Thai Girl Involved In Tragic Tollway Accident Says That She Is Sorry

[MikeyIdea]

LOL

Where's the 'shaking my head in disbelief and walking away' emoticon when you most want it?

Which post or posts are you referring to?

[MikeyIdea]

Just curious... how much do the police get paid off for a case like this? 600,000 1M ? just what are the going rates these days?

Nothing probably. This case is between educated people using lawyers, everybody involved know that no money is needed to be paid to the police, the police won't ask for any either, for the same reason

They will negotiate, that's the whole purpose of being negotiating. If the parties think that the police have done a good job, then perhaps they will get some

[OzMick]

the girls parents knew she did not have licence but still bought her car or alloewed her to buy one

they should be brought before same court for aiding this awfull event

3 out of 10

It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did.

Very bad reading comprehension and making things up in lieu of stating the known facts.

Please read all +700 posts on all related threads before talking sh!te.

OK, let's stick to known facts. Who owns the car? Until you can answer that question how can "It wasn't her car, never was. The parents never bought her a car, never did." be accepted as fact.

Face it, if the parents did buy the car, they will try to hide that as it will make them criminally liable.

Because.... it was stated quite early by several media outlets just after the accident that it was her FRIENDS car and the girl even states that when commenting on the over publicized picture of her leaning on the guard rail with her phone She claims was calling the cars owner (her friend) about the insurance. These are the facts as published. Go google 'em!

We seem to have a different definition of a "fact". What you are claiming is fact are statements made by the girl, which may well be exculpatory and self-serving. It is a fact that that is what she claimed - the veracity of those claims is yet to be proven.

When you google, remember the computer maxim SISO.

[Who, me ?]

It doesn't matter if I murder a whole family and their dog, if I walk into the kitchen and there drop a knife on my foot, that event in of itself is an accident.

Why is this concept so hard to understand for people? Her supposed lack of a license etc doesn't change the nature of the event.

Do you accept that some accidents are easier avoided than others?

When people do something that they know to be dangerous, like driving under the influence, or driving underage, and an accident occurs because of it, nobody is saying that it was intentional, but they are saying that it could have been avoided by following laws and using common sense. If you ignore these two things, and bad stuff happens, you can't just say "well i'm sorry but i didn't mean for this to happen" and expect others to say "Yes we know you didn't. Don't worry, we are not blaming you. Accidents happen and all that". Well i wouldn't say that. Some people here clearly would.

Well said rixalex, although some will never get it.

I havent seen anyone suggest that the result of this collision was intended.

Having said that, the bit where she went and obtained the car, got into the drivers seat, started the engine, disengaged the handbrake, engaged the gears, clutch, throttle and moved off along a road or soi somewhere. In doing so she has had to steer the car, accelerate, brake & negotiate her way through the traffic. At some point she drove up onto the motorway, paid a toll perhaps? ALL OF THIS WAS INTENDED. Then the vehicle was driven along the tollway doing x, y & z. (All of which were intended actions) Perhaps some of the x,y & z may have been things which a prudent and propper person may NOT have done. Then as a result of this carelessness, recklessness, complete disregard for the law, whatever you want to call it, there is an aweful collision (albeit unintended) & 9 lives are snuffed out. Other people are injured.

Sure the actual result of her actions were unintended, but its all the intended stuff that led up to the end result that need to be answered for.

Certainly the most accurate summary of the situation! Well said (or written) ND !

[OzMick]

When I registered a car in my name in this country I had to supply exactly the same paperwork dross as I did to apply for my licences - as it was at the same time it was in triplicate. Because of this, I very much doubt that a car could be registered in the name of an under-age person.

If I was irresponsible enough to purchase a car for an under-age driver, I may be still smart enough not to have it in my own name. a proxy/patsy could keep my "valuable" name and position away from any ensuing nastiness.

Anybody willing to give odds against the family maid/housekeeper? Come on Nan, you've got the facts down cold.

[TAWP]

In some countries 16 is the legal age to drive, do they lock up 15 year old`s in solitary confinement there too after they did drive without a license an an accident occurred?

Accident! No license, speeding, smashing up cars, reckless driving, killing!! An ACCIDENT? Dumb <deleted>!

It doesn't matter if I murder a whole family and their dog, if I walk into the kitchen and there drop a knife on my foot, that event in of itself is an accident.

Why is this concept so hard to understand for people? Her supposed lack of a license etc doesn't change the nature of the event.

What is "supposed" about this girl's lack of a license? The fact that she should not have been there but was, did indeed change things, to say the least.

So you agree that all Red Shirts that died in April and May have themselves to blame as their occupation of the city-region was a a criminal act and therefor they are responsible ('guilty') of all events that follow, since they 'should not have been there but was' (sic)?

Thank you for the coming clarification.

[OzMick]

I read newspaper accounts of two crash survivors who were visited by the family of the girl early on... They each got a few paragraphs in the newspaper.

The most notable thing I remember from their comments was both saying, at least according to the newspaper, that they just wanted to put the episode behind them and they didn't plan to sue the girl's family. That was then... Afterwards, who knows...

They will happily accept interim financial recompense from the family in lieu of the insurance company award. It's the Thai way.

Getting an ambulance chasing lawyer to go for bigger bucks is NOT the Thai way.

Do you really expect the insurance company to cover an incident where the driver was under-age and unlicenced? Every insurance policy has myriad exclusions, usually in tiny little print to save paper, and expressed in obscure legalese jargon, that give the insurer (the party of the first part) the right to refuse claims by the insured (the party of the second part) or the injured (the party of the third part) and also written in some of the longest sentences ever written (at least in the 20th century or later) in the English language (be that US or UK English) and with many bracketed inclusions, the sole aim being to make the comprehension and understanding, by the party of the second part, almost impossible.

We are talking about the VICTIMS insurance claims and payouts. Once again, in earlier media reports, the minibus owners (BMTA operated) have already stated that financial recompense for the passengers is just a formality.

Do you understand the term Fully Comprehensive auto insurance as it applies to a commercial operator?

If there's one significant change in Thailand in the 20-odd years since I fell from the sky, it's the fact that auto insurance is mandatory and that the majority of Thai car owners do make sure they have it. The primary reason is of course, it short-circuited the usual sitting round the table at the cop shop while the police 'mediated' who paid for what after the inevitable fender-bender (have you seen the way they drive here???!!!). It's also why 'no claims bonus' means buggerall in Thai auto insurance!

Yes the BMTA's insurance will pay out the victims. They will then ask for recompense from the insurer of the other vehicle as the girl has been charged with causing the accident. They of course will refuse, and quite rightly, due to exclusion under Para V, clause 6, sub-clause CMXVIII (I may have that bit wrong) which will state inter-alia that the driver must hold a valid driver's licence.

BMTA's insurers will then sue the owner of the vehicle for reimbursement of their (the insurer's) liability plus costs. That is how insurance operates.

The victims who feel that the compensation offered by BMTA's insurers is inadequate are also free to sue BMTA (though if they are smart this will be excluded under their contract of carriage), the owner of the vehicle and the driver. As the driver is a minor with few assets, this may be transferrable to her parents.

But the person who can't escape suit is the owner of the honda. A giant turd is about to be dropped in their lap - more splatter to it.

[Thongkorn]

You lot are a sad bunch. You all cry for justice, but are ready to pass your own judgment on this girl before she has been properly convicted.

And before you all get on your high horses about me defending her, I'm not..I'm quite happy for a court to decide whether she is guilty or not after reviewing all the facts and evidence (and not from reading newspaper reports like the wannabe judges on this forum)

Listen to yourselves almost baying for blood.. "lock her up, throw away the key" you say.. thank god you are not part of the legal system in any country.

This whole thing is a tragedy.. for all involved.

totster

I feel alot better now she had the grace to turn herself in, Why was she not arrested at the site of the incident,.Why has there not been an inquiry into the police actions, Maybe there already has been , £££££, This is going the way many postes have predicted , Time will tell.

I don't know the extent of the injuries, but she apparently went to the hospital for a few days. I hope that's acceptable with you that she received treatment.

I have been at the scean of many accidents , she was not even in shock, Obviously her injuries did not extend to her texing Hand and fingers. She was coherent , walking and talking, no broken bones, SO please tell me what injuries, All superficial i suspect.But then again if you have Big money and name in Thailand you can stay in Hospital for as long as you want, unlike some of the poor people who where on there way home from a hard days work, who cannot afford Hospitals, So no its not acceptable to me.

[OzMick]

[

I feel alot better now she had the grace to turn herself in, Why was she not arrested at the site of the incident,.Why has there not been an inquiry into the police actions, Maybe there already has been , £££££, This is going the way many postes have predicted , Time will tell.

I don't know the extent of the injuries, but she apparently went to the hospital for a few days. I hope that's acceptable with you that she received treatment.

I have been at the scean of many accidents , she was not even in shock, Obviously her injuries did not extend to her texing Hand and fingers. She was coherent , walking and talking, no broken bones, SO please tell me what injuries, All superficial i suspect.But then again if you have Big money and name in Thailand you can stay in Hospital for as long as you want, unlike some of the poor people who where on there way home from a hard days work, who cannot afford Hospitals, So no its not acceptable to me.

Read somewhere (not sure where) cuts on her butt, assuming windscreen glass up her skirt cutting her as she slid out of seat. Painful I suppose, but hardly life threatening.

[a99az]

This is utterly disgusting. What a repugnant display of the lack of justice in this society.

No, little miss sunshine, it wasn't an "accident". It may have been unintentional, but it was a crime caused by your extreme negligence. Trying to shrug off responsibility for the deaths of 9 people as an "accident" is truly an insult to their memories.

So much for Nisa's theories that this girl is suffering. This girl needs to do hard time. She clearly has no remorse.

Well said could not put it better my self. Crush the car and place the parents in side too.

[lannarebirth]

^ I have to say, your comments, juxtaposed with your avatar of the Dalai Lama are at the very least somewhat ironic.

[TheWalkingMan]

I don't know how injured she was as I saw some photos of her, which appeared to show her sitting against the median/rail and texting. Sorry, texting immediately after this horrific accident shows a bit like it was not a big deal to her.

TheWalkingMan

[MikeyIdea]

I don't know how injured she was as I saw some photos of her, which appeared to show her sitting against the median/rail and texting. Sorry, texting immediately after this horrific accident shows a bit like it was not a big deal to her.

TheWalkingMan

That is what upset many Thais too

I am sure that it wasn't a "small deal" to her, being only 16 years old, first time in life and all that but I totally agree that she looks very much so in contrast to the mayhem (she has apologised for causing) and 8 dead that were on the other side of the car

[TheWalkingMan]

A lot of us are told that how things look in Thailand are very, very important. Dress properly, do not raise your voice, keep smiling etc. Maybe we should add, "Do not text after being involved in a large accident."

TheWalkingMan

[MikeyIdea]

A lot of us are told that how things look in Thailand are very, very important. Dress properly, do not raise your voice, keep smiling etc. Maybe we should add, "Do not text after being involved in a large accident."

TheWalkingMan

That was very witty actually, thanks for a good laugh late at work when laugh normally comes difficult

Edited January 7, 2011 by MikeyIdea

[atyclb]

This is utterly disgusting. What a repugnant display of the lack of justice in this society.

No, little miss sunshine, it wasn't an "accident". It may have been unintentional, but it was a crime caused by your extreme negligence. Trying to shrug off responsibility for the deaths of 9 people as an "accident" is truly an insult to their memories.

So much for Nisa's theories that this girl is suffering. This girl needs to do hard time. She clearly has no remorse.

Hate to say it but everything is relative. There are places that belong to the USA that would make you yearn for Thailand.

eg; CNMI

http://www.saipansucks.com/about.htm http://www.saipansucks.com/contest.htm

[jfchandler]

Actually, while no one would accuse me of particularly defending the girl, I have been a bit mystified by the Thai reaction to the photo that was published of the girl after the accident...

I was upset about the accident and the severity of the deaths and injury. But the Thais seemed to be MORE offended by the fact they saw, via the photo, the girl fiddling with her phone after the accident. I know there was some accusation she was texting or posting.... but the family has said she was contacting the owner of the car or others... Frankly, I'm not sure we'll ever know which is the truth about that... Given that, does anyone really know enough with certainty about what she was doing to be able to judge that act was callous disregard?

At least, it certainly seems plausible that after such an accident, if I were a 16 year old girl and I had a phone, I'd certainly want to be calling or texting someone to say HELP or OH MY GOD or some such thing.

I know some have said, well, why wasn't she doing something to help the victims... And while I understand that sentiment, I try to remember that she's a 16 year old girl, not a paramedic, not a nurse, not a policeman. And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby...

All in all, the phone deal, since I really don't know what she was doing at that time, ranks pretty low on my list of things to be upset or concerned about in this case compared to everything else.

[jfchandler]

I haven't seen this as yet, but others have talked about reports that the girl previously had been in California and may have been driving there. So it made me curious to check about the current driver's license rules for teens in my home state... Basically, a teenager can get a provisional instruction permit starting at age 15-1/2 (which only allows driving with a licensed adult in the car), and then can apply for a special provisional (limited) driver's license starting at age 16, providing they've met a whole series of other conditions.

The provisional driver's license for teens aged 16 up until 18 also has various driving restrictions listed below.

The following is from the Calif. Dept of Motor Vehicles web site:

Provisional Instruction Permits

If you are under 18 and at least 15 ½ you can apply for a provisional driver license. The first step to getting that license is to get an instruction permit. Because you are under 18, your permit and driver license are called, "Provisional." This means you have additional restrictions placed on your permit and driver license that adults (18 and over) do not have.

Your provisional instruction permit will have the following restrictions.

• You must obey the traffic laws
• You must drive without a collision
• You must drive with your parent, guardian, spouse, or an adult 25 years of age or older, who has a valid California driver license.
• You must hold your permit for six months before you can take your driving test to get your driver license.

How to apply for a permit if you are under 18 Driver License

To take your driving test you must:

• Be 16 years old
• Have held your California instruction permit for a minimum of six months
• Have completed driver education
• Have completed 6 hours of professional driver training. Select a driving school
• Have completed 50 hours of practice with an adult 25 of age years or older. The adult must have a valid California driver license and certify the 50 hours of practice. At least 10 of the 50 hours must have been done at night.

With your provisional driver license, you must be accompanied and supervised by a licensed parent, guardian or other licensed driver 25 years of age or older, or by a licensed or certified driving instructor when you:

• Transport passengers under 20 years of age at any time, for the first twelve months.
• Drive between 11 pm and 5 am for the first twelve months.

This means you cannot give anyone under 20 years old (your friends, your brother(s), sister(s), cousin(s), etc.) a ride unless you have a licensed parent, a guardian or other adult 25 years old or older in the car with you.

You are also not allowed to drive between 11 pm and 5 am during your first year after getting your license unless you have a licensed parent, a guardian or other adult 25 years old or older in the car with you.

With a provisional license, you can drive by yourself between the hours of 5 am and 11 pm.

I understand the rationales for all the restrictions listed above... But I was surprised to see they were so involved...much more I think than when I was a teenager and began driving a "few" years ago. But can you remotely imagine Thailand ever adopting that kind of involved regulatory scheme??? Only when chang can fly...

[lannarebirth]

I haven't seen this as yet, but others have talked about reports that the girl previously had been in California and may have been driving there. So it made me curious to check about the current driver's license rules for teens in my home state... Basically, a teenager can get a provisional instruction permit starting at age 15-1/2 (which only allows driving with a licensed adult in the car), and then can apply for a special provisional (limited) driver's license starting at age 16, providing they've met a whole series of other conditions.

The provisional driver's license for teens aged 16 up until 18 also has various driving restrictions listed below.

The following is from the Calif. Dept of Motor Vehicles web site:

Provisional Instruction Permits

If you are under 18 and at least 15 ½ you can apply for a provisional driver license. The first step to getting that license is to get an instruction permit. Because you are under 18, your permit and driver license are called, "Provisional." This means you have additional restrictions placed on your permit and driver license that adults (18 and over) do not have.

Your provisional instruction permit will have the following restrictions.

• You must obey the traffic laws
• You must drive without a collision
• You must drive with your parent, guardian, spouse, or an adult 25 years of age or older, who has a valid California driver license.
• You must hold your permit for six months before you can take your driving test to get your driver license.

How to apply for a permit if you are under 18 Driver License

To take your driving test you must:

• Be 16 years old
• Have held your California instruction permit for a minimum of six months
• Have completed driver education
• Have completed 6 hours of professional driver training. Select a driving school
• Have completed 50 hours of practice with an adult 25 of age years or older. The adult must have a valid California driver license and certify the 50 hours of practice. At least 10 of the 50 hours must have been done at night.

With your provisional driver license, you must be accompanied and supervised by a licensed parent, guardian or other licensed driver 25 years of age or older, or by a licensed or certified driving instructor when you:

• Transport passengers under 20 years of age at any time, for the first twelve months.
• Drive between 11 pm and 5 am for the first twelve months.

This means you cannot give anyone under 20 years old (your friends, your brother(s), sister(s), cousin(s), etc.) a ride unless you have a licensed parent, a guardian or other adult 25 years old or older in the car with you.

You are also not allowed to drive between 11 pm and 5 am during your first year after getting your license unless you have a licensed parent, a guardian or other adult 25 years old or older in the car with you.

With a provisional license, you can drive by yourself between the hours of 5 am and 11 pm.

I understand the rationales for all the restrictions listed above... But I was surprised to see they were so involved...much more I think than when I was a teenager and began driving a "few" years ago. But can you remotely imagine Thailand ever adopting that kind of involved regulatory scheme??? Only when chang can fly...

I'm 53 and those are about the same rules as when i was a kid in CA and WA states. We may have bent one or two but thems were the rules.

[WarpSpeed]

Adopt or enforce? They adopt all manner of convoluted regulations designed mostly for appearances but enforcement is another issue altogether..

Edited January 7, 2011 by WarpSpeed

[jfchandler]

Warp, I thought they just adopted those variety of undecipherable, un-followable regs for us.... I didn't think they promulgated the same stuff for Thais...

[steffi]

Reading the headlines today it's looking like they are leaving the door open for punishing the person who lent her the car a lot more than the girl who drove the car herself.

[OzMick]

Actually, while no one would accuse me of particularly defending the girl, I have been a bit mystified by the Thai reaction to the photo that was published of the girl after the accident...

I was upset about the accident and the severity of the deaths and injury. But the Thais seemed to be MORE offended by the fact they saw, via the photo, the girl fiddling with her phone after the accident. I know there was some accusation she was texting or posting.... but the family has said she was contacting the owner of the car or others... Frankly, I'm not sure we'll ever know which is the truth about that... Given that, does anyone really know enough with certainty about what she was doing to be able to judge that act was callous disregard?

At least, it certainly seems plausible that after such an accident, if I were a 16 year old girl and I had a phone, I'd certainly want to be calling or texting someone to say HELP or OH MY GOD or some such thing.

I know some have said, well, why wasn't she doing something to help the victims... And while I understand that sentiment, I try to remember that she's a 16 year old girl, not a paramedic, not a nurse, not a policeman. And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby...

All in all, the phone deal, since I really don't know what she was doing at that time, ranks pretty low on my list of things to be upset or concerned about in this case compared to everything else.

"And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby..."

Mission Impossible 6: witness statement as reported Page 9

"............he fell out before or during the 360 spin. He remember lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water. He clearly remembers seeing the 16 year old outside of her car and with her phone. At the time, he wasn't aware that she was the one who was involved in the accident. She didn't come to help any of the injured. "

How do you spell "callous indifference"? How much medical training do you need to ask "Can I help?"?

[OzMick]

I haven't seen this as yet, but others have talked about reports that the girl previously had been in California and may have been driving there. So it made me curious to check about the current driver's license rules for teens in my home state... Basically, a teenager can get a provisional instruction permit starting at age 15-1/2 (which only allows driving with a licensed adult in the car), and then can apply for a special provisional (limited) driver's license starting at age 16, providing they've met a whole series of other conditions.

The provisional driver's license for teens aged 16 up until 18 also has various driving restrictions listed below.

The following is from the Calif. Dept of Motor Vehicles web site:

Provisional Instruction Permits

If you are under 18 and at least 15 ½ you can apply for a provisional driver license. The first step to getting that license is to get an instruction permit. Because you are under 18, your permit and driver license are called, "Provisional." This means you have additional restrictions placed on your permit and driver license that adults (18 and over) do not have.

Your provisional instruction permit will have the following restrictions.

• You must obey the traffic laws
• You must drive without a collision
• You must drive with your parent, guardian, spouse, or an adult 25 years of age or older, who has a valid California driver license.
• You must hold your permit for six months before you can take your driving test to get your driver license.

How to apply for a permit if you are under 18 Driver License

To take your driving test you must:

• Be 16 years old
• Have held your California instruction permit for a minimum of six months
• Have completed driver education
• Have completed 6 hours of professional driver training. Select a driving school
• Have completed 50 hours of practice with an adult 25 of age years or older. The adult must have a valid California driver license and certify the 50 hours of practice. At least 10 of the 50 hours must have been done at night.

With your provisional driver license, you must be accompanied and supervised by a licensed parent, guardian or other licensed driver 25 years of age or older, or by a licensed or certified driving instructor when you:

• Transport passengers under 20 years of age at any time, for the first twelve months.
• Drive between 11 pm and 5 am for the first twelve months.

This means you cannot give anyone under 20 years old (your friends, your brother(s), sister(s), cousin(s), etc.) a ride unless you have a licensed parent, a guardian or other adult 25 years old or older in the car with you.

You are also not allowed to drive between 11 pm and 5 am during your first year after getting your license unless you have a licensed parent, a guardian or other adult 25 years old or older in the car with you.

With a provisional license, you can drive by yourself between the hours of 5 am and 11 pm.

I understand the rationales for all the restrictions listed above... But I was surprised to see they were so involved...much more I think than when I was a teenager and began driving a "few" years ago. But can you remotely imagine Thailand ever adopting that kind of involved regulatory scheme??? Only when chang can fly...

The restrictions above make it more likely that she does NOT hold a CA driving permit or licence. If she applied for the permit and went through all of the steps at the earliest possible dates, she COULD have attained a restricted licence which she could use only for a few months before she returned to Thailand. It would be no help to her obtaining a licence in this country where she is under-age, and would have expired by the time she reached legal driving age. Doing so IMHO seems illogical and unlikely.

[Nisa]

I would not run this argument in any normal country, but 'baying for blood' has its uses in a country where legal justice appears to be a trade-able commodity for those with money or influence.

What country is it where money doesn't play a role in justice?

[Nisa]

Actually, while no one would accuse me of particularly defending the girl, I have been a bit mystified by the Thai reaction to the photo that was published of the girl after the accident...

I was upset about the accident and the severity of the deaths and injury. But the Thais seemed to be MORE offended by the fact they saw, via the photo, the girl fiddling with her phone after the accident. I know there was some accusation she was texting or posting.... but the family has said she was contacting the owner of the car or others... Frankly, I'm not sure we'll ever know which is the truth about that... Given that, does anyone really know enough with certainty about what she was doing to be able to judge that act was callous disregard?

At least, it certainly seems plausible that after such an accident, if I were a 16 year old girl and I had a phone, I'd certainly want to be calling or texting someone to say HELP or OH MY GOD or some such thing.

I know some have said, well, why wasn't she doing something to help the victims... And while I understand that sentiment, I try to remember that she's a 16 year old girl, not a paramedic, not a nurse, not a policeman. And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby...

All in all, the phone deal, since I really don't know what she was doing at that time, ranks pretty low on my list of things to be upset or concerned about in this case compared to everything else.

"And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby..."

Mission Impossible 6: witness statement as reported Page 9

"............he fell out before or during the 360 spin. He remember lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water. He clearly remembers seeing the 16 year old outside of her car and with her phone. At the time, he wasn't aware that she was the one who was involved in the accident. She didn't come to help any of the injured. "

How do you spell "callous indifference"? How much medical training do you need to ask "Can I help?"?

Interesting given the fact she was trapped in her car until rescue workers freed her.

[Who, me ?]

Actually, while no one would accuse me of particularly defending the girl, I have been a bit mystified by the Thai reaction to the photo that was published of the girl after the accident...

I was upset about the accident and the severity of the deaths and injury. But the Thais seemed to be MORE offended by the fact they saw, via the photo, the girl fiddling with her phone after the accident. I know there was some accusation she was texting or posting.... but the family has said she was contacting the owner of the car or others... Frankly, I'm not sure we'll ever know which is the truth about that... Given that, does anyone really know enough with certainty about what she was doing to be able to judge that act was callous disregard?

At least, it certainly seems plausible that after such an accident, if I were a 16 year old girl and I had a phone, I'd certainly want to be calling or texting someone to say HELP or OH MY GOD or some such thing.

I know some have said, well, why wasn't she doing something to help the victims... And while I understand that sentiment, I try to remember that she's a 16 year old girl, not a paramedic, not a nurse, not a policeman. And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby...

All in all, the phone deal, since I really don't know what she was doing at that time, ranks pretty low on my list of things to be upset or concerned about in this case compared to everything else.

"And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby..."

Mission Impossible 6: witness statement as reported Page 9

"............he fell out before or during the 360 spin. He remember lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water. He clearly remembers seeing the 16 year old outside of her car and with her phone. At the time, he wasn't aware that she was the one who was involved in the accident. She didn't come to help any of the injured. "

How do you spell "callous indifference"? How much medical training do you need to ask "Can I help?"?

Interesting given the fact she was trapped in her car until rescue workers freed her.

Is it a sure fact that she was trapped in the car ?

I have troubles to understand why a rescue worker would free a uninjured person from a car and would not pay the slightest attention to a injured person, on the road, begging for help! Moreover, why this rescue worker would disappear from the injured person's sight as soon as the uninjured one has been freed?

[whybother]

"And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby..."

Mission Impossible 6: witness statement as reported Page 9

"............he fell out before or during the 360 spin. He remember lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water. He clearly remembers seeing the 16 year old outside of her car and with her phone. At the time, he wasn't aware that she was the one who was involved in the accident. She didn't come to help any of the injured. "

How do you spell "callous indifference"? How much medical training do you need to ask "Can I help?"?

Interesting given the fact she was trapped in her car until rescue workers freed her.

I haven't seen anyone else besides you state that she was trapped in her car, BUT the witness statement doesn't gel for me and doesn't really match the timing (IMO).

I have fallen off my bike a couple of times. I've injured myself playing sport many times. I've been in pain. I never even thought about yelling for water. Water only came into it when someone else offered it to me ("You should have a drink of water") once I had settled down a bit.

I can't believe she could casually get out of her car, walk over to the wall and lean on it to start posting on Facebook (as some people have suggested) or even to call family or friends. She would be in shock. She would take several minutes to get out of her car, or get out quickly and rush around looking at what has happened, at least to the car she was driving.

I would suggest that the photo was taken some time after the accident, and the witness doesn't know what he remembers.

[Who, me ?]

"And it's impossible to know, from that picture, just what was the scene/setting around her when she was captured fiddling with the phone, whether there even were any victims or such nearby..."

Mission Impossible 6: witness statement as reported Page 9

"............he fell out before or during the 360 spin. He remember lying on the ground in pain yelling for help and water. He clearly remembers seeing the 16 year old outside of her car and with her phone. At the time, he wasn't aware that she was the one who was involved in the accident. She didn't come to help any of the injured. "

How do you spell "callous indifference"? How much medical training do you need to ask "Can I help?"?

Interesting given the fact she was trapped in her car until rescue workers freed her.

I haven't seen anyone else besides you state that she was trapped in her car, BUT the witness statement doesn't gel for me and doesn't really match the timing (IMO).

I have fallen off my bike a couple of times. I've injured myself playing sport many times. I've been in pain. I never even thought about yelling for water. Water only came into it when someone else offered it to me ("You should have a drink of water") once I had settled down a bit.

I can't believe she could casually get out of her car, walk over to the wall and lean on it to start posting on Facebook (as some people have suggested) or even to call family or friends. She would be in shock. She would take several minutes to get out of her car, or get out quickly and rush around looking at what has happened, at least to the car she was driving.

I would suggest that the photo was taken some time after the accident, and the witness doesn't know what he remembers.

I think that we all react in a different way if we are involved in a car crash. The fact that one injured person asked or did not ask for water does not mean anything. The fact that the girl looked rather unconcerned and was using her phone does not mean much either. She could very well be contacting the car's owner, or her family,....or even tweet.. Don't forget she is a teen, with other reactions that grown up can have in such a situation

[whybother]

Crashed Honda lent out

By The Nation

The sedan driven by the underage girl involved in a tollway accident that killed nine van passengers last week belongs to a woman who owns a garage and lent it to a third person, police said yesterday.

Witchuta Worrakhajit has been summoned by police for an interview about her ownership of the white Honda Civic, which was registered in Phuket but brought to Bangkok. Police will also question her about her relation to the third person and the underage girl.

Allowing cars to be driven by underage persons is a crime, punishable by imprisonment and fines. The penalties are higher in cases in which accidents occur.

A witness said Witchuta was rarely present at her garage on Lat Phrao Road, and that the Honda was among many cars she lent to garage clients free of charge during repairs of their vehicles.

-- The Nation 2011-01-08

The Thot Plickens.

Does this possibly mean that the girls car was in for repairs?

edit: ie her parents knew she was driving, but didn't necessarily know it was someone else's car.

Edited January 8, 2011 by whybother