Why Doesn't Cmu Protect Its Students And Enforce Helmet Laws?

[TheVicar]

If you enter CMU (Chiang Mai University), you're sure to spot large signs that say something like 100% compliance, along with pictures of smiling students wearing helmets on the billboards. But the reality of CMU is that its students and likely faculty and staff have a something like 100% failure rate in wearing helmets. This is a tremendous disservice to their students (and a possible area for legal action against the university too). Education should begin with some things that are basic like taking care of your own health and the health and welfare of others.

And please, it is long beyond dispute that motorcycle helmets help save lives and prevent serious head accidents. Denying this is like denying global warming or denying that cigarettes are bad for your health. It's beyond factual dispute any more. Almost every civilized nation has laws against motorcyclists without helmets for a reason.

Nor is stopping this difficult. Several years ago facing this same problem in Bangkok, universities there simply stopped all motorcyclists without helmets from entering, leaving, or driving on their campuses. Easy to do, as it would be at CMU, because the university has guards (in name at least) and guard posts at all entrances and exits. Overnight, compliance in Bangkok among the university students as a group went up to 100%. And having driven a motorbike in both CM and Bangkok, I can attest to the fact that the motorcycle helmet law is much more vigorously enforced in Bangkok and there is a much higher rate of helmet use. I understand that some of the local international schools (like Grace) now require students to have helmets and to use them if they want to operate their bikes on that campus or to park there. That's sensible and a wise step with that school.

What is wrong with the administrators and staff and faculty at CMU where helmet less motorcyclists are the rule, not the exception and where their self-professed 100% compliance campaign is little more than a bad joke?

Edited November 11, 2012 by TheVicar

[Tywais]

For the first month of the new semester last year they had a police tent setup at the exit gates of the university. Every student without helmet was stopped and fined. There were of course some who tried skirting the blockade, same as in town but not as easy. Since it was on the exit side of the gate appears they want to be sure they were helmeted before getting into mainstream traffic. The gate guards do not have any authority to stop and fine drivers. Their main purpose is to minimize thefts within the university which has been rampant in the past, by collecting IDs of those without a uni sticker plus the CCTV cameras.

Believe the students do get put up to speed on the issue during orientation. In other words, the university would need a constant police presence to enforce the rules.

[HeavyDrinker]

I once got ticked off at a uni for having a smoke as it was "bad for the young impressionable minds".

While I was getting said ticking off, 6 or 7 bikes roared past, none of the riders helmeted....

When I pointed this out I got the stunning response that "this is their country"...and this from a supposed academic...

I just shook my head and walked off...

Edited November 11, 2012 by HeavyDrinker

[Paagai]

Why single out CMU? Doesn't this apply to any educational establishment, employer, government office etc in Chiang Mai and indeed all of Northern Thailand.

Unless the collective willpower is there to tackle the issue, and Police start enforcing it for the RIGHT reasons expect no change.

[masuk]

It also has a lot to do with driver education and the needs for some cold, hard facts. A little bit of driver re-education for offenders, such as visiting the brain damaged wards.

I was once assured by a university student that there was no need for helmets after 9pm; the reason given was that Traffic Police were off duty by then!! I naturally pointed out that Casualty and Emergency wards of the hospitals were still open.

He was quite puzzled by this remark, and could not see the connection.

Obviously wearing helmets is not so much a safety thing as avoiding getting fined.

Vietnam has one solution: those caught not wearing helmets have their bikes taken off them for a minimum of 48hrs. They then must present themselves to the police station with both the fine and a helmet.

Further into the subject of personal safety, I have been looking for an economical new car. To my horror, I have been told that the Chevrolet, eg, has no air bags until the more expensive models!

[TheVicar]

For the first month of the new semester last year they had a police tent setup at the exit gates of the university. Every student without helmet was stopped and fined. There were of course some who tried skirting the blockade, same as in town but not as easy. Since it was on the exit side of the gate appears they want to be sure they were helmeted before getting into mainstream traffic. The gate guards do not have any authority to stop and fine drivers. Their main purpose is to minimize thefts within the university which has been rampant in the past, by collecting IDs of those without a uni sticker plus the CCTV cameras.

Believe the students do get put up to speed on the issue during orientation. In other words, the university would need a constant police presence to enforce the rules.

Sorry but I disagree with your post about the guards not having authority to stop the students. The same situation prevailed in Bangkok and the university guards did stop the students there and make sure they were compliant. It seems to me it is the unwillingness of the university itself to do anything which is allowing this to exist. Once a semester is not enough!

[TheVicar]

Why single out CMU? Doesn't this apply to any educational establishment, employer, government office etc in Chiang Mai and indeed all of Northern Thailand.

Unless the collective willpower is there to tackle the issue, and Police start enforcing it for the RIGHT reasons expect no change.

I'm not singling out CMU. It is the largest, by far, university in the city and it just so happens I drive through their campus at least once a day. I do not know what the situation is at the other schools but suspect it is similarly bad and that the solution is similarly easy!

[TheVicar]

It also has a lot to do with driver education and the needs for some cold, hard facts. A little bit of driver re-education for offenders, such as visiting the brain damaged wards.

I was once assured by a university student that there was no need for helmets after 9pm; the reason given was that Traffic Police were off duty by then!! I naturally pointed out that Casualty and Emergency wards of the hospitals were still open.

He was quite puzzled by this remark, and could not see the connection.

Obviously wearing helmets is not so much a safety thing as avoiding getting fined.

Vietnam has one solution: those caught not wearing helmets have their bikes taken off them for a minimum of 48hrs. They then must present themselves to the police station with both the fine and a helmet.

Further into the subject of personal safety, I have been looking for an economical new car. To my horror, I have been told that the Chevrolet, eg, has no air bags until the more expensive models!

Good example about Vietnam where motorcycles are even more prevalent than here and where helmet use went from zero to 100% in just a few years! It can be done but it requires some will and that is my point; the authorities here, including at CMU, show no such will!

[barefoot1988]

I once got ticked off at a uni for having a smoke as it was "bad for the young impressionable minds".

While I was getting said ticking off, 6 or 7 bikes roared past, none of the riders helmeted....

When I pointed this out I got the stunning response that "this is their country"...and this from a supposed academic...

I just shook my head and walked off...

[HeavyDrinker]

I've seen the police here confiscate bikes but that tends to be when they're cracking down on "Dek Wairn" gangs.

I have seen it happen at regulation checkpoints too however that too seems to be reserved for underage or unlicensed kids.

Indeed smoking may kill 12 times more people than traffic accidents, however as the lady was so concerned for their welfare why wasn't she flagging them down as well....

[drnkurmlkshk]

Why not ban alcohol and cigarettes and unhealthy food also? Why not ban TV and force people to exercise? And so on...

People should be allowed to do what they want to do if it is a crime with no victim. And no, people cannot be victim's of themselves. And another person's emotional distress does not make them a victim, either.

[Tywais]

Sorry but I disagree with your post about the guards not having authority to stop the students.

I stated 'stop and fine'. They can stop any vehicle but not much they can really do as it is not their mandate nor authority to enforce the laws.

[HeavyDrinker]

Why not ban alcohol and cigarettes and unhealthy food also? Why not ban TV and force people to exercise? And so on...

People should be allowed to do what they want to do if it is a crime with no victim. And no, people cannot be victim's of themselves. And another person's emotional distress does not make them a victim, either.

It's not about banning anything but enforcing a law which is in place to prevent people from harm.

[mamborobert]

Why don't we start small when trying to police this law, start with the BIB themselves.

How can any local have respect for this law as a life saver as opposed to a revenue raiser if police themselves do not wear helmets as a matter of course and do not uniformly pull everyone over when they see a helmet infringement.

I will put my hand up here as being a 50/50 user of helmets....but the amount of times that I get overtaken by police (wearing and not wearing a helmet) is ridiculous.

The other thing here is having some cheap quality helmets. Right now people wear all sorts of crap to avoid a fine rather than save their lives.

I'm on a role...can we also do something about talking on the phone, helmets in baskets covering headlight at night, the use of infants as projectiles in accidents, actually having licensed motorbikes only on the road with (shock horror) licensed drivers, and (sorry) dare I say drink driving.

World peace would be nice too.

[chiangmaikelly]

It also has a lot to do with driver education and the needs for some cold, hard facts. A little bit of driver re-education for offenders, such as visiting the brain damaged wards.

I was once assured by a university student that there was no need for helmets after 9pm; the reason given was that Traffic Police were off duty by then!! I naturally pointed out that Casualty and Emergency wards of the hospitals were still open.

He was quite puzzled by this remark, and could not see the connection.

Obviously wearing helmets is not so much a safety thing as avoiding getting fined.

Vietnam has one solution: those caught not wearing helmets have their bikes taken off them for a minimum of 48hrs. They then must present themselves to the police station with both the fine and a helmet.

Further into the subject of personal safety, I have been looking for an economical new car. To my horror, I have been told that the Chevrolet, eg, has no air bags until the more expensive models!

Good example about Vietnam where motorcycles are even more prevalent than here and where helmet use went from zero to 100% in just a few years! It can be done but it requires some will and that is my point; the authorities here, including at CMU, show no such will!

Maybe it's part of CMU's course on Darwin.

[Paagai]

It is the largest, by far, university in the city

Maybe in physical size, my guess (based on the numbers I see around town) would be it's a close call as to whether CMU or Rajabhat has the most students.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

maybe someone with more insight into Buddhist culture can chime in. It seems the teaching of Buddha discourages telling other adults what to do and how to live. Something about disrespecting others.

I once received a ticket from a policemen here in CM for making an illegal turn. He was very apologetic and conflicted about the action.

Ever notice how you can ride on the sidewalk in front of a policeman and they rarely protest?

[drnkurmlkshk]

It's not about banning anything but enforcing a law which is in place to prevent people from harm.

Right so take one extra step here. Why don't the make a law that says they cannot sell beer or cigarettes? These things cause people an awful lot of harm just like not wearing a helmet does. Cigarettes are actually worse than not wearing a helmet. That law would make a lot more sense than a helmet law, especially when you factor in things like second hand smoke.

I mean I already know why: because those things generate tax dollars and you cannot tax someone for not wearing a helmet. But please don't claim that this is really for anyone's good! It isn't - it is all about the money.

Edited November 11, 2012 by drnkurmlkshk

[simple1]

Why not ban alcohol and cigarettes and unhealthy food also? Why not ban TV and force people to exercise? And so on...

People should be allowed to do what they want to do if it is a crime with no victim. And no, people cannot be victim's of themselves. And another person's emotional distress does not make them a victim, either.

Perhaps you should stop & think about your statement "a crime with no victim". Aside from the accident victim themselves, the victim is the State, tax payers & society in general with the massive costs of road accidents from police time, medical care and loss of investment in education etc etc by the State & the families.

A World Bank study in covering the period 2005/2007 states that road accidents in Thailand cost the economy 2.8 percent of the country’s GDP. That’s 60 percent more than what the Thai Government spent on health service delivery; if you wish to learn more go to:

http://web.worldbank...:574066,00.html

Edited November 11, 2012 by simple1

[hellodolly]

I've seen the police here confiscate bikes but that tends to be when they're cracking down on "Dek Wairn" gangs.

I have seen it happen at regulation checkpoints too however that too seems to be reserved for underage or unlicensed kids.

Indeed smoking may kill 12 times more people than traffic accidents, however as the lady was so concerned for their welfare why wasn't she flagging them down as well....

What the heck are you on about. You bitch about being stopped from smoking on a thread about helmet less bike riders. When it is pointed out to you that smoking kills twelve times more people you just get defensive. In other words you are a hypocrite if it makes you happy then it is OK if it makes others happy even though it is safer to do it you want them to stop.

Remember you are the one who brought smoking into the thread. Do you even live in Thailand I got the impression on another thread you did not.

Edit

I have read all the posts and have not seen all the pictures can't seem to find a picture of a lady flagging people down. Are you sure you are not talking about another experience you had on Lo Khro?

Edited November 11, 2012 by hellodolly

[Tywais]

It is the largest, by far, university in the city

Maybe in physical size, my guess (based on the numbers I see around town) would be it's a close call as to whether CMU or Rajabhat has the most students.

I was a bit surprised at that but appears they are very close. Rjabhat around 30,000 and CMU around 32,000+ in 2007

[hellodolly]

This whole thread was started by a man or women who seems to find fault in Chiang Mai. He/She picks out a area where he knows the proprietors of the land have no authority to force or penalize helmets.

From there the thread has had a few moments of clarity.

The suggestion was made to follow the example of Viet Nam where they have pretty well solved the problem. Several posts to back this up and the rest just bitching. Which I in my humble opinion was the intent of thiss thread no practical answers were wanted.

To bad there was practical answers including have them all wear the helmets on the street where they can be fined. Enforce that law. It will then become automatic to where them on the campus grounds.

Where I come from it was legal to not wear seat belts a law came into being that seat belts must be worn at all times. It was not a sudden thing it was graduated in. At first no new cars could be sold with out seat belts then all cars had to have them then they had to be lap and waist restraint's It took several years but in the mean time having one and not wearing it was strictly enforced and when they got to the point where all vehicles had to have them and you had to wear them it was strictly enforced on a continuing basis. No exemptions and along with the ticket you got a hefty fine. It took time but it did happen.

If the helmet laws were strictly enforced here with out the tea money component it would work here. In the first month not having a helmet would be acceptable but having it and not wearing it would not be acceptable. As for the tea money I believe when a fine is paid at the police station the officer gets a kick back on it. After 6 months confiscate the bikes for two days.

Edited November 11, 2012 by hellodolly

[drnkurmlkshk]

Aside from the accident victim themselves, the victim is the State, tax payers & society in general with the massive costs of road accidents from police time, medical care and loss of investment in education etc etc by the State & the families.

With the exception of police time all of those arguments can also be applied to all of the other things I've talked about so they aren't valid.

It is true that police might spend more time on accidents involving a death compared to the other things I have mentioned. My counter to this is that all sorts of folks are using varying amounts of police time, depending on their life decisions. Another counter is that I really have to question how much time that really adds - is it really that substantial?

[harrry]

This whole thread was started by a man or women who seems to find fault in Chiang Mai. He/She picks out a area where he knows the proprietors of the land have no authority to force or penalize helmets.

From there the thread has had a few moments of clarity.

The suggestion was made to follow the example of Viet Nam where they have pretty well solved the problem. Several posts to back this up and the rest just bitching. Which I in my humble opinion was the intent of thiss thread no practical answers were wanted.

To bad there was practical answers including have them all wear the helmets on the street where they can be fined. Enforce that law. It will then become automatic to where them on the campus grounds.

Where I come from it was legal to not wear seat belts a law came into being that seat belts must be worn at all times. It was not a sudden thing it was graduated in. At first no new cars could be sold with out seat belts then all cars had to have them then they had to be lap and waist restraint's It took several years but in the mean time having one and not wearing it was strictly enforced and when they got to the point where all vehicles had to have them and you had to wear them it was strictly enforced on a continuing basis. No exemptions and along with the ticket you got a hefty fine. It took time but it did happen.

If the helmet laws were strictly enforced here with out the tea money component it would work here. In the first month not having a helmet would be acceptable but having it and not wearing it would not be acceptable. As for the tea money I believe when a fine is paid at the police station the officer gets a kick back on it. After 6 months confiscate the bikes for two days.

Like most universities round the world CMU has the ability to enforce bylaws. Its student rules can cover things which would be legal outside the campus but have penalties inside. These are enforced by the University security who do have the full authority to take students names and refer them to administration.

It is obvious that they do not consider it important.

To those who think they are only empowered to act for stealing consider what would be the action on campus if some students were having a rowdy drunken party.

Edited November 11, 2012 by harrry

[FolkGuitar]

I'm a motorcycle rider. I would never consider riding without a helmet.

That said, I do NOT believe in enforced helmet laws by colleges or universities.

When I go to school, I go there to learn a specific course of studies. I do NOT go there to have my nanny tell me how to behave. I am not paying my money to be told not to smoke, drink, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I'm going there to learn specific information from my professors. I do NOT expect to be told what to wear, how long my hair should be, nor if I have tattoos or not. I am NOT going to college or university to learn how to comply with local driving laws. I can learn that without paying large sums of money to the school.

In theory, as a college or university student, I am grown up enough to manage my own life. If I'm not, I certainly am grown up enough to pay the consequences. Either with my wallet or with my life. Darwinism in action.

[drnkurmlkshk]

Also the other things that I mentioned have many other negative impacts that can be compared to the police time. Overeating is bad for the environment and smoking is bad because of second hand smoke. It is inevitable that legalized alcohol will lead to drunk driving, which is a crime that actually carries a real victim. All three of these things have a large, direct economic cost to the user that could be invested in things that are more beneficial to them, which extends past the health risk (the helmet only carries the health risk economic cost).

[simple1]

Aside from the accident victim themselves, the victim is the State, tax payers & society in general with the massive costs of road accidents from police time, medical care and loss of investment in education etc etc by the State & the families.

With the exception of police time all of those arguments can also be applied to all of the other things I've talked about so they aren't valid.

It is true that police might spend more time on accidents involving a death compared to the other things I have mentioned. My counter to this is that all sorts of folks are using varying amounts of police time, depending on their life decisions. Another counter is that I really have to question how much time that really adds - is it really that substantial?

Police time would be a relatively small component of the overall costs.The World Bank study states:

The Study of Traffic Accident Cost in Thailand estimates the cost of a fatal crash around the nation to be, at 2007 prices, 5.3 million baht in financial terms (about $166,111). The cost of a crash causing disability, meanwhile, is 6.2 million baht (about $192,720) on average. In Bangkok, both of these costs are considerably higher. A crash that causes death in Bangkok costs 11 million baht ($343,750) on average, while the one that causes disability costs 12.4 million baht ($387,500).

The study was based on a collection of data from a number of Thai government agencies, private business owners, courts, and the police. The research team combined the data with interviews with a wide range of concerned citizens, including doctors and nurses; rescue workers; law enforcement officers and legal experts; insurance agents; and the accident victims as well as their families.

Edited November 11, 2012 by simple1

[mamborobert]

I'm a motorcycle rider. I would never consider riding without a helmet.

That said, I do NOT believe in enforced helmet laws by colleges or universities.

When I go to school, I go there to learn a specific course of studies. I do NOT go there to have my nanny tell me how to behave. I am not paying my money to be told not to smoke, drink, or ride a motorcycle without a helmet. I'm going there to learn specific information from my professors. I do NOT expect to be told what to wear, how long my hair should be, nor if I have tattoos or not. I am NOT going to college or university to learn how to comply with local driving laws. I can learn that without paying large sums of money to the school.

In theory, as a college or university student, I am grown up enough to manage my own life. If I'm not, I certainly am grown up enough to pay the consequences. Either with my wallet or with my life. Darwinism in action.

Agree for the most part but I would have an exception for things like drink driving, speeding, reckless driving where sometimes it is an innocent party that pays with their life (including pillions) for a decision that another makes..

Darwinism is not for survival of the smartest, handsum or the rugged individual, but for those that adapt and in this respect adapting by wearing a "quality" helmet may limit your injury as an offending or innocent party in an accident. You are adapting and this is good. What you do with your own head is fine when it effects others its no longer a personal freedom issue to me (drink driving for me being a pet hate).

I reiterate thought that the campus is not the issue there is a wider problem, until there is uniform policing (like hellodolly suggested) with consequences and there is an education campaign on say head injuries, loss of a child/parent, loss of income to family rather than it be seen as a revenue raiser the issue is a fizzer.

Perhaps on that basis thread really looks like it should wind up. When we look at specifically naming CMU to make this topic CM related we are stretching. Might as well write one for every other university, hospital, police station, army base, in CM proper and wider province.

[daoyai]

If CMU wanted to not allow nonhelmeted drivers on campus, it would be a step in the right direction, I remember seeing people pushing their bikes at Mae Jo uni. I asked why and they said if no helmet can not ride on campus, must push from the front gate..

Edited November 11, 2012 by daoyai

[NancyL]

In the U.S. we worked for a major company with a large facility -- bigger than the CMU campus. Like the CMU campus, you entered thru a guarded gate. It was mandatory to wear a seat belt to enter the company's property -- long before it was a national law.

It was pretty simple - the guards looked at your lap and if you weren't wearing a seatbelt, then you either put it on or pulled over while you dug it out from behind the seat. No seat belt in the vehicle -- well leave and return in a vehicle with a seat belt.

By the time mandatory seat belt usage became law, we were so used to wearing seat belts all the time that it wasn't an issue.

Oh, incidentally, many years this company got a rebate from the company they had contracted to provide life insurance to its employees. Seems that people who worked for this company didn't die as quickly as the rest of the general population. That rebate was passed onto the employees. Perhaps the "good fortune" of the employees to live longer than the national average was related to a culture that promoted seat belt use.