Bangkok Tollway Tragedy: What Went Wrong?

[TheyCallmeScooter]

It's also dangerous to be a pedestrian.

Nil or obstructed pavements forcing people to walk in the road with maniac speedfreaks barely missing one, plus nil or non functioning crossing lights forcing one to risk the traffic to cross the road.

I've also noticed that locals do not exercise commonsense when walking on the road, as few walk on the correct side.

Honestly, I'm a bit surprised no one has pointed out the potential of making a stronger argument for society / government / transport ministry to be at fault here than any of the involved parties (who are all victims).

I'm a bit subdued due to a not-unpleasant yet mentally-draining hangover, but I don't see many car accidents on rails.

Intelligent and functional and slick networks of public transport would all but crush the road fatality figures, no? And they have exams and one-way access security doors to weed out 16 yr old train drivers.

[gemini81]

Lacking sufficient eyewitness accounts...sketchy as usual

[dekbahnnok]

What went wrong is the question?

It's not the event that ought to be scrutinized, but "the way" of Thailand. Few if any laws are enforced, and practically no police departments in any district can be classified as protecting and serving the citizens - similar to politicians and other power brokers here. It's (not the loss of life or living under these conditions) - the way of Thailand- is a JOKE folks, that's why so many are constantly smiling in Lack of Sanctions/ Land of Scams (LOS).

The poor do not have the luxury of air bags, seat belts and Mercedes Benz's while going to work (for 150 baht/day) and returning.

[Bishop2032]

2. The sedan has red paint on its side, suggesting that a third vehicle was involved in the accident; and

Maybe just maybe the red paint that shows on the side of the sedan is the base paint or first coat before laying the finishing color...

Edited January 3, 2011 by Bishop2032

[jbrewer]

The 16 year old girl should have been arrested or detained on the spot for driving with out a license, and the person who let her drive should also be held responsible.

yep!

[tgeezer]

I haven't read most of the posts after they had degenerated to 'class warfare' but what went wrong is the topic heading.

The first two posters stated the general attitude to laws which is a sad fact. I would like to add the lack of imagination shown by many drivers, caused by ignorance mainly. A Media campaign has to be started to replace this ignorance with knowledge.

The police know it, breaking distance was mentioned in the report. Also the report stated that the van was not in the correct lane; on a multi-lane highway the place to be is nearside unless overtaking, all too often we see vehicles reducing a three lane highway to two lanes for no reason. The overtaking driver should have taken account of this and been more circumspect in the face of limited overtaking space. The pictures are not clear but this appears to be the case from them, if it was not the case then take it as an example of the lack of skill shown generally.

[lannarebirth]

I haven't read most of the posts after they had degenerated to 'class warfare' but what went wrong is the topic heading.

The first two posters stated the general attitude to laws which is a sad fact. I would like to add the lack of imagination shown by many drivers, caused by ignorance mainly. A Media campaign has to be started to replace this ignorance with knowledge.

The police know it, breaking distance was mentioned in the report. Also the report stated that the van was not in the correct lane; on a multi-lane highway the place to be is nearside unless overtaking, all too often we see vehicles reducing a three lane highway to two lanes for no reason. The overtaking driver should have taken account of this and been more circumspect in the face of limited overtaking space. The pictures are not clear but this appears to be the case from them, if it was not the case then take it as an example of the lack of skill shown generally.

Breaking distance (sic) ? Any evidence at all that the overtaking party had applied her brakes? What is striking is the damage to her car given the fact they were headed in the same direction. The speed differential must have been considerable, and if you've ever driven on those tollways you'd know most of the folks up there are speeding already.

[tgeezer]

Breaking distance (sic) ? Any evidence at all that the overtaking party had applied her brakes? What is striking is the damage to her car given the fact they were headed in the same direction. The speed differential must have been considerable, and if you've ever driven on those tollways you'd know most of the folks up there are speeding already.

Its in the report, she was so close when she saw the danger that there was probably not time to react. The damage to the car was caused by impact with the restraining walls of the highway not the van.

If the van was in the wrong lane it could be said to have contributed to the accident, certainly I should think that if it had been in the nearside lane the accident would not have happened.

Edited January 4, 2011 by tgeezer

[lannarebirth]

Breaking distance (sic) ? Any evidence at all that the overtaking party had applied her brakes? What is striking is the damage to her car given the fact they were headed in the same direction. The speed differential must have been considerable, and if you've ever driven on those tollways you'd know most of the folks up there are speeding already.

Its in the report, she was so close when she saw the danger that there was probably not time to react. The damage to the car was caused by impact with the restraining walls of the highway not the van.

If the van was in the wrong lane it could be said to have contributed to the accident, certainly I should think that if it had been in the nearside lane the accident would not have happened.

I think I know this one. If that person had not been standing wher they were standing my fist would not have hit them. Some call it blaming the victim but I call it an exercise in illogic.

[selftaopath]

The 16 year old girl should have been arrested or detained on the spot for driving with out a license, and the person who let her drive should also be held responsible.

yep!

I agree and this would probably be true in any country where there is RULE OF LAW. But TIT - Lack of Sanctions (LOS) Where there is little, if any, punishment or taking responsibility for actions. What a joke; now wonder so many are smiling. Amusing Thailand - NOT.

[tgeezer]

I think I know this one. If that person had not been standing wher they were standing my fist would not have hit them. Some call it blaming the victim but I call it an exercise in illogic.

I don't find that illogical, if you were known to be the type to throw a punch then others should take care not to be in range. I didn't say that the van threw his face at the fist.

This topic is what went wrong, and I am focusing on the collision itself. The girl shouldn't have hit the van; 90% the van shouldn't have been in a position to be hit 10% .

The girl an inexperienced driver lacking in judgement and skill hit the van which was in her field of vision. The van driver,a professional driver was hit by the car which was not in her field of vision.

The consequences are not relevent, although they may serve as motivation for the authorities to address the wider issues, and for the population to accept the resulting measures.

The rules say that if you intend to overtake you should signal with your lights asking for a way when the vehicle in front slows down and signals by moving aside giving way then you can overtake. In the country large trucks tend to flash left-turn indicators. On the tollway it is fundementally no different; flashing your lights to indicate or ask for space is not arrogant, natuarally if space is not forthcoming, which appeared to be the case here, you should not continue as intended.

[MikeyIdea]

I think I know this one. If that person had not been standing wher they were standing my fist would not have hit them. Some call it blaming the victim but I call it an exercise in illogic.

I don't find that illogical, if you were known to be the type to throw a punch then others should take care not to be in range. I didn't say that the van threw his face at the fist.

This topic is what went wrong, and I am focusing on the collision itself. The girl shouldn't have hit the van; 90% the van shouldn't have been in a position to be hit 10% .

The girl an inexperienced driver lacking in judgement and skill hit the van which was in her field of vision. The van driver,a professional driver was hit by the car which was not in her field of vision.

The consequences are not relevent, although they may serve as motivation for the authorities to address the wider issues, and for the population to accept the resulting measures.

The rules say that if you intend to overtake you should signal with your lights asking for a way when the vehicle in front slows down and signals by moving aside giving way then you can overtake. In the country large trucks tend to flash left-turn indicators. On the tollway it is fundementally no different; flashing your lights to indicate or ask for space is not arrogant, natuarally if space is not forthcoming, which appeared to be the case here, you should not continue as intended.

I have never seen the rule saying that you should signal with your lights before you overtake in Thailand. Indicators yes, lights no. Where is that written?

I would argue that on an elevated tollway with 3 lanes in each direction, then you should indicate when you change lane of course but you should not flash your lights only because you overtake a car that is in another lane, Why?

Speeding, as the mother admits that her daughter did, together with inexperience, is enough to explain what killed 9 people in this case I think

[neverdie]

I have never seen the rule saying that you should signal with your lights before you overtake in Thailand. Indicators yes, lights no. Where is that written?

There is no such rule. There is a rule that addresses the issue of overtaking on single laned roads (ie: 2 lanes, where you have to cross to the incorrect side of the road) & this says you will use you horn, turn signals, hand signals.

The flashing of headlights isnt mentioned in the Land Traffic Act 1979. Perhaps, its missing from my copy? Perhaps its in the other act, "How to drive like a knob 101".

[Forethat]

The rules say that if you intend to overtake you should signal with your lights asking for a way when the vehicle in front slows down and signals by moving aside giving way then you can overtake. In the country large trucks tend to flash left-turn indicators. On the tollway it is fundementally no different; flashing your lights to indicate or ask for space is not arrogant, natuarally if space is not forthcoming, which appeared to be the case here, you should not continue as intended.

I have never seen the rule saying that you should signal with your lights before you overtake in Thailand. Indicators yes, lights no. Where is that written?

I would argue that on an elevated tollway with 3 lanes in each direction, then you should indicate when you change lane of course but you should not flash your lights only because you overtake a car that is in another lane, Why?

It is considered best practice in Thailand to flash your headlight at the vehicle in front of you. By doing so you communicate to the driver up front that he's a slow idiot that shouldn't be allowed to access the roads. It is customary to combine this tradition with the habit of speeding up as fast as you can behind the vehicle in front of you, and at the last second throw your car to the lane to the right of the vehicle in front and overtake on the inside.

The idea is to overtake on the inside maintaining as high difference in speed between your vehicle and the other car as possible, this way it'll be clear to everybody involved how big idiot the driver of the vehicle in front really is.

Edited January 5, 2011 by Forethat

[neverdie]

The rules say that if you intend to overtake you should signal with your lights asking for a way when the vehicle in front slows down and signals by moving aside giving way then you can overtake. In the country large trucks tend to flash left-turn indicators. On the tollway it is fundementally no different; flashing your lights to indicate or ask for space is not arrogant, natuarally if space is not forthcoming, which appeared to be the case here, you should not continue as intended.

I have never seen the rule saying that you should signal with your lights before you overtake in Thailand. Indicators yes, lights no. Where is that written?

I would argue that on an elevated tollway with 3 lanes in each direction, then you should indicate when you change lane of course but you should not flash your lights only because you overtake a car that is in another lane, Why?

It is considered best practice in Thailand to flash your headlight at the vehicle in front of you. By doing so you communicate to the driver up front that he's a slow idiot that shouldn't be allowed to access the roads. It is customary to combine this tradition with the habit of speeding up as fast as you can behind the vehicle in front of you, and at the last second throw your car to the lane to the right of the vehicle in front and overtake on the inside.

The idea is to overtake on the inside maintaining as high difference in speed between your vehicle and the other car as possible, this way it'll be clear to everybody involved how big idiot the driver of the vehicle in front really is.

Flashing the headlights acheives little. It blinds drivers going the other way (keeping in mind they don't just use this technique when on divided roads), it blinds people up front through their mirrors & if more than 1 or 2 cars are doing it, it can at times be a little confusing.

Its a stupid thing to do, kind of like driving along with your hazard lights on and then executing a turn (happens often).

Best practise would be to travel @ the speed limit or lower and only occupy the RHL if overtaking or turning right. If the right hand lane is occupied with another vehicle in front of yours, keep a 2 second gap and wait your turn to overtake.

You see, its not that hard.

[MikeyIdea]

The rules say that if you intend to overtake you should signal with your lights asking for a way when the vehicle in front slows down and signals by moving aside giving way then you can overtake. In the country large trucks tend to flash left-turn indicators. On the tollway it is fundementally no different; flashing your lights to indicate or ask for space is not arrogant, natuarally if space is not forthcoming, which appeared to be the case here, you should not continue as intended.

I have never seen the rule saying that you should signal with your lights before you overtake in Thailand. Indicators yes, lights no. Where is that written?

I would argue that on an elevated tollway with 3 lanes in each direction, then you should indicate when you change lane of course but you should not flash your lights only because you overtake a car that is in another lane, Why?

It is considered best practice in Thailand to flash your headlight at the vehicle in front of you. By doing so you communicate to the driver up front that he's a slow idiot that shouldn't be allowed to access the roads. It is customary to combine this tradition with the habit of speeding up as fast as you can behind the vehicle in front of you, and at the last second throw your car to the lane to the right of the vehicle in front and overtake on the inside.

The idea is to overtake on the inside maintaining as high difference in speed between your vehicle and the other car as possible, this way it'll be clear to everybody involved how big idiot the driver of the vehicle in front really is.

It was considered best practice to speed through areas with icebergs to limit time exposed to icebergs in Titinics era...

[TheyCallmeScooter]

If the van was in the wrong lane it could be said to have contributed to the accident, certainly I should think that if it had been in the nearside lane the accident would not have happened.

I think I know this one. If that person had not been standing wher they were standing my fist would not have hit them. Some call it blaming the victim but I call it an exercise in illogic.

I like to think of myself as a pretty logical fellow. Can you explain to me which road rules, if broken, wouldn't be deemed to have contributed to the accident...and which road rules, if broken, would?

Seems to me that if a speeding car in a hurry was attempting to pass an erratic van travelling slowly in the overtaking lane, and made a couple feints to pass, only for the erratic van to change lanes unpredictably...that would frustrate most experienced drivers, let alone a 16 year old stressed child. It might even scare the inexperienced driver into a high-speed overtaking manoeuvre on the incorrect side, forced to by nature of the van waltzing lane-to-lane, oblivious to the dangers and frustration it was causing behind.

I'm not sure how I'd break down the %'s of 'blame' if that was the case, but by god it would be a great deal more than 90/10 to the girl. I'd be leaning towards saying the erratic van in the incorrect lane was at primary fault...not really, of course, at the end of the day, the vehicle in the rear simply has to wear the majority blame almost all the time...but I know from personal experience that kind of slow, erratic lane-changing is incredibly dangerous.

Perhaps the van driver was too busy smiling at the gentleman who boarded a bit earlier. Perhaps they were making googly eyes, when she should have been 100% focused on driving, as those who had placed their lives in her professional hands would have expected. All speculation, of course. And changes nothing. No one has really discussed the crux issues from the start of this thing.

They're all too busy selectively applying 'justice' in fury at a silly, over-confident child who shouldn't have been on the road that night, or any night....for many, many years.

[canuckamuck]

It amazing how strong the opinions are considering how crappy the information is.

[MikeyIdea]

If the van was in the wrong lane it could be said to have contributed to the accident, certainly I should think that if it had been in the nearside lane the accident would not have happened.

I think I know this one. If that person had not been standing wher they were standing my fist would not have hit them. Some call it blaming the victim but I call it an exercise in illogic.

I like to think of myself as a pretty logical fellow. Can you explain to me which road rules, if broken, wouldn't be deemed to have contributed to the accident...and which road rules, if broken, would?

Seems to me that if a speeding car in a hurry was attempting to pass an erratic van travelling slowly in the overtaking lane, and made a couple feints to pass, only for the erratic van to change lanes unpredictably...that would frustrate most experienced drivers, let alone a 16 year old stressed child. It might even scare the inexperienced driver into a high-speed overtaking manoeuvre on the incorrect side, forced to by nature of the van waltzing lane-to-lane, oblivious to the dangers and frustration it was causing behind.

I'm not sure how I'd break down the %'s of 'blame' if that was the case, but by god it would be a great deal more than 90/10 to the girl. I'd be leaning towards saying the erratic van in the incorrect lane was at primary fault...not really, of course, at the end of the day, the vehicle in the rear simply has to wear the majority blame almost all the time...but I know from personal experience that kind of slow, erratic lane-changing is incredibly dangerous.

Perhaps the van driver was too busy smiling at the gentleman who boarded a bit earlier. Perhaps they were making googly eyes, when she should have been 100% focused on driving, as those who had placed their lives in her professional hands would have expected. All speculation, of course. And changes nothing. No one has really discussed the crux issues from the start of this thing.

They're all too busy selectively applying 'justice' in fury at a silly, over-confident child who shouldn't have been on the road that night, or any night....for many, many years.

A couple of westerners who has travelled with the female van driver in question have come forward on this forum and commended her on her safe and non-aggressive driving style. That seems a bit in contradiction to your use of the word erratic

Facts please, but then, we will never get the full facts of course

Edit: Added - but then, we will never get the full facts of course

Edited January 5, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[TheyCallmeScooter]

It amazing how strong the opinions are considering how crappy the information is.

That is to be expected, when the hubbub is nothing about the little girl in their firing line.

Would it be handier if she were a promiscuous male TV superstar in his 20's? I would think so. But they're not going to return their opportunity to sender, they'll just flick to Auto, and squeeze the trigger until their chambers are empty.

If this were a School Debate, every single Thaksin supporter would be instantly scrubbed for their contradiction. But it's not a debate, where logic and rules are followed. In real life, nothing needs to be fair or make sense or be 'right' or even true. Just fire rounds and hope you're pointed in the right direction. Most don't even know why they hate her so much, when all the initial hatred-inducing claims were mostly proven to be fabricated(?)....it doesn't matter, all that matters is they know she's bad, and she must PAY!!

Somebody's gotta pay!

Just don't ask them for what, specifically. I've done that 2-3 times and they aren't very comfortable with that particular question. Far better to work in rhetoric, when one is attempting to make a child pay for centuries of imagined oppression under her extended, extended family's boot.

In the French Revolution, they guillotined toddlers due to their aristocratic birth. There is no room in hatred for logic, it would be counter-productive.

[lannarebirth]

If the van was in the wrong lane it could be said to have contributed to the accident, certainly I should think that if it had been in the nearside lane the accident would not have happened.

I think I know this one. If that person had not been standing wher they were standing my fist would not have hit them. Some call it blaming the victim but I call it an exercise in illogic.

I like to think of myself as a pretty logical fellow. Can you explain to me which road rules, if broken, wouldn't be deemed to have contributed to the accident...and which road rules, if broken, would?

Seems to me that if a speeding car in a hurry was attempting to pass an erratic van travelling slowly in the overtaking lane, and made a couple feints to pass, only for the erratic van to change lanes unpredictably...that would frustrate most experienced drivers, let alone a 16 year old stressed child. It might even scare the inexperienced driver into a high-speed overtaking manoeuvre on the incorrect side, forced to by nature of the van waltzing lane-to-lane, oblivious to the dangers and frustration it was causing behind.

I'm not sure how I'd break down the %'s of 'blame' if that was the case, but by god it would be a great deal more than 90/10 to the girl. I'd be leaning towards saying the erratic van in the incorrect lane was at primary fault...not really, of course, at the end of the day, the vehicle in the rear simply has to wear the majority blame almost all the time...but I know from personal experience that kind of slow, erratic lane-changing is incredibly dangerous.

Perhaps the van driver was too busy smiling at the gentleman who boarded a bit earlier. Perhaps they were making googly eyes, when she should have been 100% focused on driving, as those who had placed their lives in her professional hands would have expected. All speculation, of course. And changes nothing. No one has really discussed the crux issues from the start of this thing.

They're all too busy selectively applying 'justice' in fury at a silly, over-confident child who shouldn't have been on the road that night, or any night....for many, many years.

I wasn't aware that any of what you describe had happened. IF it did happen I can tell you what I was taught when taking drivers education. I was told that if that kind of unsafe condition existed it is incumbent on the overtaking vehicle to slow down so as not to exascerbate what might be considered an already unsafe condition.

[ginjag]

If the van was in the wrong lane it could be said to have contributed to the accident, certainly I should think that if it had been in the nearside lane the accident would not have happened.

I think I know this one. If that person had not been standing wher they were standing my fist would not have hit them. Some call it blaming the victim but I call it an exercise in illogic.

I like to think of myself as a pretty logical fellow. Can you explain to me which road rules, if broken, wouldn't be deemed to have contributed to the accident...and which road rules, if broken, would?

Seems to me that if a speeding car in a hurry was attempting to pass an erratic van travelling slowly in the overtaking lane, and made a couple feints to pass, only for the erratic van to change lanes unpredictably...that would frustrate most experienced drivers, let alone a 16 year old stressed child. It might even scare the inexperienced driver into a high-speed overtaking manoeuvre on the incorrect side, forced to by nature of the van waltzing lane-to-lane, oblivious to the dangers and frustration it was causing behind.

I'm not sure how I'd break down the %'s of 'blame' if that was the case, but by god it would be a great deal more than 90/10 to the girl. I'd be leaning towards saying the erratic van in the incorrect lane was at primary fault...not really, of course, at the end of the day, the vehicle in the rear simply has to wear the majority blame almost all the time...but I know from personal experience that kind of slow, erratic lane-changing is incredibly dangerous.

Perhaps the van driver was too busy smiling at the gentleman who boarded a bit earlier. Perhaps they were making googly eyes, when she should have been 100% focused on driving, as those who had placed their lives in her professional hands would have expected. All speculation, of course. And changes nothing. No one has really discussed the crux issues from the start of this thing.

They're all too busy selectively applying 'justice' in fury at a silly, over-confident child who shouldn't have been on the road that night, or any night....for many, many years.

Theycallmescooter, same track, accusing" ALL too busy" " Eratic van changing lanes unpredictably." "Sressed child" "Van waltzing lane to lane" Incorrect lane" And all speculation of coarse.. There is another person with this sort of despise most comments if they are not in favour of the Girl

[TheyCallmeScooter]

Seems to me that if a speeding car in a hurry was attempting to pass an erratic van travelling slowly in the overtaking lane, and made a couple feints to pass, only for the erratic van to change lanes unpredictably...that would frustrate most experienced drivers, let alone a 16 year old stressed child. It might even scare the inexperienced driver into a high-speed overtaking manoeuvre on the incorrect side, forced to by nature of the van waltzing lane-to-lane, oblivious to the dangers and frustration it was causing behind.

I'm not sure how I'd break down the %'s of 'blame' if that was the case, but by god it would be a great deal more than 90/10 to the girl. I'd be leaning towards saying the erratic van in the incorrect lane was at primary fault...not really, of course, at the end of the day, the vehicle in the rear simply has to wear the majority blame almost all the time...but I know from personal experience that kind of slow, erratic lane-changing is incredibly dangerous.

Perhaps the van driver was too busy smiling at the gentleman who boarded a bit earlier. Perhaps they were making googly eyes, when she should have been 100% focused on driving, as those who had placed their lives in her professional hands would have expected. All speculation, of course. And changes nothing. No one has really discussed the crux issues from the start of this thing.

They're all too busy selectively applying 'justice' in fury at a silly, over-confident child who shouldn't have been on the road that night, or any night....for many, many years.

I wasn't aware that any of what you describe had happened. IF it did happen I can tell you what I was taught when taking drivers education. I was told that if that kind of unsafe condition existed it is incumbent on the overtaking vehicle to slow down so as not to exascerbate what might be considered an already unsafe condition.

Common-sense dictates that, in high-speed highway accidents, it's far more likely that the vehicles had a mixup than the car coming from behind, simply slamming into the other vehicle from the side. I mean, you guys are so focused on seeing things how you want to see them, you can't even concede logical points anymore.

Of course, early on the mother stated the van was changing lanes erratically. I'm dyslexic and used to driving on the other side of the road, but hasn't the van been shown to be putt-putting along in the overtaking lane? (I know there is an epidemic of this exact thing on Thailand's roads...along with incessantly changing lanes for literally no reason at all, as if the lanes didn't even exist at all)

But sure, hang onto your belief that the child pulled alongside, then swung over sharply into the other vehicle (which was travelling straight on). Yeah, that makes way more sense than a mixup where they both momentarily turned into each other, and ill-advisedly both attempted to occupy the same stretch of highway, at the same time. Impact.

It's a high-speed highway accident. Where the car from behind has to wear the majority portion of the blame, by virtue of their position on the road. But it's an ACCIDENT. Tragic, horrific sure...but then that's how high-speed highway accidents tend to go. She didn't try and hurt anyone, she simply was oblivious to the dangers of driving (as are many of y'all, without even realising it fully). I almost never come across a driver who treats driving with the healthy fear of god the activity warrants. People treat it like a mere breeze, and are then stunned when there is a mixup at 100 clicks in traffic.

The girl is guilty of...? What, exactly? I would like to have her evil crime listed, please. If y'all don't mind....

[rixalex]

I wasn't aware that any of what you describe had happened. IF it did happen I can tell you what I was taught when taking drivers education. I was told that if that kind of unsafe condition existed it is incumbent on the overtaking vehicle to slow down so as not to exascerbate what might be considered an already unsafe condition.

Precisely. I come upon erratically driven vehicles almost every day and unless there are three lanes to provide sufficient space between myself and said idiot, i hold back. In the case of a tight two lane highway with concrete to either side, it would be madness to wait for a gap and dash past, keeping fingers crossed that the idiot doesn't swerve into your path. For what? To get to your destination 5 minutes earlier? Is it worth it?

[tgeezer]

I'm not sure how I'd break down the %'s of 'blame' if that was the case,

I extrapolated the percentages from the fact that if you broke one rule in each section of the highway code the total points would be 100. Ten points are awarded for not driving in the nearside lane so they go to the van if that was the case. Since the accident was 100% and some rules must have been broken I gave the 90% to the car.

[MikeyIdea]

**************

It's a high-speed highway accident. Where the car from behind has to wear the majority portion of the blame, by virtue of their position on the road. But it's an ACCIDENT. Tragic, horrific sure...but then that's how high-speed highway accidents tend to go. She didn't try and hurt anyone, she simply was oblivious to the dangers of driving (as are many of y'all, without even realising it fully). I almost never come across a driver who treats driving with the healthy fear of god the activity warrants. People treat it like a mere breeze, and are then stunned when there is a mixup at 100 clicks in traffic.

The girl is guilty of...? What, exactly? I would like to have her evil crime listed, please. If y'all don't mind....

It's a high speed accident where westerners have come forward here on TV commending the driver of the van on her safe and non-aggressive driving style. You are right about speed, the mother of the daughter has admitted that her daughter was speeding.

Seems that the high speed accident was one-sided, does that matter to you?

Edited January 5, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[lee68]

A theory from an armchair expert:

Fact - someone gave the car keys to a 16-year-old, a criminal act.

Fact - the driver, with her adult sister as passenger decides to drive on the expressway

Fact - the car becomes very close to the rear of the van at expressway speed

Surmise - something distracts the driver (mobile phone rings?) as the van either ceases to accelerate or slows

Surmise - as the small gap between vehicles closes rapidly one or other sister attempts a radical steering manouver to avoid collision.

Fact - impact occurs and both vehicles begin to spin, with fatal consequences.

The rest is history, except of course the 3rd party red (car) herring, not seen on video. Where did the red paint come from? With a 16-year-old driving, its quite possible this is not her 1st accident.

There seems to have been no mention of the older sister in the car since day 1,the media seem to of forgotten about her,why?

[lannarebirth]

Seems to me that if a speeding car in a hurry was attempting to pass an erratic van travelling slowly in the overtaking lane, and made a couple feints to pass, only for the erratic van to change lanes unpredictably...that would frustrate most experienced drivers, let alone a 16 year old stressed child. It might even scare the inexperienced driver into a high-speed overtaking manoeuvre on the incorrect side, forced to by nature of the van waltzing lane-to-lane, oblivious to the dangers and frustration it was causing behind.

I'm not sure how I'd break down the %'s of 'blame' if that was the case, but by god it would be a great deal more than 90/10 to the girl. I'd be leaning towards saying the erratic van in the incorrect lane was at primary fault...not really, of course, at the end of the day, the vehicle in the rear simply has to wear the majority blame almost all the time...but I know from personal experience that kind of slow, erratic lane-changing is incredibly dangerous.

Perhaps the van driver was too busy smiling at the gentleman who boarded a bit earlier. Perhaps they were making googly eyes, when she should have been 100% focused on driving, as those who had placed their lives in her professional hands would have expected. All speculation, of course. And changes nothing. No one has really discussed the crux issues from the start of this thing.

They're all too busy selectively applying 'justice' in fury at a silly, over-confident child who shouldn't have been on the road that night, or any night....for many, many years.

I wasn't aware that any of what you describe had happened. IF it did happen I can tell you what I was taught when taking drivers education. I was told that if that kind of unsafe condition existed it is incumbent on the overtaking vehicle to slow down so as not to exascerbate what might be considered an already unsafe condition.

Common-sense dictates that, in high-speed highway accidents, it's far more likely that the vehicles had a mixup than the car coming from behind, simply slamming into the other vehicle from the side. I mean, you guys are so focused on seeing things how you want to see them, you can't even concede logical points anymore.

Of course, early on the mother stated the van was changing lanes erratically. I'm dyslexic and used to driving on the other side of the road, but hasn't the van been shown to be putt-putting along in the overtaking lane? (I know there is an epidemic of this exact thing on Thailand's roads...along with incessantly changing lanes for literally no reason at all, as if the lanes didn't even exist at all)

But sure, hang onto your belief that the child pulled alongside, then swung over sharply into the other vehicle (which was travelling straight on). Yeah, that makes way more sense than a mixup where they both momentarily turned into each other, and ill-advisedly both attempted to occupy the same stretch of highway, at the same time. Impact.

It's a high-speed highway accident. Where the car from behind has to wear the majority portion of the blame, by virtue of their position on the road. But it's an ACCIDENT. Tragic, horrific sure...but then that's how high-speed highway accidents tend to go. She didn't try and hurt anyone, she simply was oblivious to the dangers of driving (as are many of y'all, without even realising it fully). I almost never come across a driver who treats driving with the healthy fear of god the activity warrants. People treat it like a mere breeze, and are then stunned when there is a mixup at 100 clicks in traffic.

The girl is guilty of...? What, exactly? I would like to have her evil crime listed, please. If y'all don't mind....

I'm not sure what she is guilty of as I don't possess al the facts relevant to the investigation. I only watched the video of the crash and I could determine very little from that as to which driver was in which lane. The only thing I could see was the girl's car travelling at a high rate of speed compared to other drivers on the tollway. You seem to have quite a lot more details though and I'd be interested to know where you got them, or is it all just supposition? Here's what the police think she is guilty of:

http://www.nationmultimedia.com/home/Teenager-faces-charges-related-to-horror-van-accid-30145725.html

[MikeyIdea]

A theory from an armchair expert:

Fact - someone gave the car keys to a 16-year-old, a criminal act.

Fact - the driver, with her adult sister as passenger decides to drive on the expressway

Fact - the car becomes very close to the rear of the van at expressway speed

Surmise - something distracts the driver (mobile phone rings?) as the van either ceases to accelerate or slows

Surmise - as the small gap between vehicles closes rapidly one or other sister attempts a radical steering manouver to avoid collision.

Fact - impact occurs and both vehicles begin to spin, with fatal consequences.

The rest is history, except of course the 3rd party red (car) herring, not seen on video. Where did the red paint come from? With a 16-year-old driving, its quite possible this is not her 1st accident.

There seems to have been no mention of the older sister in the car since day 1,the media seem to of forgotten about her,why?

I have no idea, was she confirmed to have been in the car in the first place?

Another strange thing; Media didn't report that the girl driver (supposedly) was stuck and had to be helped out of the car until some 2 days after the accident. Now why is that?

[neverdie]

Seems that the high speed accident was one-sided, does that matter to you?

Nothing seems important to that poster unless it has something to do with diverting the attention away from the person who the police have held accountable as the cause of the collision.

Its rather nauseating.

edit to say: they don't realise that they are flogging a dead horse

Edited January 5, 2011 by neverdie