no intent to harm... If she had rammed the van intentionally, that would be murder... without intent, it is an accident... that is what in Australia changes it to Culpable Driving Causing Death (which is punishable by a jail term) or in the US is Vehicular Manslaughter...

Again, she should be held accountable for her actions, even at the young age of 16... her parent and sister should be held accountable for her actions, as the responsible adults... I have just become tired of the over zealous persecution of this poor girl, who I would hope will feel a terrible burden by these bad choices for the rest of her life...

Heaven knows I have made some stupid decisions in my life... I look back now on how I drove when I was 17 and wonder how I survived...

Cheers,

Daewoo

I agree with what you are saying about the HANG EM HIGH posts, however by stating what you did in support of TROLL Poster is factually incorrect.

I am well aware of those other points you raised above & agree with what you are saying. The term 'Accident' is one of those play words which suggests that nobody is at fault. This is a collision, not an accident. I am very well aware of the laws that relate to 'Culpable Driving' which for your information have mostly been renamed in various states & laws adjusted in an attempt to keep up with modern times.

[NanLaew]

I am not trying to say that a lack of intent absolves her of responsibility... but that being unlicenced, and driving like most every other Thai on the road, and then being involved in a collision does not, IMHO, warrant the viscious attacks, and hang-em-high posts on here...

She made a mistake, lots of mistakes, and she should be held accountable for sure... but this is NOT murder, because there is no intent to harm... If she had rammed the van intentionally, that would be murder... without intent, it is an accident... that is what in Australia changes it to Culpable Driving Causing Death (which is punishable by a jail term) or in the US is Vehicular Manslaughter...

Again, she should be held accountable for her actions, even at the young age of 16... her parent and sister should be held accountable for her actions, as the responsible adults... I have just become tired of the over zealous persecution of this poor girl, who I would hope will feel a terrible burden by these bad choices for the rest of her life...

Heaven knows I have made some stupid decisions in my life... I look back now on how I drove when I was 17 and wonder how I survived...

Cheers,

Daewoo

Just got off the skype with Perry. He's in Bali, not Pattaya btw.

Anyway, in Texas, it would be vehicular manslaughter if found guilty. Same as Australia and I think the UK handle is 'causing death by dangerous driving' which is so clear in it's simplicity. Being hiso, connected, under age, unlicensed, drunk, drugged or sms'ing or calling on cellphone won't make it any more or any less.

Custodial sentences all round plus fines.

PS. Just saw your response neverdie. Interesting that there is an 'aggravated' level of charging in Australia. I assume that in those circumstances the custodial sentence would be longer and fines higher.

Questions answered, thanks for participating!

Now, back to the OP.

Edited December 30, 2010 by NanLaew

[ginjag]

Please remember that this is an ACCIDENT. She did not want this to happen as well.

No, its a Motor Vehicle COLLISION. This is a well worn path. There are plenty of people running around, sprouting off little snappy statements without realising their little 'theories' are not recognised in a court of law.

People can't just get into a car, virtually a tonne & a half of scrap metal and drive it down the road at high speeds and then when eventually something goes wrong, as it always does turn around and say, "It was an Accident". In any modern society this poor excuse will then be viewed by the authorities as such.

Normally Collisions happen for a reason. Most of the time its due to some form of Negligence on behalf of the driver. On rare occassions something like Mechanical Failure may be the cause and there are others. There is normally always various contributing factors to any motor vehicle collision.

In some instances the level of Negligence is deemed to be more extreme than others. For instance, a driver of a car abiding by all the road rules may misjudge the distance between his/her car and collide with another. This may well be deemed on the lower end of the scale. At the other end of the scale you've got drivers who are DISOBEYING all the road rules, travelling in a manner dangerous to other road users, perhaps at a speed dangerous or perhaps they are effected by some substance, ie; alcohol. Hence the reason why in most societies there are various charges/offences in various 'Acts of parliment' to address these issues.

The situation is, most collisions are not mere accidents and in a majority of them 'fault' can normally be established against one driver or another. Mostly these things do not just happen. Sadly, it appears, most drivers don't think of the consequences until its too late.

In NO COURT in the world that I am aware of where the Police (or prosecuting authority) must prove that a driver involved in a motor vehicle collision wanted the accident to happen. That would be 'intent'. If intent was deemed present at the time of something, then that would be something completely different, ie: Murder. The fact that this driver didnt want this to happen is completely irrelevant. What needs to be addressed and what any court will look at (if it gets that far) is the manner in which this persons car was driven leading up to the time of the collision.

That puts it in a nutshell. The word "accident" does not absolve people from all responsibility for their actions.

So SamritT is again saying, like--she is just a little innocent girl, underage, accident, it happens everyday, her attitude smells in my opinion, If she IS out the country, why ???? to try to forget whay she did ??? several others are further --out of this world in fact. If what happened/ mobile etc, and she said what she said, (was true) her and her family SHOULD be doing time for ==her being in the position in the civic in the first place, and the parents for her having keys to this MISSILE.

[neverdie]

^^INDEED there is NL.

I think we need to really forget about what happens back home, we all know better than to go down that road, but of course the basics apply everywhere in the world regarding this sort of thing.

Edited December 30, 2010 by neverdie

[MJP]

^INDEED there is.

I think we need to really forget about what happens back home, we all know better than to go down that road, but of course the basics apply everywhere in the world regarding this sort of thing.

This hammer hits so many nails on so many heads.

[Heng]

The red car that they are referring to in the news. Surely it can be disproved easily enough with the tollway camera footage (shouldn't be too hard to track down a few dozen red cars if that) from that evening. Flash memory can also be erased pretty easily though... and all of a sudden there's reasonable doubt.

So did the minibus or the Honda hit this red car, or both?

The 16 year old (or her parents) haven't mentioned it during their alleged breakfast prime time cover my arse time.

What model of red car is it?

A herring maybe?

No other info was given other than the Civic being clipped by a red car, causing it to hit the minivan. It was 3rd party info on Sorayuth's morning show yesterday as follow up. I'm thinking red herring, along with the whole seat belt and NGV tank thing...

[tropo]

How would it be my decision to send MY 16 year old to prison? But, to answer your question, if that is the penalty for their act, yes. If rich Thais are going to allow/encourage their underage children to drive, where do you draw the line? 12? 8? The law draws the line and defines criminality. If testing proves that reckless speed was involved, then it should be pressed harder.

How would you feel if those were killed were your wife and 7 children?

I don't know about the rest of Thailand, but in Pattaya I see way under 16 year old students riding motorcycles with 3 or 4 passengers at speed, often zipping past me. It's absolutely criminal - yet the cops are too busy scamming Farang for not wearing helmets.

[SamritT]

We all have to see the evident. Don't speculate. Evident show NO impact between civic & van. Evident show red paint of civic. Evident show van was modified with NGV tank. Evident show seat beast bundle up. Evident show that van door did not slide open. Who want to dispute the evident with me. I am happy to point you to published evident, reported by media, police, expert, etc.

[indothai]

From what I was told based on this mornings TV Talk Show, she admitted that she was speeding because she was in a rush to return the car to her friend.  She sped up on the right most lane and as she approched the van she indicated her high beams.  The van moved to the middle lane, she then sped up again, but the van returned back to the right lane, it was too late for her to brake in time. -- all this based on the TV Talk Show this morning, based on her parents conversation with the teen.  The parents also indicated that they will face responsiblity, but currently because of the "mob mentality" they have had to move to 3 different hospitals.  The parents indicated that they have received "bad" calls from people, threatening, etc.... They are very saddened by this incident and haven't had the chance to properly "speak in public" because people are just "out" for them. All this was translated to me in a short period of time... there are some discrepencies.  There is a "mob rule" going... online and offline...  I think people should just take a deep breath and take a look around before jumping to conclusions.  There are lots of under-aged drivers driving around here.. in cars and motorcycles... all ready to be the next headline.

. . . . I told you before. It was an ACCIDENT. She did not want to be involved in the accident, just like you or me. If she knew that the van is to drive recklessly (quote... but the van returned back to the right lane...), she (or you or I) would not try to drive pass the van. Please remember, this could also happen to you or I. Please have mercy on the poor child.

I don't think you understand the word ACCIDENT, and most people may find your response to this tragic incident sick. If you were the parent of this child, would you take full responsibility for 8 deaths? If not you then who? And how can you help prevent it further?.. if not this child, then how about the next child?

My post was ment to "cool" hot-heads down and not let it this tread escalate to a witch-hunt... I bet everyone is getting their information from the same place as mine... online forums, TV News, TV Talk Shows, etc... all 3rd person perspectives.

[canuckamuck]

Considering that Thai 16 year olds are often at the same maturity level as a western 12 year old, I think the girl needs to be considered at a lower level of responsibility than an adult. I can't imagine there are many kids out there that would refuse the opportunity to drive a car if they were given the option. Kids assume they are bullet proof and in their minds the law covers only what they are allowed or forbidden to do by the grown ups around them. The real crime is that she was allowed to take the wheel.

I am also surprised that lees is being made of the apparent propane tank rupture, which must have added to the physics and confusion in this crash. Was it installed in a legal manner?

[Daewoo]

I agree with what you are saying about the HANG EM HIGH posts, however by stating what you did in support of TROLL Poster is factually incorrect.

I don't think that SamritT is a troll... I don't agree with a lot of what she posted... IMHO, NGV means nothing in the scheme of things... Red car is most likely a Red Herring... No evidence of a collision, unlikely... I think she is very naive to believe it, but she probably does... her beliefs are pretty much exactly what I would expect from a lot of Thai's who treat their teenagers more like children than I treat my 5 year old...

I do agree with her simple statement that it was an accident, and the girl deserves some sympathy...

In the scheme of things, there are a lot of 16 year old boys from poor Thai families, intentionally committing violent crimes including murder... just because she is from a rich family, doesn't make her some kind of monster deserving harsher penalties...

She committed what she probably thought was a 'victimless crime'... driving without a licence... driving without a piece of paper to say she was allowed... further, she probably made some serious driving errors, that she has probably seen performed by others every single time she has been in a car, without consequence...

From reading another post, it seems that Thailand has reasonable Juvenile Justice Laws... my only concern is, like many other posters, that those laws will be applied irrespective of the girls family, or those of the victim... neither better, nor worse than any other...

You seem to be an Aussie, from your knowledge of Aussie Law... What would happen to a 16 year old in Australia??? Tried as an adult, probably not without intent... owner of the car held responsible, probably not... Juvenile Detention, maybe, but probably not without previous convictions... What if she was middle class? what if she was from a wealthy family? What if she was aboriginal... I can see this exact same situation being played out on the front page of The Daily Telegraph... Hang-Em-High camp Vs Bleeding Hearts, and no justice for anyone...

Cheers,

Daewoo

[a51mas]

^^INDEED there is NL.

I think we need to really forget about what happens back home, we all know better than to go down that road, but of course the basics apply everywhere in the world regarding this sort of thing.

neverdie; You are on a roll today.