Another Sorry Story

[TommoPhysicist]

Who says he didn't have a licence? The passenger is over 16 so it is the passengers responsibily to wear a helmet, under 16 the riders responsibilty to ensure passenger has a helmet. Same as for seatbelts in a car.

Just to point out in the UK it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure seatbelts and helmets on all.

As passengers aren't required to have licenses, they don't take the fall.

Edited November 28, 2012 by TommoPhysicist

[softgeorge]

Who says he didn't have a licence? The passenger is over 16 so it is the passengers responsibily to wear a helmet, under 16 the riders responsibilty to ensure passenger has a helmet. Same as for seatbelts in a car.

Just to point out in the UK it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure seatbelts and helmets on all.

As passengers aren't required to have licenses, they don't take the fall.

That's fair enough different to Aust where the onus is on a person 16 and over..

[Tatsujin]

And all of the above makes no difference whatsoever. He was in Thailand, so Australian or UK law doesn't apply.

[softgeorge]

And all of the above makes no difference whatsoever. He was in Thailand, so Australian or UK law doesn't apply.

Yes true and the Thai police had nothing to charge him with either or they would have done so. They were relying on a confession and didn't get it so they were left with diddly squat.

[ALFREDO]

I find it very hard to say who's right or wrong when only one side of the story is being told. Still it's another sorry motorbike accident.

Saw the Video, I cannot see if the Aussie used the blinker, but with a close up maybe possible to recognize,

they used no Helmets, that made the accident maybe deadly than.

I could see, that the Thai drove (to) fast!

And, crashed in the Aussies, in the middle of the road stopped,maybe already slightly to the right moving Scooter.

Many Thais,(not all) who try to be on the secure side, stop on the left side of the road, look if there is oncoming traffic,

look back if there is something coming from behind and than turn to the right or make a U-turn.

Most do not dare to stop, in Falang style in the middle of the road and wait there, until the oncoming traffic is gone to allow them to drive full to the right.

They scared, such an accident, same the thread is about, could happen,

but with a car from behind or with an overtaking car motorbike from the oncoming traffic!

In our home countries, we (should) look in the mirror, over the right shoulder, give the blinker

and if it seems ok, drive to the right wait in the middle of the road.

But that can be dangerous here as we see.

[ALFREDO]

Did the story mention anything about the other motorbike and what happened to the driver?

No! It was "only" a Thai.

But, when nothing was written, I would believe he and the Aussie, did not have much of a problem from the accident,

a good helmet not such a "salad bowl" which is widely used in Thailand instead of a helmet, could have spared her life.

Video

http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8571294

I wrote a comment there, first it was visible and than, not. Maybe, they check it first? But it was visible? We will see tomorrow, sleep in Aussie land now.

Edited November 28, 2012 by ALFREDO

[ydraw]

Ran this past a few colleagues this afternoon including one from the Major Collision Investigation Unit (D.I/Prosecutor) and all of the same opinion the Thai rider is at fault. The Aussie would have no charges to answer. The Thai would be arrested and charged with culpable driving.

Try and pass the blame onto the Aussie all you like but you are whistling dixie.

All that is obvious to everyone except the usual clowns here who always try and blame everything on Farangs. The Australian couple were hit from behind, that alone makes it other driver's fault. He was going way too fast, also his fault. Trying to overtake a right-turning bike on the right, see above.

It's true that the woman might still be alive if she had been wearing a helmet. Then again, she might not be too. What is definitely true is that she'd still be alive if the Thai driver wasn't such a dangerous idiot, was travelling below the speed limit, and wasn't trying to weave in and around traffic.

Edited November 28, 2012 by ydraw

[wildorchid]

He can't seriously push all the blame on the other rider, he pulled out from one one side of the road and cut across to the other without even looking behind to see if anything was coming and was at no point stationary. No indicator! when turning he was way off the correct place to be turning (one side of road to other!). He couldn't possibly be an experienced rider driving like that, does it say in the report if he has a bike license, no sound on this computer. Seems like the other guy was going to fast to react but to give him full blame is wrong, I don't know what the speed limit is on that section of road but lots of the other trucks and bikes travelling at a similar speed. I do think the ozzie guy could have easily prevented this by doing what any experienced bike rider does by always checking behind several times if necessary before turning. What was his rush it was a busy road. Maybe he was too focused on what was coming towards him or had a drink who knows. Would anyone just change lanes on a motorway without checking your mirrors, indicating and checking your blind spot. Did she die from head injuries? Didn't see any helmets on the cctv.

Just my opinion.

I've been rideing a bikes for many years, drivern in 5 states of australia, drivern in most provinces of thailand and in laos and the philipines, and If i want to turn right then i "merge" (YES take a look in the mirror) too the right and make my leagl turn too the right...

and I would like to say to you that the law as it stands at the moment , a peson can use thier licence from thier country for "six" weeks befor having to either, get an international drivers licence or a thai drivers licence,,, ALSO, WHO is asking the question did the other rider from behind have a "VAILD" licence and not??? passed or payed for????? and why is there no action taken a so called inocent driver from behind??? is it because he has payed the police for his way out???

also because the police here withheld a passport of a victim in order to secure a, (it was just an accident) I'd love to see this in mainstream thai news and show it and the "FACTS" given to the people of thailand and see the fallout of just how p'ssoff australia is at the thai police and the accepted system here,(you falang you fault you pay)!!! If this happened to a visitor in OZ then yes it would be on the mainstream news

[ydraw]

and why is there no action taken a so called inocent driver from behind??? is it because he has payed the police for his way out???

Yes, that is the accusation leveled in the news story.

[Tropicalevo]

Interesting, wearing a helmet would have stopped the other bike hitting tham at a reported 50 mph. At that speed, a helmet or not make no difference.

You do not know that for sure.

I never said that wearing a helmet would have stopped the bike from hitting them. Stop trying to score cheap points. The poor girl died from head injuries <deleted>.

Not wearing a helmet definitely did not save the unfortunate girl. We will never know if a helmet would have made a difference. It could not have made things worse, but it may have made things better.

[Tropicalevo]

And all of the above makes no difference whatsoever. He was in Thailand, so Australian or UK law doesn't apply.

Yes true and the Thai police had nothing to charge him with either or they would have done so. They were relying on a confession and didn't get it so they were left with diddly squat.

And you know this how?

I suspect that another barstool lawyer has just fallen off his stool!

[WildChilli]

A's i Can testefy too I photografed. Reporters

Fabricating news after a freak wind gust in oz last year they saw me taking the photos and canceled that footage of the news storey

They literally picked up some kids toys and pretended it flew across the road to make a story

The nabours who's house it was taken from told me as soon as the reporter had asked if they could borrow some things for some footage

And I watched them grab a few items take them across the road and start the camera up with a reporter making the news up

So mutch for the news now a days

Don't belive what you see

It could be fiction

[Tropicalevo]

Ran this past a few colleagues this afternoon including one from the Major Collision Investigation Unit (D.I/Prosecutor) and all of the same opinion the Thai rider is at fault. The Aussie would have no charges to answer. The Thai would be arrested and charged with culpable driving.

Try and pass the blame onto the Aussie all you like but you are whistling dixie.

All that is obvious to everyone except the usual clowns here who always try and blame everything on Farangs. The Australian couple were hit from behind, that alone makes it other driver's fault. He was going way too fast, also his fault. Trying to overtake a right-turning bike on the right, see above.

It's true that the woman might still be alive if she had been wearing a helmet. Then again, she might not be too. What is definitely true is that she'd still be alive if the Thai driver wasn't such a dangerous idiot, was travelling below the speed limit, and wasn't trying to weave in and around traffic.

Looking at the video - to me it looks like the Thai 'speedster' drove into the side of the Aussie girl - not the back.

What do you base the comment "that alone makes it other driver's fault". Not in Thailand it doesn't. You knowledge is based on what exactly?

I am not trying to say that either party is 100% at fault here. Both drivers did stupid things. But this report by a supposed Australian, unbiased, professional organisation is a bit short of fact and long on rhetoric.

Of course, the fact that the poor girl worked for them has nothing to do with it. (Every story has two sides - minimum)

[marstons]

Who says he didn't have a licence? The passenger is over 16 so it is the passengers responsibily to wear a helmet, under 16 the riders responsibilty to ensure passenger has a helmet. Same as for seatbelts in a car.

Just to point out in the UK it is the responsibility of the driver to ensure seatbelts and helmets on all.

As passengers aren't required to have licenses, they don't take the fall.

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/offences/seat_belts.htm all passengers over the age of 14 are responsible not the driver, . So passengers do take the fall if over 14.

[Iusedtocycle]

I have 20+ years experience attending and investigating vehicle collisions and from the footage I see nothing that the Australian could be charged with. (no helmet yes)

1. Driving without a m/c license

2. Endangering the life of a passenger (allowing her to ride without a helmet)

I'm betting if she had been wearing a helmet, she would still be alive. Doesn't that make it his fault?

In the UK or Australia letting her ride without a helmet would be 'manslaughter' or 'reckless endangerment'.

He would have been arrested and held in either country.

Who says he didn't have a licence? The passenger is over 16 so it is the passengers responsibily to wear a helmet, under 16 the riders responsibilty to ensure passenger has a helmet. Same as for seatbelts in a car.

Ran this past a few colleagues this afternoon including one from the Major Collision Investigation Unit (D.I/Prosecutor) and all of the same opinion the Thai rider is at fault. The Aussie would have no charges to answer. The Thai would be arrested and charged with culpable driving.

Try and pass the blame onto the Aussie all you like but you are whistling dixie.

How exactly did you "run it passed them"?

[ydraw]

What do you base the comment "that alone makes it other driver's fault". Not in Thailand it doesn't. You knowledge is based on what exactly?

Basic logic and the rules of the road everywhere in the world.

If you run into the back of someone, it's your fault.

Even if they jammed on the brakes without warning, if you hit them it's because you were following too closely or going too fast. Always your fault. End of story.

Edited November 28, 2012 by ydraw

[robsamui]

Once again an event that would make local or perhaps national headlines in the homelands of contributors to this thread has happened under the noses of those that live here without the majority knowing anything about it.

How can the BIB conceal this & yet sell or otherwise disperse footage of Rape victims etc to the highest bidder within hours of their ordeal(s)?

The immediate answer to that is that there is no newspaper/reporting on Samui.

But you'd think that in this internet age that word of an event like this would have rushed along the grapevine . . .

R

[robsamui]

@tropicalevo,

It would help if the helmets that are should be available to tourists @ rental outlets offered a little more protection than a homebase flowerpot & came in ferang sizes.

Most bike rental places that I have seen do offer helmets. (The rental guy that I use insists on the helmet going with the bike.)

You are correct though - unfortunately the quality is what you would expect for a 199 baht skid lid. However anything is better then nothing and had the Aussie driver been wearing one, he could be justified in taking the moral high ground.

Personally, if this had happened to me, I would be too busy giving myself a hard time for making a few stupid decisions rather than blaming the BIBs. But hey, that's just me.

I think the point was that they added salt to the wounds by trying to make him sign a document written in Thai.

I can't see this as putting the blame on the BIB just that it's rather shameful to let the other driver go free and then by extorsion forcing him to sign a document which was clearly written so he wouldn't understand it. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what they were up to.

It is standard procedure and quite normal right throughout the kingdom to do this.

Personally, I see this as yet another passive-aggressive gesture of resentment by the Thai authorities towards farangs.

But it doesn't alter the fact that having to sign a document in Thai wasn't unusual in any way.

R

[softgeorge]

I have 20+ years experience attending and investigating vehicle collisions and from the footage I see nothing that the Australian could be charged with. (no helmet yes)

1. Driving without a m/c license

2. Endangering the life of a passenger (allowing her to ride without a helmet)

I'm betting if she had been wearing a helmet, she would still be alive. Doesn't that make it his fault?

In the UK or Australia letting her ride without a helmet would be 'manslaughter' or 'reckless endangerment'.

He would have been arrested and held in either country.

Who says he didn't have a licence? The passenger is over 16 so it is the passengers responsibily to wear a helmet, under 16 the riders responsibilty to ensure passenger has a helmet. Same as for seatbelts in a car.

Ran this past a few colleagues this afternoon including one from the Major Collision Investigation Unit (D.I/Prosecutor) and all of the same opinion the Thai rider is at fault. The Aussie would have no charges to answer. The Thai would be arrested and charged with culpable driving.

Try and pass the blame onto the Aussie all you like but you are whistling dixie.

How exactly did you "run it passed them"?

Sorry bad choice of words, I didn't actually jog past them with my laptop playing the clip. We watched the clip together and had a conversation over coffee in the office asking for thier proffesional opinions a combined total of over 90 years of experience. We were actually sitting.

Edited November 29, 2012 by softgeorge

[Tatsujin]

What do you base the comment "that alone makes it other driver's fault". Not in Thailand it doesn't. You knowledge is based on what exactly?

Basic logic and the rules of the road everywhere in the world.

If you run into the back of someone, it's your fault.

Even if they jammed on the brakes without warning, if you hit them it's because you were following too closely or going too fast. Always your fault. End of story.

Once again I repeat . . . we are in Thailand where the rules, laws, logic and common sense that everyone is basing their opinions on just don't apply. You guys can keep on saying that "in my country xxxx" forever, but it doesn't change the fact that this didn't happen in "your" country and, surprise, surprise, things are different here.

I'm not saying I agree with a lot of the ways things are done here in Thailand, but it's a simple fact that when you live or visit a different country you are then governed by that country's laws or ways of doing things.

Going back to the video, we don't know whether the Australian had his indicators on, we don't know the speed of the Thai driver, and knowing the speed limits in various places here I would say he was driving fast but perhaps not actually speeding for that section of the road. 80km/h is a pretty common speed limit pretty much everywhere, and that's about the top speed of a lot of the scooters here. Whether he should have been driving at that speed is another argument.

I still say that you cannot blame the Thai driver entirely. To me, looking at the video, the way the Australian drove at least partly contributed to this unnecessary accident.

[Rooo]

I have let this topic run unhindered so far. Enough is enough, racist slurs on both sides definitely not tolerated.

Posts have been deleted & posters suspended.

[chooka]

And all of the above makes no difference whatsoever. He was in Thailand, so Australian or UK law doesn't apply.

Yes true and the Thai police had nothing to charge him with either or they would have done so. They were relying on a confession and didn't get it so they were left with diddly squat.

And you know this how?

I suspect that another barstool lawyer has just fallen off his stool!

Did they charge him with anything??????????????? Apparently not and why is that????? My guess is that they had nothing or maybe because they love farangs and don't want to charge farangs.

[Daewoo]

and while we are all showing concern for the aggrieved Aussie, in true A Current Affair style, you can also almost guarantee that he was paid for the story...

My hypotheses...

* When he was in the police station, it is quite likely that the cops had no access to the video tape (the first step in investigating a traffic incident is probably not to go looking for CCTV cameras...

* The Thai rider stated that the Aussie stopped then turned right from the left side of the road, as he was overtaking him, without indicating...

* The Aussie states that he stopped and then turned right... but doesn't really know what happened...

* The cops put more weight on what the Thai told them, because HE knows Thai traffic rules and practice, and can communicate with them... The Aussie can't even communicate his story, and doesn't know what he did...

* The cops take the Aussie's passport to prevent him from doing a runner... because they believe that on the balance of the information they have, he was in the wrong...

* The cops tell the Aussie that he can settle the matter without going to court if he wishes, as is often the case in Thailand for Thai's, not BECAUSE he isn't Thai... and also because of the practice where the non-fault but richer party is often expected to contribute to a poor but at fault party...

All sounds reasonable to me...

I too believe that running into the back of someone is almost always the fault of the following party, unless the front vehicle has jumped into their stopping distance... but the person making the major change (turning) has responsibility if they are in a position where two vehicles are traveling in the same direction, and they are being overtaken...

The overtaker still has responsibility if they have moved into the oncoming lane, and in most countries overtaking within a lane wouldn't happen... in Thailand, having more than one vehicle in a lane (or the extension of that lane being near the centre line in the oncoming lane) is common... and therefore would not necessarily means that the rider overtaking is in the wrong, if the other party turned into them as they were overtaking...

I can therefore see quite easily why the cops could assume that the Aussie was at fault (without jumping to a conclusion of discrimination or targeting the Aussie)...

[chooka]

and while we are all showing concern for the aggrieved Aussie, in true A Current Affair style, you can also almost guarantee that he was paid for the story...

My hypotheses...

* When he was in the police station, it is quite likely that the cops had no access to the video tape (the first step in investigating a traffic incident is probably not to go looking for CCTV cameras...

* The Thai rider stated that the Aussie stopped then turned right from the left side of the road, as he was overtaking him, without indicating...

* The Aussie states that he stopped and then turned right... but doesn't really know what happened...

* The cops put more weight on what the Thai told them, because HE knows Thai traffic rules and practice, and can communicate with them... The Aussie can't even communicate his story, and doesn't know what he did...

* The cops take the Aussie's passport to prevent him from doing a runner... because they believe that on the balance of the information they have, he was in the wrong...

* The cops tell the Aussie that he can settle the matter without going to court if he wishes, as is often the case in Thailand for Thai's, not BECAUSE he isn't Thai... and also because of the practice where the non-fault but richer party is often expected to contribute to a poor but at fault party...

All sounds reasonable to me...

I too believe that running into the back of someone is almost always the fault of the following party, unless the front vehicle has jumped into their stopping distance... but the person making the major change (turning) has responsibility if they are in a position where two vehicles are traveling in the same direction, and they are being overtaken...

The overtaker still has responsibility if they have moved into the oncoming lane, and in most countries overtaking within a lane wouldn't happen... in Thailand, having more than one vehicle in a lane (or the extension of that lane being near the centre line in the oncoming lane) is common... and therefore would not necessarily means that the rider overtaking is in the wrong, if the other party turned into them as they were overtaking...

I can therefore see quite easily why the cops could assume that the Aussie was at fault (without jumping to a conclusion of discrimination or targeting the Aussie)...

"because of the practice where the non-fault but richer party is often expected to contribute to a poor but at fault party"...

This seems a little ridiculous and totally wrong, I am not having a dig at you or saying you are wrong but if it was the percieved richer person to pay for the faults of the wrongdoer, wouldn't that open up a farang hunting season? Oh I need a new I phone so I will jump on my bike and deliberately run into a farang (who cares if I injure him) and get paid out big time. A lot of tourists who come here are probably no better off economically in thier own countries than the Thai at fault. A lot save for a year if not years for a dream holiday and live on a budget whilst holidaying. Just because you are farang doesn't mean you are dripping with gold and ready to be harvested by a low life scammer.

[Tatsujin]

Just because you are farang doesn't mean you are dripping with gold and ready to be harvested by a low life scammer.

Very true, but it's the 'perception' of this that is at issue in your example. Foreigners are generally perceived to have more money than a 'local', whether it's actually true or not is irrelevant, it's the perception that still pervades here.

Oh I need a new I phone so I will jump on my bike and deliberately run into a farang (who cares if I injure him) and get paid out big time.

Actually, there was a spate of this a while back, not targeted at foreigners specifically, but anyone who had an expensive car. The biker would run into them deliberately, get 'injured', then want money to compensate them for their 'injuries' and damage to their bikes etc. In actuality, it was the Insurance companies that got screwed mostly.

[Iusedtocycle]

Sorry bad choice of words, I didn't actually jog past them with my laptop playing the clip. We watched the clip together and had a conversation over coffee in the office asking for thier proffesional opinions a combined total of over 90 years of experience. We were actually sitting.

Nah, I just meant did they see the clip or you talked to them over the phone..... And what did they say about Jamie's road position before taking the right hand turn? He was quite clearly not following the rules of the road for making a right hand turn and was doing so in a manor dangerous to other road users. I don't see how they could miss this with their 90 years of experience.

[softgeorge]

Sorry bad choice of words, I didn't actually jog past them with my laptop playing the clip. We watched the clip together and had a conversation over coffee in the office asking for thier proffesional opinions a combined total of over 90 years of experience. We were actually sitting.

Nah, I just meant did they see the clip or you talked to them over the phone..... And what did they say about Jamie's road position before taking the right hand turn? He was quite clearly not following the rules of the road for making a right hand turn and was doing so in a manor dangerous to other road users. I don't see how they could miss this with their 90 years of experience.

It was the blantantly obvious offence commited by the Thai rider, the offence that slaps you squarely in the face. The offence of failing to keep as far left as practaicable. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever preventing the thai from obeying the law and traveling on the left side of the lane. Cut and dried, tagged and bagged guilty as you know what. Thanks for coming.

Jamie was clearly travelling on the left as per the law and was veering right to make a turn. No offences comitted by Jamie the Thai 100% broke the law.

[Tatsujin]

It was the blantantly obvious offence commited by the Thai rider, the offence that slaps you squarely in the face. The offence of failing to keep as far left as practaicable. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever preventing the thai from obeying the law and traveling on the left side of the lane. Cut and dried, tagged and bagged guilty as you know what. Thanks for coming.

Jamie was clearly travelling on the left as per the law and was veering right to make a turn. No offences comitted by Jamie the Thai 100% broke the law.

You and I obviously see things differently. Have you ever driven in Thailand? What with all the bad roads, open manholes, broken edgings, and general crap on the edges of the roads, if you make a habit of riding as far to the left as is possible, then you'll definitely end up in a crash.

Do you not see the Australian guy wobbling around in the video? Do you not see HIM far over on the left side of HIS lane? Do you not see HIM then move even further over to the left of HIS lane just BEFORE cutting ACROSS that lane to make the right turn?

I'm not excusing the Thai rider, but you should open your eyes and see what is in front of you also. The Australian man was driving less than sensibly and that is in part at least the cause of this accident. If I was riding up behind him and had seen this guy wobbling around in the distance, at night, over on the left where he was in the video it would be very easy to assume he was preparing to stop on the LEFT, not make a right turn suddenly. This does of course assume he wasn't indicating, but even if he was, indicators get left on so much here in Thailand people pretty much ignore them anyway.

[ydraw]

I'm not saying I agree with a lot of the ways things are done here in Thailand, but it's a simple fact that when you live or visit a different country you are then governed by that country's laws or ways of doing things.

It's also a simple fact that in countries like Saudi Arabia, women who get raped are often stoned to death for adultery. That doesn't make it right either.

The road rules in Thailand are no different than they are in Australia. The difference is that if you kill someone in Australia, you can't pay off the cops and get away with it. And that, really, is what this story is all about.

[Iusedtocycle]

Sorry bad choice of words, I didn't actually jog past them with my laptop playing the clip. We watched the clip together and had a conversation over coffee in the office asking for thier proffesional opinions a combined total of over 90 years of experience. We were actually sitting.

Nah, I just meant did they see the clip or you talked to them over the phone..... And what did they say about Jamie's road position before taking the right hand turn? He was quite clearly not following the rules of the road for making a right hand turn and was doing so in a manor dangerous to other road users. I don't see how they could miss this with their 90 years of experience.

It was the blantantly obvious offence commited by the Thai rider, the offence that slaps you squarely in the face. The offence of failing to keep as far left as practaicable. There was absolutely no reason whatsoever preventing the thai from obeying the law and traveling on the left side of the lane. Cut and dried, tagged and bagged guilty as you know what. Thanks for coming.

Jamie was clearly travelling on the left as per the law and was veering right to make a turn. No offences comitted by Jamie the Thai 100% broke the law.

You are quite wrong there. He should have been as close to the centre line as possible and he should have been in this position for approx 30m before making the right hand turn. Take a minute to look up the rules of the road for making a right hand turn. I'll find them later for you when I get home. They are quite straight forward.

Keeping to the left is for general driving straight ahead. He should have been in the left bike lane and then moved in to the centre position with his indicator on long before he reached the turn. If he had the Thai driver would have had ample space to go to the left of him. However he failed in following these basic rules and forced the Thai to go right.