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

[metisdead]

Troll posts and replies have been removed.

[Semper]

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

Well, one would think that University students have more of the "gray matter" than their ordinary friends that stopped school after grade 6. But this is not the case, as they obviously must have someone else tell them that hitting their head against a hard surface can hurt. So for you who have married a woman with a "degree" and think that they are more clever than the "uneducated", think again.

[harrry]

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

Well, one would think that University students have more of the "gray matter" than their ordinary friends that stopped school after grade 6. But this is not the case, as they obviously must have someone else tell them that hitting their head against a hard surface can hurt. So for you who have married a woman with a "degree" and think that they are more clever than the "uneducated", think again.

Well they probably think it is more cleverer.

I do think CMU and other institutions have a role. University students have to move into campus accommodation for their first year here and this serves to take kids from a great range of backgrouns, some village kids and some hiso city kids. It is a year to transform them into a professional way of thinking and living. Licences to drive matter little in the fields but even though country kids may have been riding bikes since their feet could reach the gear pedal sitting sidesaddle they learn it is needed in modern Thailand. Helmets may not have reached the little hill tribe village but they are now reaching into more and more towns in Thailand. I am amazed at how in the last year the helmet wearing in Chiangrai has outpaced that of Chiangmai..

The university through its rules and customs show students how they should interact in society. Some things they do well, some badly but helmets on campus should definitely be in their remit. Off campus is more probably a role for the police if the individual has not enough sense to wear one.

Edited November 11, 2012 by harrry

[Semper]

I am amazed at how in the last year the helmet wearing in Chiangrai has outpaced that of Chiangmai..

More checkpoints?

[femi fan]

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.

Indeed. Well put. Keep all that bloody nanny state stuff out of this country! Out of most of asia! It's a western concept of freedom - saving the stupid proles from themselves - that we could very well do without infesting this nation. The state have no right whatsoever to tell anybody to wear a helmet, nor to stop smoking or drinking or eating bad food or skiing or bungy jumping and so on. Why not stop people going up mount everest?? I mean, they might DIE!!

By all means let the representatives of the state embark upon an education program to try and persuade individuals to choose to wear one themselves. When i'm out in the sticks in thailand it's a marvelous feeling of freedom to motorbike around with the wind in one's hair. I don't ride one in chiang mai, but if i did i'd wear a helmet for obvious reasons. MY CHOICE thank you very much.

As for the thais, it's still in very recent memory that people simply did not wear helmets because of the freedom and because it's easier, and because the traffic was light and slower. They also don't have the attitude that the state should tell people what to do. The state people are rich and live off the efforts of the common citizen, okay, that's their life, but the common citizen is not dictated to by these rich corpulent folk running the country. It's for this reason the old bill don't like wearing helmets either, and why they have a few drinks then drive home.

All these kinds of rules coming into thailand are all western, and brought into place by the rich ruling class who went to the likes of america and britain to get educated and just copy all this stuff. As for australia, what an unbelievably regulated society that is now. Nobody even really needs to think for themselves any more, it's all regulated by the state.

Keep thailand thailand!

[elektrified]

I am amazed at how in the last year the helmet wearing in Chiangrai has outpaced that of Chiangmai..

My observation is that C.M. is the worst in the Kingdom when it comes to compliance with helmet laws. From the traveling I've done in the last year, one of the first things I notice when I go to another city in Thailand is how many more motorcyclists are wearing their helmets.

[femi fan]

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

Well, one would think that University students have more of the "gray matter" than their ordinary friends that stopped school after grade 6. But this is not the case, as they obviously must have someone else tell them that hitting their head against a hard surface can hurt. So for you who have married a woman with a "degree" and think that they are more clever than the "uneducated", think again.

Don't look to universities for intelligence, and i mean the teachers. Plenty of intellect maybe, but often lacking terribly in basic intelligence. Yes, everybody knows if you hit your head hard against a hard surface there's gonna be a problem, but this just goes to show how culture plays a greater influence on people's thinking than some possible future event that no-one really things will happen to them. Thais live for the today, and don't overly concern themselves with the future. They also have different views and understandings on different causes and effects in life. They don't want a helmet because it's a hassle, uncomfortable, and HOT in a hot country.

They also, at least still it's the case, don't curtail their own freedoms and freedom of choice by having the government regulate every facet of their lives. Thailand means land of the free, and i hope it stays that way.

Education yes, state interference NO!

[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.

Indeed. Well put. Keep all that bloody nanny state stuff out of this country! Out of most of asia! It's a western concept of freedom - saving the stupid proles from themselves - that we could very well do without infesting this nation. The state have no right whatsoever to tell anybody to wear a helmet, nor to stop smoking or drinking or eating bad food or skiing or bungy jumping and so on. Why not stop people going up mount everest?? I mean, they might DIE!!

By all means let the representatives of the state embark upon an education program to try and persuade individuals to choose to wear one themselves. When i'm out in the sticks in thailand it's a marvelous feeling of freedom to motorbike around with the wind in one's hair. I don't ride one in chiang mai, but if i did i'd wear a helmet for obvious reasons. MY CHOICE thank you very much.

As for the thais, it's still in very recent memory that people simply did not wear helmets because of the freedom and because it's easier, and because the traffic was light and slower. They also don't have the attitude that the state should tell people what to do. The state people are rich and live off the efforts of the common citizen, okay, that's their life, but the common citizen is not dictated to by these rich corpulent folk running the country. It's for this reason the old bill don't like wearing helmets either, and why they have a few drinks then drive home.

All these kinds of rules coming into thailand are all western, and brought into place by the rich ruling class who went to the likes of america and britain to get educated and just copy all this stuff. As for australia, what an unbelievably regulated society that is now. Nobody even really needs to think for themselves any more, it's all regulated by the state.

Keep thailand thailand!

Yep, great not to have a nanny state. Anyone who has head trauma from an accident due to not wearing a helmet should be refused treatment by the emergency services and hospitals , thereby saving millions a year in medical costs. good idea, nanny States are bastards. Tough luck for the Thais, but no problem "keep Thailand, Thailand"; no nanny State.

If you're a foreigner you should have private medical insurance so perfectly acceptable for you not to wear a helmet, indeed may be end up as a vegetable, but hey no problem your choice. In Australia & not wearing a helmet, pass another nanny State law, no helmet, no medical care.

[Semper]

Don't look to universities for intelligence

Of course not, I'm more into their uniforms.

[TheVicar]

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.

Again I disagree. 1) why can and did they do it in Bangkok? at universities too. 2) every university in the world (and I have experience in Thailand and elsewhere) has rules and regulations that the student body must abide by. Most also have a general rule that says the students must follow the rules of the State (including traffic laws). They even have administrators (usually Deans) who enforce the student rules. Very easy to do. Just require all students to comply with the helmet laws. Again, it was done in Bangkok years ago.

[TheVicar]

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?

Not true at all about Buddhism. There are many rules that Buddhists are expected to follow. Where did you get this nonsense from?

According to a knowledgeable source, there are at least 227 rules regulating conduct amongst Buddhists (those in the order). For general life as a Buddhist, there are numerous rules regulating conduct including against theft, against intoxication, false speech, overindulgence in any sexual conduct, gluttony etc. See http://www.buddhanet...g/budethics.htm

Speak to anyone who knows anything about Buddhism and they will tell you this. Or, pick up a book, or look at numerous web sites. It ain't that difficult and you are way off base.

Edited November 11, 2012 by TheVicar

[TheVicar]

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

Well, one would think that University students have more of the "gray matter" than their ordinary friends that stopped school after grade 6. But this is not the case, as they obviously must have someone else tell them that hitting their head against a hard surface can hurt. So for you who have married a woman with a "degree" and think that they are more clever than the "uneducated", think again.

Don't look to universities for intelligence, and i mean the teachers. Plenty of intellect maybe, but often lacking terribly in basic intelligence. Yes, everybody knows if you hit your head hard against a hard surface there's gonna be a problem, but this just goes to show how culture plays a greater influence on people's thinking than some possible future event that no-one really things will happen to them. Thais live for the today, and don't overly concern themselves with the future. They also have different views and understandings on different causes and effects in life. They don't want a helmet because it's a hassle, uncomfortable, and HOT in a hot country.

They also, at least still it's the case, don't curtail their own freedoms and freedom of choice by having the government regulate every facet of their lives. Thailand means land of the free, and i hope it stays that way.

Education yes, state interference NO!

Aren't you the same person on health food threads who wants GM type foods banned (presumably by a state whether nanny or not) and ingredients of foods listed (that also would have to be enforced by the state). Yes, governments can and should achieve many laudable things. Here in case you missed it, the Thai government (voted in by Thais) instituted the helmet laws years ago.

[TheVicar]

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.

Indeed. Well put. Keep all that bloody nanny state stuff out of this country! Out of most of asia! It's a western concept of freedom - saving the stupid proles from themselves - that we could very well do without infesting this nation. The state have no right whatsoever to tell anybody to wear a helmet, nor to stop smoking or drinking or eating bad food or skiing or bungy jumping and so on. Why not stop people going up mount everest?? I mean, they might DIE!!

By all means let the representatives of the state embark upon an education program to try and persuade individuals to choose to wear one themselves. When i'm out in the sticks in thailand it's a marvelous feeling of freedom to motorbike around with the wind in one's hair. I don't ride one in chiang mai, but if i did i'd wear a helmet for obvious reasons. MY CHOICE thank you very much.

As for the thais, it's still in very recent memory that people simply did not wear helmets because of the freedom and because it's easier, and because the traffic was light and slower. They also don't have the attitude that the state should tell people what to do. The state people are rich and live off the efforts of the common citizen, okay, that's their life, but the common citizen is not dictated to by these rich corpulent folk running the country. It's for this reason the old bill don't like wearing helmets either, and why they have a few drinks then drive home.

All these kinds of rules coming into thailand are all western, and brought into place by the rich ruling class who went to the likes of america and britain to get educated and just copy all this stuff. As for australia, what an unbelievably regulated society that is now. Nobody even really needs to think for themselves any more, it's all regulated by the state.

Keep thailand thailand!

It's the lady with the tin foil hat (but the one who wants governments to strictly regulated genet. modified foods and have lists of ingredients. But then, that tin foil gets in the way of reasoning (and it won't help in a crash either).

[harrry]

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?

Not true at all about Buddhism. There are many rules that Buddhists are expected to follow. Where did you get this nonsense from?

I disagree.....I have been sprung once...in Bangkok my GPS said turn right and I looked at the cars and traffic conditions rather than the lights. The cop that wanted to give a written ticket was polite and efficient. He only relented and took 200 baht after my wife explained that I would have a lot of trouble finding the police station and that as I use a wheelchair would be difficult. She also pointed out how long it would take to drive to Chiangrai and how dangerous it would be to drive late. He booked 5 more cars all thai given them written tickets. He then took her 200baht with the gentle comment about how long it would take if I had had an accident then and ended up in hospital. A good cop doing a good job. There are rules and they do know why they are their. Their methods vary but if you do not break the law you almost always do not pay anything.

Edited November 11, 2012 by harrry

[TheVicar]

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.

1) schools and universities everywhere have an important role aside from bookish teaching and that is to prepare students for life in a society. The society, by law here, requires motorcycle helmets.

2) all schools and universities world-wide have rules and regulations governing student conduct (yours might even have one regarding cheating, for example). Most also have a generic rule requiring all students to abide by the rules and regulations and laws of the society. Again, there is a helmet law in Thailand. There are many rules governing conduct at almost all schools (for instance, cheating as mentioned, and drug use too). If CMU doesn't have a student regulation governing helmets, they need to have one. The alternative is brain death for a lot of their students. It would be interesting if anyone in the medical field knew the numbers of these students in hospitals requiring medical care because they were injured for lack of having a helmet.

3) are you really "grown up enough" to pay for the consequences of being on a respirator for the rest of your life and in intensive care? I think not. And most insurance policies have disqualifying clauses for individuals not abiding by the laws (again, Thailand has a helmet law).

Edited November 11, 2012 by TheVicar

[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?

Not true at all about Buddhism. There are many rules that Buddhists are expected to follow. Where did you get this nonsense from?

I disagree.....I have been sprung once...in Bangkok my GPS said turn right and I looked at the cars and traffic conditions rather than the lights. The cop that wanted to give a written ticket was polite and efficient. He only relented and took 200 baht after my wife explained that I would have a lot of trouble finding the police station and that as I use a wheelchair would be difficult. She also pointed out how long it would take to drive to Chiangrai and how dangerous it would be to drive late. He booked 5 more cars all thai given them written tickets. He then took her 200baht with the gentle comment about how long it would take if I had had an accident then and ended up in hospital. A good cop doing a good job. There are rules and they do know why they are their. Their methods vary but if you do not break the law you almost always do not pay anything.

sure your arguing by exception but generally Thai people and Buddhist don't like telling other people what to do.

Watch the many Dalai Lama videos and lectures. He is careful to not tell others how to act.

Edited November 11, 2012 by CobraSnakeNecktie

[harrry]

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?

Not true at all about Buddhism. There are many rules that Buddhists are expected to follow. Where did you get this nonsense from?

I disagree.....I have been sprung once...in Bangkok my GPS said turn right and I looked at the cars and traffic conditions rather than the lights. The cop that wanted to give a written ticket was polite and efficient. He only relented and took 200 baht after my wife explained that I would have a lot of trouble finding the police station and that as I use a wheelchair would be difficult. She also pointed out how long it would take to drive to Chiangrai and how dangerous it would be to drive late. He booked 5 more cars all thai given them written tickets. He then took her 200baht with the gentle comment about how long it would take if I had had an accident then and ended up in hospital. A good cop doing a good job. There are rules and they do know why they are their. Their methods vary but if you do not break the law you almost always do not pay anything.

sure your arguing by exception but in general Thai people in specific and Buddhist in general don't like telling other people what to do.

Watch the many Dalai Lama videos and lectures. He is careful to not tell others how to act.

I have news for you.....The DaliLama is Chinese not Thai.

[FolkGuitar]

1) schools and universities everywhere have an important role aside from bookish teaching and that is to prepare students for life in a society.

Absolutely. By educating them in the fields of study they choose, not teaching basic right and wrong. People should have that knowledge long before they ever enter a university.

I spent many years as a university professor, and never once felt the need to play 'daddy' to my students. I did NOT prohibit talking in class... I didn't need to. My students were too busy learning to chat with each other. I did NOT need to TELL them not to cheat on tests. They were well aware that they weren't supposed to do that. I had no need to tell them how to behave outside the classroom. What they did outside of school was no more my business than what I did outside of school was theirs. I treated my students as adults because that's what they were and that was what I expected them to be.

Not all teachers felt this way. Many treated their students like little children, and as a result, they had classrooms full of little children. They needed to spend valuable class time disciplining the children, time that could have been spent educating them. A teacher should NOT create an adversarial role between themselves and their students. It should be a facilitator's role, aiding the student's growth, leading them into knowledge. It's education. The root of that word is 'educare; to lead out.' Not to impose rules and regulations. To lead out...

University is for education, not behavior modification. Treat people like adults and they will respond like adults. Treat them like children and you will find them to be just that. Young adults WILL fulfill your expectations. That's what makes the difference between teachers. Demand excellence and expect to receive it. Treat students as you would want to be treated, and you will get the best... assuming that is, you want the best.

[hellodolly]

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.

Interesting facts but how relevant to the topic of no helmets on a Campus. It would be interesting to have all those figures shown in direct relationship to lack of wearing a helmet. Apparently the University has the right to make it mandatory no matter what the law is. But my take on a university is it is there to teach. If it is successful at teaching the student will see the advisability of wearing one. If the university can't teach them how to use logical reason. It has failed and we wind up with a bunch of unqualified professionals.

Perhaps that is why we don't see any Thai Nobe prize winners or new technology Just a lot of collage Grads able to copy other countries achievements. Well they actually are best at Thai cooking.

[Felipesed]

This is not the sort of topic I would normally comment on, as it is more an expression of opinion than a factual discussion, but I will make an exception in this instance.

The OP is posting a load of pretentious twaddle, well suited to his choice of username.

If he wants to live in a state where ones' life is micro-managed by "well-meaning" bureaucrats, then I suggest he goes to California, New South Wales, or UK.

Many people have come here to get away from such nonsense.

I have ridden motorcycles for over 40 years now. I wear a good helmet because I think it is the right thing to do, but I would never impose that requirement on others, it is none of my business.

Seat belts in cars. Well, if you want to be really "safe" in a car, you fit a roll cage, a top quality seat with a full-harness belt, and wear a crash helmet. As rally drivers know this will save your life in the majority of high speed incidents.

The lap and diagonal belt is a poor compromise between the lap belt and a full harness, and is only useful in a small proportion of accidents that do not involve high speed frontal collisions.

As for the nonsense about "global warming", well that theory has been pretty much discarded by now by all people who do not have a vested (commercial) interest in believing it.

The idea of preventing injuries is basically sound, but it is like a physician only treating the symptoms, not the cause.

The cause of traffic "incidents" is bad driving, ranging from inconsiderate to criminally irresponsible.

An accident is, by definition, unavoidable, very few traffic collisions fall into this category.

So the answer is driver/rider training and experience, backed up by punitive sanctions. Not some ill-thought out, money-making laws, which do not address the basic problem. Driving a car should be a privilege, not accorded by wealth, but by the demonstrated ability to control a vehicle.

Humans have smoked for thousands of years, various vegetable products for various reasons. It is not the "duty " of the state to suddenly come up with spurious reasons why this should be banned, it is up to personal choice and social pressure. And no nonsense about "passive smoking" being harmful. Disproven years ago. Smelly on the clothes maybe, unpleasant possibly, but not harmful to others.

Anything else you want to control? Salt intake, carbohydrate intake, speech which does not conform to your idea of "correct"?

[hellodolly]

I am amazed at how in the last year the helmet wearing in Chiangrai has outpaced that of Chiangmai..

More checkpoints?

More hill tribe people coming to Chiang Mai.

Love to have a look at the statistics that came up with that fact.

[CobraSnakeNecktie]

"I have news for you.....The DaliLama is Chinese not Thai."

That is all on you Mr. Harry. No one ever said the Dalai Lama is Thai heritage. Mr. Harry invented that.

Well to clear up some confusions. The Dalai Lama is an influential figure to all Buddhist Peoples. He consideres himself Tibetan and not Chinese. He currently lives in India and escaped from China in 1959.

Tibetan and Bhutanese Buddhism is considered very pure and influential to all Buddhist peoples.

Edited November 11, 2012 by CobraSnakeNecktie

[hellodolly]

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.

Indeed. Well put. Keep all that bloody nanny state stuff out of this country! Out of most of asia! It's a western concept of freedom - saving the stupid proles from themselves - that we could very well do without infesting this nation. The state have no right whatsoever to tell anybody to wear a helmet, nor to stop smoking or drinking or eating bad food or skiing or bungy jumping and so on. Why not stop people going up mount everest?? I mean, they might DIE!!

By all means let the representatives of the state embark upon an education program to try and persuade individuals to choose to wear one themselves. When i'm out in the sticks in thailand it's a marvelous feeling of freedom to motorbike around with the wind in one's hair. I don't ride one in chiang mai, but if i did i'd wear a helmet for obvious reasons. MY CHOICE thank you very much.

As for the thais, it's still in very recent memory that people simply did not wear helmets because of the freedom and because it's easier, and because the traffic was light and slower. They also don't have the attitude that the state should tell people what to do. The state people are rich and live off the efforts of the common citizen, okay, that's their life, but the common citizen is not dictated to by these rich corpulent folk running the country. It's for this reason the old bill don't like wearing helmets either, and why they have a few drinks then drive home.

All these kinds of rules coming into thailand are all western, and brought into place by the rich ruling class who went to the likes of america and britain to get educated and just copy all this stuff. As for australia, what an unbelievably regulated society that is now. Nobody even really needs to think for themselves any more, it's all regulated by the state.

Keep thailand thailand!

Are you the same femi fan who is criticizing all kinds of eating that does not come from a health food store or a organic source. It is not good for you.

Why don't you ride a motor bike in Chiang Mai it is less polluting than a car.

[lizardtongue]

Let them get on with it, it is never going to change, not enough interest at all levels.

Road etiquette/safety is more or less non-existent, it's not like EVERYONE is not aware of the 'helmet' law? If an individual makes the decision not to abide by it then 'on their head be it' (excuse the pun).

Is it illegal to ride a motor cycle in the pissing rain whilst holding an umbrella/using wing mirrors for squeezing zits/using cell phone/carrying 4/5 passengers/no lights/being under the influence?

It is not just the 'helmet' law that needs to be enforced!

[chiangmaikelly]

Let them get on with it, it is never going to change, not enough interest at all levels.

Road etiquette/safety is more or less non-existent, it's not like EVERYONE is not aware of the 'helmet' law? If an individual makes the decision not to abide by it then 'on their head be it' (excuse the pun).

Is it illegal to ride a motor cycle in the pissing rain whilst holding an umbrella/using wing mirrors for squeezing zits/using cell phone/carrying 4/5 passengers/no lights/being under the influence?

It is not just the 'helmet' law that needs to be enforced!

It is the people who would notice; riding a motor cycle in the pissing rain whilst holding an umbrella/using wing mirrors for squeezing zits/using cell phone/carrying 4/5 passengers/no lights/being under the influence that need to be changed or at least put back in another country.

[hellodolly]

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?

Not true at all about Buddhism. There are many rules that Buddhists are expected to follow. Where did you get this nonsense from?

According to a knowledgeable source, there are at least 227 rules regulating conduct amongst Buddhists (those in the order). For general life as a Buddhist, there are numerous rules regulating conduct including against theft, against intoxication, false speech, overindulgence in any sexual conduct, gluttony etc. See http://www.buddhanet...g/budethics.htm

Speak to anyone who knows anything about Buddhism and they will tell you this. Or, pick up a book, or look at numerous web sites. It ain't that difficult and you are way off base.

You might wantto reread the article.

Here is part of it

"Moral conduct for Buddhists differs according to whether it applies to the laity or to the Sangha or clergy. A lay Buddhist should cultivate good conduct by training in what are known as the "Five Precepts". These are not like, say, the ten commandments, which, if broken, entail punishment by God. The five precepts are training rules, which, if one were to break any of them, one should be aware of the breech and examine how such a breech may be avoided in the future."

Some where in the translation some thing got lost these are more like guidelines not rules notice there is no penalty.

The article goes on to say there are over 200 rules for members of the clergy or what ever the Thai term would be. The worst penalty would be being thrown out of the order. For instance if they have sex out they go. They have nothing to do with the lay people.

Also none of them tell a minority to lay down rules for majorities that they can use as an excuse to penalize the majority and enrich their own coffers.

Edited November 11, 2012 by hellodolly

[hellodolly]

1) schools and universities everywhere have an important role aside from bookish teaching and that is to prepare students for life in a society.

Absolutely. By educating them in the fields of study they choose, not teaching basic right and wrong. People should have that knowledge long before they ever enter a university.

I spent many years as a university professor, and never once felt the need to play 'daddy' to my students. I did NOT prohibit talking in class... I didn't need to. My students were too busy learning to chat with each other. I did NOT need to TELL them not to cheat on tests. They were well aware that they weren't supposed to do that. I had no need to tell them how to behave outside the classroom. What they did outside of school was no more my business than what I did outside of school was theirs. I treated my students as adults because that's what they were and that was what I expected them to be.

Not all teachers felt this way. Many treated their students like little children, and as a result, they had classrooms full of little children. They needed to spend valuable class time disciplining the children, time that could have been spent educating them. A teacher should NOT create an adversarial role between themselves and their students. It should be a facilitator's role, aiding the student's growth, leading them into knowledge. It's education. The root of that word is 'educare; to lead out.' Not to impose rules and regulations. To lead out...

University is for education, not behavior modification. Treat people like adults and they will respond like adults. Treat them like children and you will find them to be just that. Young adults WILL fulfill your expectations. That's what makes the difference between teachers. Demand excellence and expect to receive it. Treat students as you would want to be treated, and you will get the best... assuming that is, you want the best.

Basically I like your attitude to teaching at the college level. I would like to give you my take on it and my experiance.

When I graduated grade 12 I never considered college as I was sure it would be to hard for me.

As I aged I met some pretty stupid colege grads.

Inmy mid 40s I had ocasion to be talkingwith a very educatedman who knew a bit about me. All of a sudden he just changed the topic with a short sentance it changed my life.

He said enough of your Bull Sh-t when are you going to go to college I was 45 years old and I had a very successful career which I enjoyed.

I proceeded to explain to him that I didn't really think I could handle the work and some of the dumbest people I knew were college grads so what good was it. Because he had known me for a while he had heard a lot of my opinions. He then explained that I had a lot of the answers but needed to learn some background to hang them on.

Up until this point I was intrigued if not flattered. He then dropped the eye opening bomb on me. He said you do not go to college to learn you go to collage to learn how to learn.

When I returned home I took a quarter of off work for three different classes. I passed them all with room to spare. I even took a entrance exam on English Lit which had been y hardest class and found out I had college entrance level. I went backto work but the next year I took a night class at the local juinor college.

It was mind blowing I loved the atmosphere of college and the new horizons it opened up to me. So in my own way I think you would have been a great teacher for me. Maybe you were my Physiclogy prof. Obviousley I did not learn to spell

[fasteddie]

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.

''especially when you factor in things like second hand smoke.''

that's a myth, google Sir Richard Doll.

[fasteddie]

More to the point would be ''safe'' helmets, 99% of helmets in Thailand would be useless in an accident.

[eek]

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!

A nurse once said to me at A&E (following an accident with a songtaew driver) 'Farang wear helmet to protect against accident, Thai wear helmet to protect against police!"