Babcock Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 My wife's nephew was in the accident on Rama 9 bridge after the Chelsea victory in the champions league at 5am. It's the talk of the town online now as it has been discussed on channel 3 news. He was asleep in the back of the car that ploughed into the back of a mercedes. They were returning from a wedding reception. The driver claims the mercedes overtook them (they were doing about 100 mph in the express lane). The mercedes admitted later to the police that his mobile phone slid to the right on the dashboard. The right rear and the left front of the 2 vehicles are crushed. Our driver claims the mercedes braked and either that or he was travelling slowly and crossed lanes. 5 in the car, 4 seriously injured. The mercedes driver, unhurt, came up to the car, drunk, swearing, saying they'll have to buy him a new car and fled the scene in a taxi. Some good samaritan young thais (2 boys and a girl) stopped, parked on the left, to help and together with the drivers girlfriend who was OK attempted to free the trapped passengers. The driver has a broken leg and all those in the back had been asleep. My wife's nephew temple was crushed in his pallete broken and mouth split missing many teeth,bridge of nose broken. A girl in the back has a broken collar bone, broken lower back etc. As these young thais were helping a red mini cooper smashed through all 4 of them and drove straight off. One girl almost died. This is a toll road so there should be CCTV of this driver but nothing has been heard from the police. Just in. We gather the driver of the Mini Cooper was 16 or 17 years old. They've just blamed my wife's nephews friend for the accident as he came from behind. The mercedes driver returned to the scene at 9 am to shout and argue with the police. Meanwhile the families are having to pay for the operations and treatment at a private hospital out of meager savings. I've tried to impress upon them that they have to pursue an action with vigour against the mercedes driver who just scoffs at them. No-one was breathalysed. I'd like to quote from a poster Brian Fish from another web board concerning (some not all) Puy Yai hi sos attitudes in this country and what informs it. "Wiki also has an interesting write-up of narcissism, which in part reads, "Aggressive narcissism This is Factor 1 in the Hare Psychopathy Checklist, which includes the following traits: Glibness/superficial charm Grandiose sense of self-worth Pathological lying Cunning/manipulative Lack of remorse or guilt Callous/lack of empathy Failure to accept responsibility for own actions." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
samsiam Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Nasty people, so many of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spoonman Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Vehicle that hits another from behind is always in the wrong therefore your nephews friend is in the wrong and should cover damages to the Mercedes (was the Merc driver charged with drink drinking), lets hope he/she is adequately insured. the injured passengers should also be covered by insurance. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babcock Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 Vehicle that hits another from behind is always in the wrong therefore your nephews friend is in the wrong and should cover damages to the Mercedes (was the Merc driver charged with drink drinking), lets hope he/she is adequately insured. the injured passengers should also be covered by insurance. You're not in the wrong If the car in front suddenly brakes or swerves and you hit it from behind. They were doing about 140 kph so judging from the photos I'd suggest there was a big speed difference. no the merc driver was not breathalysed. No-one was. It should be for a court to decide blame. They may now know who the mini driver was but they are afraid he'll disappear (or advised to) if too much is revealed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popular Post FritsSikkink Posted May 25, 2012 Popular Post Share Posted May 25, 2012 Vehicle that hits another from behind is always in the wrong therefore your nephews friend is in the wrong and should cover damages to the Mercedes (was the Merc driver charged with drink drinking), lets hope he/she is adequately insured. the injured passengers should also be covered by insurance. You're not in the wrong If the car in front suddenly brakes and you hit it from behind. If you hit it from behind if it suddenly brakes you are in the wrong: not taken enough distance. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WhizBang Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Vehicle that hits another from behind is always in the wrong therefore your nephews friend is in the wrong and should cover damages to the Mercedes (was the Merc driver charged with drink drinking), lets hope he/she is adequately insured. the injured passengers should also be covered by insurance. You're not in the wrong If the car in front suddenly brakes and you hit it from behind. If you hit it from behind if it suddenly brakes you are in the wrong: not taken enough distance. Wrong. Depending on the circumstances, the driver who cut you off and then sharply braked would be in the wrong for causing the accident. Edited May 25, 2012 by WhizBang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Vehicle that hits another from behind is always in the wrong therefore your nephews friend is in the wrong and should cover damages to the Mercedes (was the Merc driver charged with drink drinking), lets hope he/she is adequately insured. the injured passengers should also be covered by insurance. You're not in the wrong If the car in front suddenly brakes and you hit it from behind. If you hit it from behind if it suddenly brakes you are in the wrong: not taken enough distance. Wrong. Depending on the circumstances, the driver who cut you off and then sharply braked would be in the wrong for causing the accident. That is not what happened and it is almost never what happens but what drivers who hit somebody from behind like to claim. Our driver claims the mercedes braked and either that or he was travelling slowly and crossed lanes. Clearly this drive has no clue what happened and is trying to figure out a reason to claim it was not his fault. Following too closely is a serious problem all over but one that is really a huge problem in Thailand, especially on the highways and by bus and van drivers who should know better than anyone the dangerous of this. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkom Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? He took a taxi and returned. Plus it says he was drinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkom Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? He took a taxi and returned. Plus it says he was drinking. I understand that, clearly he had something to hide otherwise he wouldn't have left. This looks like a hit and run, which is considered a crime in most countries. Edited May 25, 2012 by arkom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? He took a taxi and returned. Plus it says he was drinking. I understand that, clearly he had something to hide otherwise he wouldn't have left. This looks like a hit and run, which is considered a crime in most countries. No doubt but that doesn't mean he caused the accident. Also, if he left and returned after giving his information, then it probably isn't hit and run. Edited May 25, 2012 by Nisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipo1000 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? He took a taxi and returned. Plus it says he was drinking. I understand that, clearly he had something to hide otherwise he wouldn't have left. This looks like a hit and run, which is considered a crime in most countries. But which isn't a crime in Thailand.And where are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babcock Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? This is the point. If he had done nothing wrong why did he flee the scene. He came back when he was sober and after he got some advice maybe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I've tried to impress upon them that they have to pursue an action with vigour against the mercedes driver who just scoffs at them. Actually I believe they need to deal with your wife's nephew's friend's insurance company regardless of whose fault. Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I think it is kind of a no fault policy in Thailand and the insurance company will deal with the issues behind the scenes but it is your insurance (the car you are in) that you deal with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipo1000 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? This is the point. If he had done nothing wrong why did he flee the scene. He came back when he was sober and after he got some advice maybe. Lets see,mercedes driver has had a few alcoholic drinks,someone speed devil who is driving way over the speed limit comes from behind and crashes into his car.What would you do when you were the mercedes driver? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? This is the point. If he had done nothing wrong why did he flee the scene. He came back when he was sober and after he got some advice maybe. Lets see,mercedes driver has had a few alcoholic drinks,someone speed devil who is driving way over the speed limit comes from behind and crashes into his car.What would you do when you were the mercedes driver? If hurt or worried about possible internal injuries, provide my info to the other driver and possibly while doing so express my outrage at him for almost killing me and then go to my doctor or hospital. Seems a lot of assumptions are being made hearing only one side of the story that isn't even being told first hand. Edited May 25, 2012 by Nisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkom Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? He took a taxi and returned. Plus it says he was drinking. I understand that, clearly he had something to hide otherwise he wouldn't have left. This looks like a hit and run, which is considered a crime in most countries. No doubt but that doesn't mean he caused the accident. Also, if he left and returned after giving his information, then it probably isn't hit and run. I'm not saying he caused the accident, I am simply implying that there would be no reason to flee if he was innocent. Yes, he did return but 4hrs later. If he came back right away with help then it probably wasn't a hit and run. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arkom Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? He took a taxi and returned. Plus it says he was drinking. I understand that, clearly he had something to hide otherwise he wouldn't have left. This looks like a hit and run, which is considered a crime in most countries. But which isn't a crime in Thailand.And where are we? Which I why I said most most countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipo1000 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 Something doesn't add up, why would the driver of the Mercedes flee the scene if he didn't cause the accident? This is the point. If he had done nothing wrong why did he flee the scene. He came back when he was sober and after he got some advice maybe. Lets see,mercedes driver has had a few alcoholic drinks,someone speed devil who is driving way over the speed limit comes from behind and crashes into his car.What would you do when you were the mercedes driver? If hurt or worried about possible internal injuries, provide my info to the other driver and possibly while doing so express my outrage at him for almost killing me and then go to my doctor or hospital. Seems a lot of assumptions are being made hearing only one side of the story that isn't even being told first hand. But that was not my point.My point was that assuming that the mercedes driver indeed had a few alcoholic drinks,I didn't say drunk,and some craze runs into his car because he's speeding. Would you take the risk of staying at the scene and being held responsible for something you had no fault at,only because you had a few drinks? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babcock Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 I've just found out that the Benz driver reported to the police not on Sunday morning but on Monday morning 28 hours after the accident. He argued with the police which was witnessed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 By the way, those pics don't don't show the right/left side impact described in the OP. They appear to be fairly solid impacts possibly a little off center but this is not untypical in a read end crash as people not only tend to turn and break before impact but also because cars are not perfectly aligned in lanes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babcock Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 I've tried to impress upon them that they have to pursue an action with vigour against the mercedes driver who just scoffs at them. Actually I believe they need to deal with your wife's nephew's friend's insurance company regardless of whose fault. Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I think it is kind of a no fault policy in Thailand and the insurance company will deal with the issues behind the scenes but it is your insurance (the car you are in) that you deal with. That's correct. I believe they had 3rd party but there was insurance for the passengers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I've just found out that the Benz driver reported to the police not on Sunday morning but on Monday morning 28 hours after the accident. He argued with the police which was witnessed. They were still at the accident scene 28 hours later? And this is a story from last week and we are just getting updates and the OP has "Just In" comments at the end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipo1000 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I've just found out that the Benz driver reported to the police not on Sunday morning but on Monday morning 28 hours after the accident. He argued with the police which was witnessed. I suggest that you ask the mods to remove your thread because it is clearly that you are making a fool of yourself the more you post on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) I've tried to impress upon them that they have to pursue an action with vigour against the mercedes driver who just scoffs at them. Actually I believe they need to deal with your wife's nephew's friend's insurance company regardless of whose fault. Somebody correct me if I am wrong but I think it is kind of a no fault policy in Thailand and the insurance company will deal with the issues behind the scenes but it is your insurance (the car you are in) that you deal with. That's correct. I believe they had 3rd party but there was insurance for the passengers. The other thing I believe "may be true" is there really is no sense in law suites from an accident either because you are only going to be compensated for hospital bills. Not even sure if time off from work counts as that might be able to be claimed from another source. But bottom line is you don't come out ahead in an accident here. Not like the US (not sure about other western countries) where it is typical to see damages of 3x the medical loss where a 1/3 goes to the lawyers, 1/3 goes to doctors and a 1/3 goes to the victim. Edited May 25, 2012 by Nisa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babcock Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 By the way, those pics don't don't show the right/left side impact described in the OP. They appear to be fairly solid impacts possibly a little off center but this is not untypical in a read end crash as people not only tend to turn and break before impact but also because cars are not perfectly aligned in lanes. They're off center. The mercedes rear left light is undamaged. I'm told the driver insisted he was driving straight down the express lane and the other car just suddenly appeared to veer in front. There's clearly serious damage. They apparently only had 3 km to travel. We read about these accidents all the time, speeding late at night like the porsche driver hitting the toyota and actually throwing the toyota in the air. We've all seen crazy antics. The other day driving on Sukhumvit in the left hand lane a woman in the right hand lane turned in front of us sharp left and drove across in front of us into a service station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babcock Posted May 25, 2012 Author Share Posted May 25, 2012 I've just found out that the Benz driver reported to the police not on Sunday morning but on Monday morning 28 hours after the accident. He argued with the police which was witnessed. I suggest that you ask the mods to remove your thread because it is clearly that you are making a fool of yourself the more you post on this topic. And if you'd bothered to read all the way through my post you'd see that 4 people were run over by another car which didn't stop. So 2 drivers fled the scene. A tragic affair. That's why it's on Channel 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipo1000 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 There's clearly serious damage. They apparently only had 3 km to travel. We read about these accidents all the time, speeding late at night like the porsche driver hitting the toyota and actually throwing the toyota in the air. Now keep in mind that you have posted that your wifes nephew friend was driving at 160 Kmh ( 100 Mph as in the OP) and later you retracted that to 140 Kmh which is still speeding in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pipo1000 Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 (edited) I've just found out that the Benz driver reported to the police not on Sunday morning but on Monday morning 28 hours after the accident. He argued with the police which was witnessed. I suggest that you ask the mods to remove your thread because it is clearly that you are making a fool of yourself the more you post on this topic. And if you'd bothered to read all the way through my post you'd see that 4 people were run over by another car which didn't stop. So 2 drivers fled the scene. A tragic affair. That's why it's on Channel 3. And who was the primary cause of all this?By the way the reason of my post was that you seem to not know the real story and are just posting and changing the facts at a fast pace. Edited May 25, 2012 by pipo1000 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nisa Posted May 25, 2012 Share Posted May 25, 2012 I've just found out that the Benz driver reported to the police not on Sunday morning but on Monday morning 28 hours after the accident. He argued with the police which was witnessed. I suggest that you ask the mods to remove your thread because it is clearly that you are making a fool of yourself the more you post on this topic. And if you'd bothered to read all the way through my post you'd see that 4 people were run over by another car which didn't stop. So 2 drivers fled the scene. A tragic affair. That's why it's on Channel 3. Is it on Channel 3 news now or was it on last week when this happened? I am confused why this is being posted now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now